Article: BREAKING: Nelson Cruz Agrees To Deal With Twins

[mlhouse]

 

Three things come into my mind with the Cruz signing.

 

1. The club wants to create some excitement in the fan base. That is happening. That has to be taken into account from the perspective of the FO.

 

2. They see something about Rooker and others that tell them he is not ready yet for the show. Hence the Cruz and Cron signings. Cruz and Cron or anyone else for that matter is not in Rookers way, he's just not ready yet.

 

3. The FO sees 2019 as a window of oppurtunity, which they should and it is. The established Cruz bat makes our lineup sooo much better. 2019 in AAA and Rooker could well be ready. Cruz has a great 2019 and with his option becomes a great trade piece next Nov. Cruz has a bad 2019 and is washed up and he costs an additional 300k. Cut ties. 

 

This is really a no lose signing. 

 

It is also a no win signing. 

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

It is also a no win signing. 

I have to disagree as it can't be both. Its one or the other.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

2. Sorry, but your claims about "financial mistakes" are wrong. When a business makes financial mistakes it hurts their ability in the future to be able to respond with the same financial flexibility. If I blow $15 million today, I will be less inclined to potentially blow $15 millin tomorrow, particularly since that $15 million is spent.

 

If an investor or buyer fails to spend what needs to be spent, that money manager bankrupts an otherwise healthily liquid organization.

 

For instance, if my manufacturing company made 15 mil worth of the wrong stuff, but has backorders on a constrained machine, what is the prudent decision?

 

Buy the equipment to eliviate the constraint. If you need the cash to buy the equipment, liquidate the excess product for whatever you can get for it. If you can’t liquidate enough, borrow or sell stock/bond to raise the capital.

 

Grow or die

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

1.  Sorry, but Pohlad being "explicit" is just a PR statement.  It is meaningless.  The Pohlads have short changed this team since they owned it.

 

2.  Sorry, but your claims about "financial mistakes" are wrong.  When a business makes financial mistakes it hurts their ability in the future to be able to respond with the same financial flexibility.  If I blow $15 million today, I will be less inclined to potentially blow $15 millin tomorrow, particularly since that $15 million is spent.

 

3.   The concept of signing these short term free agents makes terrible sense over the long run.  If the player proves they can still play at a high level, they will go somewhere else.   

I'm not a Jim Pohlad fan and I won't waste a whole lot of everyone's time telling them how I really feel about our teams ownership. I don't agree with every move our present FO has made in the 2 plus years they have been here. But I can honestly say they are doing very good things overall. And I count this Cruz signing as one of them. Take a look at our top milb prospects. That tells us of the great progress they have made in a short time. 

 

The Cruz signing of 14.3mill guaranteed will have no bearing on future signs. He wouldn't have been signed at all if past signs were having a bearing.

[PseudoSABR]

 

  The issue is you need to identify the players quickly so that you can discard the players who cannot play and find replacements for them.  Pushing that reckoning off while playing players that will not contribute over the long run just pushes when you will be competitive.

No. Identifying which prospects to discard as quickly as possible cannot be the organizational goal.  Should we discard Buxton and Sano already and move on to the next guys?  The organization needs to trust its ability to identify talent and develop that talent, and that development should be individually tailored to each player's needs and assets.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Exactly, you have to pay the price of having hte young guys "earn it" at the major league level.  You lose the ball games while they get the experience.  The make mistakes.  They don't play as well as they are going to once they develop.  But, even though Frank Viola has a 5.21 ERA in 1982 s a 22 year old you put him out there the entire year and then keep him on the mound for 210 innings in 1983 despite his 5.49 ERA and 1.590 WHIP.   Compare how the Twins management stuck with Viola to how the current FO handled Romero.

 

As far as Buxton's "success", whatever his problems are it isn't a matter of rushing him through the minors.   What does Byron Buxton have to prove in the minors?  He has a .901 OPS at AAA level and career minor league .874 OPS.   If you look statistically, sending him back to the minors isn't helping him either because his overall statistics are declining.   Obviously, part of his problems is that he cannot remain healthy and the 2017 season gave a glimpse of what he can potentially do.  But, how long do you remain hopeful?   

 

This is the deal if the Twins ever want to have a real contending team.  They need to have a plan.  They need to plug guys into the lineup and develop them, take the losses, and hopefully their talent choices they made will pay off.  

 

I'd prefer they be cutting their teeth at the ML level when they've actually been setup to succeed. Rooker, Kirilloff, and Lewis are all great prospects. But they also all have stuff to learn in the minors and there's no value in setting them up to fail at the ML level while their service time continues to count. 

 

Buxton had (up until 2018) just under 500 at bats in AA and AAA along with some putrid numbers in MLB... I don't care what his OPS was. He wasn't ready, and I'm not sure he's ready now.

 

You're right that the Twins need to have a plan... and I think they do.

[USAFChief]

1.  Sorry, but Pohlad being "explicit" is just a PR statement.  It is meaningless.  The Pohlads have short changed this team since they owned it.

 

2.  Sorry, but your claims about "financial mistakes" are wrong.  When a business makes financial mistakes it hurts their ability in the future to be able to respond with the same financial flexibility.  If I blow $15 million today, I will be less inclined to potentially blow $15 millin tomorrow, particularly since that $15 million is spent.

 

3.   The concept of signing these short term free agents makes terrible sense over the long run.  If the player proves they can still play at a high level, they will go somewhere else.

 

1. So you’re complaining about the Pohlads short changing the team, while simultaneously complaining about them spending $14m?

 

2. Your point seems to be morphing. You dont want them to “waste” $14m now, so that they are better able to waste it later?

 

3. If the players we bring up from A ball actually DO prove they can play st a high level, they will go somewhere else. We’ll essentially be just a farm team for they Yankees...our minor league development will be done at the big league level, and once that’s done in three or four years, we’ll get two tears of production...same as we have for Cruz, if we want.

[bird]

 

1.  Sorry, but Pohlad being "explicit" is just a PR statement.  It is meaningless.  The Pohlads have short changed this team since they owned it.

 

2.  Sorry, but your claims about "financial mistakes" are wrong.  When a business makes financial mistakes it hurts their ability in the future to be able to respond with the same financial flexibility.  If I blow $15 million today, I will be less inclined to potentially blow $15 millin tomorrow, particularly since that $15 million is spent.

 

3.   The concept of signing these short term free agents makes terrible sense over the long run.  If the player proves they can still play at a high level, they will go somewhere else.   

 

 

 

 

1. How have you arrived at your view that Jim Pohlad's statements are meaningless? Have you some personal insight into the man? Isn't that possibly a cynical point of view? And while most of us have an issue with the spending decisions this organization has made over a longer time frame, most of us avoid having an angry, exaggerated sense of entitlement. We're not victims. We can vote with our pocketbooks and yes, we can do a little ranting. It's not like they're spending and investing nothing you know. We don't know the precise numbers, but I would venture to say that their overall baseball budget, excluding player payroll, ranks up there in the highest quartile. Most of this expenditure is not very visible, as it includes state of the art facilities in the DR and Florida and their attendant annual operating costs, as an example. So I'm sorry, but angry accusations about how you've been shortchanged by Jim Pohlad are just kind of pathetic, frankly.

 

2. With all due respect, I don't think you're right about business decisions like the Cruz one. If you were, the Twins would not have signed him, right? I mean, didn't they just escape from regrettably bad contract decisions on a number of other players? This organization has the financial wherewithal to make a $15M contract mistake year in and year out given a quarter billion in revenues. You're complaining specifically about the Cruz decision. You are on an island, my friend. I have yet to hear anyone besides you describe it as a misguided expenditure. Bad idea? Nope. Bad contract? Nope. A one year $14.3M obligation, one that could end at the trade deadline perhaps, one that puts fannies back in some seats and a few jerseys in bags at the Twins shop? This decision doesn't do anything whatsoever to cause less "financial flexibility". If anything, it increases the likelihood that other such commitments will reap financial rewards.

 

3. This point is confusing. So, the only reason guys like Cruz, Schoop, Cron, Reed and Pineda sign these short-term deals is....? If they produce at a high level for my team in 2019, I'm totally cool with that, even if they choose to go elsewhere in 2020. Maybe we get a QO pick from it, maybe we flip a guy here and there for prospects (this FO added FIVE (!!) B level prospects at the deadline in 2018), maybe we extend a guy or two because they like being part of a contending team and like the culture here? I just don't see how a good contract for a good player makes terrible sense over the long run. Especially when the FO is keeping a very impressive prospect pipeline fully intact in the process with absolutely no one blocked in the process, especially B level prospect Rooker, BTW. The Twins have two prospects ranked among the very top dozen in all of baseball. Only the Blue Jays can say that, 28 teams cannot

 

This is precisely the kind of move most of us were hoping Falvey would make.

Edited December 30, 2018 by birdwatcher

[jorgenswest]

I used to think that the Twins needed to bring the prospects up earlier to the major leagues. I am certain I debated with Seth the merits of pushing prospects to the majors. I was excited to see Sano, Arcia and Hicks jump from AA. Buxton made the jump after a cup of coffee in AAA. It turns out Seth was right. I don’t see how the rush helped any of the four. It does rush service time though. For Rooker an option would need to be used.

 

I now believe there is a lot of value in AAA and learning to manage the strike zone. I would much prefer an additional season in their prime rather than the ups and downs of a 22 year old season. I really want to see the current group of young players establish an understanding of the strike zone in AAA before they hit the majors. That can happen in half of a season.

[Mike Sixel]

I used to think that the Twins needed to bring the prospects up earlier to the major leagues. I am certain I debated with Seth the merits of pushing prospects to the majors. I was excited to see Sano, Arcia and Hicks jump from AA. Buxton made the jump after a cup of coffee in AAA. It turns out Seth was right. I don’t see how the rush helped any of the four. It does rush service time though. For Rooker an option would need to be used.

 

I now believe there is a lot of value in AAA and learning to manage the strike zone. I would much prefer an additional season in their prime rather than the ups and downs of a 22 year old season. I really want to see the current group of young players establish an understanding of the strike zone in AAA before they hit the majors. That can happen in half of a season.

In there too.... It seemed to me the last front office slow played them from A ball to AA, and then rushed them. Where I would rush them earlier, and really test them in AAA, where legit MLB and AAAA players are. But we'll see what the new guys do soon.

[Kelly Vance]

 

It is also a no win signing. 

Well, you are way in the minority thinking that. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

In there too.... It seemed to me the last front office slow played them from A ball to AA, and then rushed them. Where I would rush them earlier, and really test them in AAA, where legit MLB and AAAA players are. But we'll see what the new guys do soon.

This! Gardy used to whine about rookies not having any polish before getting to the bigs. My response at the time (while being very sick of watching 90 loss seasons) was ‘you are a coach, so coach ‘em up’. Looking back, I agree with your stance. Too many of their minor league years spent in A ball, not enough in AAA.

 

So as Gardy and Molitor had the “won’t work with rookies” moniker, it might be more appropriate to think that theres a gap in development for players without sufficient AAA time that the previous FO couldn’t adjust to fill.

 

Let’s see how this plays out with Falvey.

[Mr. Brooks]

I used to think that the Twins needed to bring the prospects up earlier to the major leagues. I am certain I debated with Seth the merits of pushing prospects to the majors. I was excited to see Sano, Arcia and Hicks jump from AA. Buxton made the jump after a cup of coffee in AAA. It turns out Seth was right. I don’t see how the rush helped any of the four. It does rush service time though. For Rooker an option would need to be used.

 

I now believe there is a lot of value in AAA and learning to manage the strike zone. I would much prefer an additional season in their prime rather than the ups and downs of a 22 year old season. I really want to see the current group of young players establish an understanding of the strike zone in AAA before they hit the majors. That can happen in half of a season.

I agree with most of that in principle.

But, Sano came up and posted a .916 OPS, finishing 3rd in ROY voting.

Whatever his issues are, he was clearly ready to hit MLB pitching when he came up.

[jorgenswest]

Too many years spent in A Ball? Slow played?

 

I think that shifted in this decade. I don’t think our perception shifted?

 

Arcia - 20 games A, 114 games A+

Buxton - 68/87

Sano - 129/56

Polanco - 115/94

Kepler - 61/108

Rosario - 95/60

Hicks - 172/122

 

Hicks is the only one who needed two years between A and A+. Everyone else was advanced. All arrived at a young age. None arrived with a good idea of the strike zone.

 

Was it because they were moved too fast? Was it a failure of development? Maybe it was an inability to recognize talent.

 

This core of players has changed my view of moving players quickly through the minors. I think it is far better to error on the side of moving too slow. I don’t think it will hurt the ultimate development and it will likely shift a year of service to additional season in a player’s prime.

[Don Walcott]

Not sure what the topic is of this thread any more. But I'll chime in anyway.

 

There's no simple formula for all players regarding development. Some are ready early. Some aren't. Some benefit from ripping up a level of play before moving up, some seem to rise to the challenge of moving up quickly.

 

Ultimately, I think it's fair to the players to let them move up when they've shown they have mastered a level of play -- including getting them to the majors when the minors is no longer a challenge to them. Conversely, some players need to be demoted when they can't master a certain level -- especially if there's someone ripping up a lower level who deserves a chance to move up. Sometimes, though, everyone knows that a certain player is ready for the majors, even though they struggle. For an extreme example, Mike Trout had a tough first year in the majors. However, the Angels didn't treat him like other guys who might get demoted or discarded. And they were right. They, like everyone else in the world, could see that he would be a special talent.

 

Also, when we talk about the 1987/91 teams, we forget that we got lucky to benefit from the owners' collusion against free agency. The Twins wouldn't and couldn't build a team any other way than to try out their young core players. We were lucky that those players basically had to stay with the organization, and we basically were unable or unwilling to let them develop more in the minors because we were going along with the collusion and weren't signing top free agents. And we were fortunate in 1987 that the free market wasn't allowing teams with superior resources create the kinds of all-star teams we're seeing today. For example, during the 1980s, every AL East team other than the Indians won their division. There is simply no way to compare building a team in the 1980s with how best to build a team today.

 

Circling back to Nelson Cruz, I don't see how he is "blocking" anyone who deserves a place on the Twins. If someone can do better than him, I will expect them to play regardless of his presence. I don't expect that will be the case, and that decision (we can hope) might need to be made when we are deciding whether to exercise our team option for 2020. The young players who are getting a shot at playing on this team will no doubt benefit from working with him, and some pressure might also be alleviated on some of them with him residing in the middle of the lineup. I am also hopeful that his presence will help the team win more, which will also help with the confidence of the young players. Finally, I hope that something will rub off on the younger players due to the presence of and example set by a professional who is able to continue to perform at his age. Looks like a good signing to me.

[bird]

 

Too many years spent in A Ball? Slow played?

I think that shifted in this decade. I don’t think our perception shifted?

Arcia - 20 games A, 114 games A+
Buxton - 68/87
Sano - 129/56
Polanco - 115/94
Kepler - 61/108
Rosario - 95/60
Hicks - 172/122

Hicks is the only one who needed two years between A and A+. Everyone else was advanced. All arrived at a young age. None arrived with a good idea of the strike zone.

Was it because they were moved too fast? Was it a failure of development? Maybe it was an inability to recognize talent.

This core of players has changed my view of moving players quickly through the minors. I think it is far better to error on the side of moving too slow. I don’t think it will hurt the ultimate development and it will likely shift a year of service to additional season in a player’s prime.

This is an interesting time.

 

Without knowing, I'd offer the theory that we're about to witness an accelerated level of teaching to go along with the standard coaching, at all levels. Others can describe things with much greater accuracy than I can, but it seems to me that we've seen the introduction of some pretty remarkable observational technology recently. With all the new coaches, and with perhaps some more advanced initiatives to address kinesiology stuff, nutrition and flexibility and vision...something tells me we're going to see some real changes. 

 

It still seems logical to have prospects face AAA opponents, where theoretically they'll see advanced skills in action.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Too many years spent in A Ball? Slow played?

I think that shifted in this decade. I don’t think our perception shifted?

Arcia - 20 games A, 114 games A+

Buxton - 68/87

Sano - 129/56

Polanco - 115/94

Kepler - 61/108

Rosario - 95/60

Hicks - 172/122

Hicks is the only one who needed two years between A and A+. Everyone else was advanced. All arrived at a young age. None arrived with a good idea of the strike zone.

Was it because they were moved too fast? Was it a failure of development? Maybe it was an inability to recognize talent.

This core of players has changed my view of moving players quickly through the minors. I think it is far better to error on the side of moving too slow. I don’t think it will hurt the ultimate development and it will likely shift a year of service to additional season in a player’s prime.

Good analysis. I will pose two follow-ups:

 

1. What would you conclude after applying the test above to Brian Dozier?

 

2. By saying “not knowing the strike zone” are you also saying “strikes out too much,” or, could there be a distinction between those two things?

[markominne]

These type of assumptions appear frequently enough on TD that I feel a need to correct it each time. 

 

I can't think of a single discussion on TD that didn't have two sides.

 

Creating a combined voice on any topic is impossible. Placing that combined voice on one side of topic and then claiming contradiction on the other side of a topic with another falsly created combined voice is pointless because... in the end... you'd have to ignore the opposition just to make it happen.    

 

Alright... Carry on All.

 

Are we feeling a little defensive these days? I don’t believe I said - or implied - that everyone on the board held any particular opinion, my first point was about the net improvement in the Twins lineup represented by the Cruz signing, and just merely an observation about the trend (which I find humorous) for some people to negatively react against nearly any move made by this, or the prior, FO. There were 4 points about the Twins in that post, the substance of all of which you ignored to nitpick about an opinion that you disagreed with.

[jorgenswest]

Good analysis. I will pose two follow-ups:

 

1. What would you conclude after applying the test above to Brian Dozier?

 

2. By saying “not knowing the strike zone” are you also saying “strikes out too much,” or, could there be a distinction between those two things?

I should have included Dozier. I was looking at top prospects and I missed him or he wasn’t there. He was 39/142 in A/A+

 

I think strike zone management manifests itself two ways. For most it is laying off stuff out of the zone. For Hicks and maybe Kepler it is recognizing and aggressively attacking pitches that should be barreled up. The Twins are getting better data in the minor leagues related to both.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I should have included Dozier. I was looking at top prospects and I missed him or he wasn’t there. He was 39/142 in A/A+

I think strike zone management manifests itself two ways. For most it is laying off stuff out of the zone. For Hicks and maybe Kepler it is recognizing and aggressively attacking pitches that should be barreled up. The Twins are getting better data in the minor leagues related to both.

Understood why Dozier was left out. He's certainly an interesting case, and maybe that long-ish period he spent in A+ was what was best for him, whether he was coached or taught something new or just left to his own abilities.

[mlhouse]

 

I have to disagree as it can't be both. Its one or the other.

Wrong, it could be meaningless.  Not moving the needle at all.

[mlhouse]

 

If an investor or buyer fails to spend what needs to be spent, that money manager bankrupts an otherwise healthily liquid organization.

For instance, if my manufacturing company made 15 mil worth of the wrong stuff, but has backorders on a constrained machine, what is the prudent decision?

Buy the equipment to eliviate the constraint. If you need the cash to buy the equipment, liquidate the excess product for whatever you can get for it. If you can’t liquidate enough, borrow or sell stock/bond to raise the capital.

Grow or die

 

Capital is a limited resource.  If you spend it now, you do not have it later.  If you made the mistake above, you have $15 million less capital to work with because you made the error.  

 

For many owners, $15 million is chickenSht and nothing to worry about.  But the Pohlads have demonstrated that they don't really care.

[jorgenswest]

Wrong, it could be meaningless.  Not moving the needle at all.

Cruz is projected for more WAR than any positional player on the team. Adding a player to the top moves the needle for me. They need to add to the top of the bullpen next.

[mlhouse]

 

I truly appreciate your passions and opinion. I really do.

Heck, forget Hrbek. Let's talk about Gaetti and Laudner and Faedo and the top catcher at the time...I want to say it was a kid named Baker, but memory slips. And Puckett! Let's not forget he had a couple cups of coffee before jumping to the ML level!

But last we forget how Faedo and Baker turned out. Lauder was solid, but never great. Anyone remember Oelkers? He was a top LHSP rushed and never did much of anything. Remember Eisenreich? Rushed to the majors and it was discovered later he suffered from a version of Tourette syndrome. Not saying more time would have discovered this sooner, but it's a possibility to consider.

Context is vastly important! When Hrbek, Gaetti, Puckett and others were jumped to the ML level, it was a different time and different ownership. Some swam, some treaded water before learning to swim, and some drowned. Because Hrbek did it, an All time Twins great, Rooker or anyone else as a top prospect should do the same? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. In the entire history of baseball there have been, still are, those guys who just escalate more rapidly than others. Some turn out to be studs. Some flame out.

Forget who was in charge of the FO at the time, doesn't matter in the context you are presenting. Let's use CF as an example as it js a lightening rod for the organization. Hunter was a stud prospect brought up early, struggled, was sent to the minors, brought back up, and finally found himself. Gomez was brought up too soon, traded to the Twins, trusted to replace Hunter, struggled, and was traded before finding himself. Hicks is the exact same example, as is Buxton, though each player is different in their own way.

Have you actually looked at milb games played before promotion for Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Polanco, etc? I have. And the Twins have been pretty aggressive with those guys and others. To hand pick a few examples of guys who seem to have made it in their early 20's is very much cherry picking.

The milb system has been in place for how many years now? And jts been in place for a reason. TONS of not high draft selections have turned out to be studs. An equal amount of top picks have fizzled. Rooker, Lewis and Khirilloff all have a season and a half of professional ball under their belts, regardless of age. But because each shows so much talent and potential they should thrust in to a make or break opportunity at some point in 2019? Sorry, I just don't buy it, though I appreciate your enthusiasm.

The current FO promoted several guys. Romero was promoted earlier than I expected. I was stunned when Stewart went to AAA and then the major when and how he did. I haven't liked every move the new FO has made. And I've been surprised by some of the moves they have made. But they have seemed to be pretty aggressive in a lot of promotions thus far. And I really hope they continue to be that aggressive.

But to compare Hrbek, or Judge, or a select few others vs others and aggressive promotion would be similar to promoting Garver two years ago when he was the Twins milb hitter of the year and ask him to sink or swim to be the next starting catcher for the Twins based solely on potential. He just wasn't another Mauer. And no matter how good he may be, trying to predict Lewis as the next A-Rod is also silly. Extreme examples I know. And I'm all about pushing prospects and developing what you have.

But there is a difference in being aggressive and just blindly promoting talent and hoping they can figure it out.

 

1.  The minor league system is exactly the same as it was in 1982 as it is today.  THis claim that it is different cannot be supported by any fact.  Jumping a guy from A ball to the majors is the same today as it was then.  

 

2.  This was Kirby Puckett's minor league experience.  Drafted in January 1982 Phase in the first round, he played rookie ball in 1982.  Jumped to A+ VIsalia in 1982.  Started 1984 in AAA and then was famously called up.   He had 2 years worth of minor league experience.   Now, if Puckett was  developed the way we develop players now he would have started  1982 at Elizabethon.  Then, next year 1983 he would be in A ball at Cedar Rapids, and maybe if he played well would have been promoted late in the season to A+ Fort Myers (my current home).  1984 would be the same from A+ to AA.  Then not ready to "push" the player, perhaps returned to AA like LeMonte Wade or held in AAA  for the 1985 season.   Instead of making the majors at 22 years of age, he would be 25-26.  

 

3.   I am not sure who "Baker" is, but Lenny Faedo is the exact reason why you rush prospects.  He didn't fail because he was "rushed", he failed because he wasn't any good.  ANd because he was rushed, the Twins found this out and were then prepared to find a replacement.  Faedo was a first round drft pick in 1978.  He started in Rookie ball, moved to AA as a 19 year old, then AAA in 1981 as a 20 year old with a late call up with the rest of the guys.  In 1982 he was the opening day starter.   He just wasn't a good enough hitter, but the Twins found this out and were able to bring along a replacement, Greg Gagne by 1985.  

 

4.  They should have brought Garver up and used him as their catcher instead of Castro right then.  Garver is a decent MLB hitter, not a great one, and he would have developed into a decent MLB hitter.  This is how it works if you are willing to be patient and develop your players.  

[Kelly Vance]

 

Wrong.     If this ownership wastes money today they will be less inclined to spend money in the future.  That is how all business work and the Twins ownership looks at this team as a business, not a competitive sports team.  

Nope. Wrong.  The teams that spend money usually are deep in the playoffs. Look at Boston, LA, The Yankees.... some years they could be said to waste money, but they try again and again. Those organizations are winners and do what they need to win.

[Kelly Vance]

 

I get taht the Twins FO isn't going to move Rooker up in 2019.  But, how well has their decisions really panned out so far, as well as the previous FO?   

 

What the mistake you and the Twins front office make is that significant development for a rebuilding team MUST take place at the major league level.  Throughout this 8 year "rebuilding" the Twins simply have not committed to rebuilding.  They employed Ron Gardenhire, a manager that showed no interest or skill in developing young talent, for 4 consecutive 90+ loss seasons.  Then they replaced him with Paul Molitor who probably is a good manager for a team with developed talent but showed the same committment to mediocre veterans.

 

The reason you need to do the development at the higher level is that if you plod your prospects one step at a time through the system it takes too much time to weed out the ones who will be major league baseball players from the ones that will not.  

 

Again, the 1982 Twins are the only model for rebuilding this team should look to.  The starting Twins CF at the start of the rebuild in 1982 wasn't, as everyone knows, Kirby Puckett, but Jim Eisenreich.  Eisenreich went from the A Midwest League in 1981 to starting in CF at the Metrodome in 1982.  His health conditions made it difficult for him and he eventually became a decent MLB player with a career OPS+ of 103,  but if he was in the Twins system now he would not have made the major leagues until 1984 or 1985.  And while this may seem insignificant, it also would have meant that Kirby not reacing the majors until 1985-86 range.

 

Same with the shortstop Lenny Faedo.  The issue is you need to identify the players quickly so that you can discard the players who cannot play and find replacements for them.  Pushing that reckoning off while playing players that will not contribute over the long run just pushes when you will be competitive.

Reminder:  This article is about signing the most coveted DH available, a guy who averages 40 HRs a year. You suggested he holds back some minor leaguers and I don't see it, at all.

[mlhouse]

 

No. Identifying which prospects to discard as quickly as possible cannot be the organizational goal.  Should we discard Buxton and Sano already and move on to the next guys?  The organization needs to trust its ability to identify talent and develop that talent, and that development should be individually tailored to each player's needs and assets.  

 

You are missing hte point of the term "quickly".  You need to give these guys time at the MLB level.   That is why you need to move quickly to get them up to the majors when you are rebuilding.  This gives you time to evaluate.  Jim Eisenreich did not work out.  Lenny Faedo did not work out.  But Puckett and Gagne did.  If you move Eisenreich and Faedo conservatively and stepwise through the system like we do now, you simply do not find out soon enough.

 

The process for rebuilding a team like Minnesota is bring up the absolute best prospect you have:  Faedo and Eisenreich, as well as Gaetti, Brunansky, Hrbek, Laudner, Bush,Viola, Havens, Engle, Tuefel.  Find which ones can play.  WOrk through their growing pains (102 losses in 1982, 92 losses in 1984).   Some do not work out:  Faedo, Eisenreich, Havens, Engle.  Then you bring in the replacements:  Puckett, Gagne, Larkin.  And if you have a solid group of players they will develop.  Then, you fill in the gaps that your system could not:   Dan Gladden, Jeff Reardon, Juan Berenger, Bert Blyleven (in 1987) and Chili Davis, Brian Harper, and Jack Morris in 1991 amongst others.  

What doesn't work is if the player isn't good enough. Then 10 years of the minors simply isn't going to solve anything.  This is the point you are missing.  

[mlhouse]

 

Nope. Wrong.  The teams that spend money usually are deep in the playoffs. Look at Boston, LA, The Yankees.... some years they could be said to waste money, but they try again and again. Those organizations are winners and do what they need to win.

 

LOL....that is because they SPEND money.  The Twins don't.  They will never spend to that level to compete against these teams.  The only real way to compete for this team is to build smart.  

 

Ask yourself, why didn't 29 other teams want Nelson Cruz? He is still a good player, but he doesn't move the needle much.

[mlhouse]

 

Reminder:  This article is about signing the most coveted DH available, a guy who averages 40 HRs a year. You suggested he holds back some minor leaguers and I don't see it, at all.

 

The most coveted DH available signed a relatively non-lucrative contract with the Minnesota Twins.  I think you need to review what the word coveted means.

 

 

[Kelly Vance]

 

You are missing hte point of the term "quickly".  You need to give these guys time at the MLB level.   That is why you need to move quickly to get them up to the majors when you are rebuilding.  This gives you time to evaluate.  Jim Eisenreich did not work out.  Lenny Faedo did not work out.  But Puckett and Gagne did.  If you move Eisenreich and Faedo conservatively and stepwise through the system like we do now, you simply do not find out soon enough.

 

The process for rebuilding a team like Minnesota is bring up the absolute best prospect you have:  Faedo and Eisenreich, as well as Gaetti, Brunansky, Hrbek, Laudner, Bush,Viola, Havens, Engle, Tuefel.  Find which ones can play.  WOrk through their growing pains (102 losses in 1982, 92 losses in 1984).   Some do not work out:  Faedo, Eisenreich, Havens, Engle.  Then you bring in the replacements:  Puckett, Gagne, Larkin.  And if you have a solid group of players they will develop.  Then, you fill in the gaps that your system could not:   Dan Gladden, Jeff Reardon, Juan Berenger, Bert Blyleven (in 1987) and Chili Davis, Brian Harper, and Jack Morris in 1991 amongst others.  

What doesn't work is if the player isn't good enough. Then 10 years of the minors simply isn't going to solve anything.  This is the point you are missing.  

Look,

 

You are missing hte point of the term "quickly".  You need to give these guys time at the MLB level.   That is why you need to move quickly to get them up to the majors when you are rebuilding.  This gives you time to evaluate.  Jim Eisenreich did not work out.  Lenny Faedo did not work out.  But Puckett and Gagne did.  If you move Eisenreich and Faedo conservatively and stepwise through the system like we do now, you simply do not find out soon enough.

 

The process for rebuilding a team like Minnesota is bring up the absolute best prospect you have:  Faedo and Eisenreich, as well as Gaetti, Brunansky, Hrbek, Laudner, Bush,Viola, Havens, Engle, Tuefel.  Find which ones can play.  WOrk through their growing pains (102 losses in 1982, 92 losses in 1984).   Some do not work out:  Faedo, Eisenreich, Havens, Engle.  Then you bring in the replacements:  Puckett, Gagne, Larkin.  And if you have a solid group of players they will develop.  Then, you fill in the gaps that your system could not:   Dan Gladden, Jeff Reardon, Juan Berenger, Bert Blyleven (in 1987) and Chili Davis, Brian Harper, and Jack Morris in 1991 amongst others.  

What doesn't work is if the player isn't good enough. Then 10 years of the minors simply isn't going to solve anything.  

 

Nobody "gives" a guy a shot at the Show. You earn your shot, mostly by paying your dues and showing you are ready for the next level. It has always been that way.