The Rays got their man at the deadline. Arggggh!

[Vanimal46]

Pressly's monthly splits in 2018:

 

March/April - 13 appearances - 15.1 IP - 0.59 ERA - 20/4 K/BB

 

May - 16 appearances - 13 IP - 4.15 ERA - 19/7 K/BB

 

June - 12 appearances - 9.1 IP - 9.64 ERA - 16/5 K/BB

 

July - 12 appearances - 12.1 IP - 1.46 ERA - 15/3 K/BB

 

There wasn't a lot of risk on Houston's side. He had 2 elite months and broke down in June after Molly used him nearly every game. The stuff was always there as shown by the K/9 rate.

[USAFChief]

 

 

Also, watch the namecalling. No reason to call people's opinions weak. Or so I've been told. I think by you.

You're right. My apologies.

 

The rest...I disagree.

[Dman]

Pressly's monthly splits in 2018:

March/April - 13 appearances - 15.1 IP - 0.59 ERA - 20/4 K/BB

May - 16 appearances - 13 IP - 4.15 ERA - 19/7 K/BB

June - 12 appearances - 9.1 IP - 9.64 ERA - 16/5 K/BB

July - 12 appearances - 12.1 IP - 1.46 ERA - 15/3 K/BB

There wasn't a lot of risk on Houston's side. He had 2 elite months and broke down in June after Molly used him nearly every game. The stuff was always there as shown by the K/9 rate.

But which pitcher is he?. The guy with an 9 ERA or .59? That's my point. He had good stuff but the results often were not there. The year before he managed 61 K's in 61 innings. Good but not elite and his ERA was over 4 hardly top notch. Even his great year in 2018 his ERA was 3.4 for the Twins. Trevor May is doing that well this year do you consider him an elite reliever?. Yeah the guy goes to Houston and has a .7 ERA and excellent K rate to boot but he wasn't that consistent in Minnesota thus the perceived risk and the reason Houston did not give up a top 100 prospect.

[Riverbrian]

 

Great. Now ... where are we now? We are without Anderson. Who is next that we should be looking at so this doesn't happen again, before the next off-season and rule 5? That's where this goes now. We can talk about losing Anderson until we're blue in our collective faces, mistake or not ... to what end? I'd like to hear from you not what should have or could have happened, because that truly is hindsight, but what's next? How do you use this mistake and learn from it going forward. This off-season, who might we lose to rule 5 that we need to give a shot to now. And how would you go about doing that. I get that there were people on last year's roster that we could have removed in order to give Anderson his shot, but, that didn't happen so now that is in the past. Given this information, what is our next step to ensure that doesn't happen again, that we never lose someone who can help us, and apply it to this year, to this year's roster, and to this year's prospects who need to be added ... who would you remove in order to add, to try them out before we might potentially lose them? And this would not include the likes of Graterol because we will be adding him, likely soon, and not lose him. But who right now looks on that bubble, that we need to take a look at before season's end? Who comes off the 40-man to do that before the end of September so we can get these prospects up when rosters expand.

 

I'm glad you asked. 

 

First of all... you don't want to talk about the past... fair enough, I'll get to the future but you must realize that the dynamic has changed because the Twins are now in contention. They were not last year. There are full scale rebuilds and there are slighter version of rebuilds but make no mistake. If you are not in contention, you are in some form of a rebuild. The goal of any selling team, is to clear space (A lot or A little) for players who can increase in value. Belisle, Drake, Forsythe were just plugs in a spigot when the spigot needed to be turned on. Belisle was not going to increase in value, he was not going to be on the roster next season so they were just preventing a look at someone who might be on the roster next season or could increase in value and if you don't get to look at someone, then you have you just resign yourself to having a hole in the roster spot that these guys inevitably unplug. It delays your rebuild (big or small) and increases the size of the job you must do in the off-season. 

 

The Astros tripped over Dallas Kuechel by giving him the chance to be Dallas Kuechel by not having medicore or worse talent in his way. Nobody knew who Dallas Kuechel was in the minors. The Astros didn't plug his spot with a Craig Breslow type. The Orioles have found John Means, Reanato Nunez, Anthony Santander, Pedro Severino, Hanser Alberto through opportunity. They have increased the value of Villar. This is how you speed up your rebuild, by increasing value of the players who can actually increase in value through opportunity. 

 

OK... Your question... On to the future... What does a contending team do now. 

 

To begin... I'm not going to give up specific names. I'm not the sort of person who reads Keith Law and says "Yeah this guy because Law says so" or "Not this guy because his minor league stats "don't read like I want them to read". It is the job of the front office to determine who gets a shot, they have the scouts and the data that I don't have access to. It is their job to determine the next man up and their better be a next man up because they didn't bring in a next man at the trade deadline. 

 

I'm going to talk simple fundamentals... that's all. 

 

Here is how you do it. 

 

1. Realize that every roster spot is critical. Treat each Roster Spot like it is pure gold. Never lock into or simply settle for mediocre or worse at any roster position. Never assume that average can't be improved upon.

 

Have the Twins settled for Martin Perez or Kyle Gibson and said they can't do better?

 

What purpose is Lewis Thorpe serving on the roster right now? If he is only on the roster to pitch when the team is losing 10-0 then he doesn't have the faith of the manager. If Lewis Thorpe won't be allowed to better than Martin Perez, Kyle Gibson or Ryne Harper, send him down now and call up the next man up. If the manager doesn't have faith in that guy... send him down and call the next man up, if the manager doesn't have faith in that guy. You screwed up at the trade deadline by not providing your manager with players that he has faith in and you have settled for mediocre. 

 

This is critical because: 

 

 

2A. Important talent with timely performance to match often comes out of nowhere.  

I mentioned Dallas Kuechel above, I've gone on about Max Muncy, Voit, Tauchman, Hand, Yates in the past and will again in the future.

 

Closer to home (there are not a lot of examples because the Twins have consistently locked into mediocre for at least a decade), We watched Tyler Duffey carry us as a 24 year old rookie in 2015. I understand that 2016 was the complete opposite but in 2015, he came out of nowhere and threw 58 important innings with a 3.10 ERA during a pennant race.

 

If you say, Martin Perez is the best we can do... A Tyler Duffey performance can't surface out of nowhere because Perez is in the way and the team stopped right there.

 

Tyler Duffey isn't the only example.

 

Look at the Indians right now. Everybody loves that starting rotation. Who exactly are Shane Beiber, Zach Plesac and Aaron Civale. Keith Law wasn't talking about any of these guys. Zach Plesac doesn't even show up in the top 30 prospect list. Civale was their 24th ranked prospect this year. The Twins equivalent by organizational rank is Jorge Alcala at 23 BTW. Lewis Thorpe is our #11 prospect and he can't get the ball unless we are down by 10 runs. The Indians might actually decline in performance if Kluber returns. Yeah I know that sounds crazy but the possibility can't be discounted because Beiber, Plesac and Civale have been that good and it isn't unprecedented that a superstar struggles.  

 

2B. Realize that you have the playoffs to prepare for and you don't know who is going to available to you come playoff time and you don't know who is going to be flourishing or struggling when needed in a do or die situation. This makes every roster spot critical. You must increase your options. 

 

What are you going to do if Jose Berrios is hurt come playoff time? What are you going to do if Kyle Gibson has a 8.88 ERA in September. You need options. Who is our Zach Plesac, who is our 2015 Tyler Duffey?

 

I know it is absolutely natural to assume that it has been good fortune for our pitching staff to remain primarily healthy through the season. I say it has been "Unfortunate", because:

 

A. It has prevented us from finding better because Mediocre won't get out of the way. 

 

B. Health for an entire season is rare so our odds are increased that arms will be either be tired come playoff time or that arms will go on the IL toward the end of the season and into the playoffs.

 

Lastly, everybody just assumes that Mookie Betts brought the Red Sox a title. It was Steve Pearce and Nathan Eovlaldi... WHO CAME OUT OF NOWHERE. The Red Sox had increased options available at a critical time and they came through.   

 

3. Remove the boxes. Starting Pitcher, Long Relief, Closer, Set Up Guy. Locked in roles like that just restrict your options and just get in the way of finding talent. 

 

We need arms. We need guys who can hang zeroes. The primary need might be the bullpen but just because a guy has been a starter in the minors doesn't mean he can't join our bullpen.

 

Is Stashek the best option because he is a bullpen guy or is Graterol simply the better pitcher and option? Don't let assigned roles restrict your possibilities. Besides come playoff time. The Manager better throw the damn rules out the window, such as use Berrios in the 9th after pitching 7IP two days before. You need your best arms and you need them to pitch whenever you call upon them. 

 

I realize that Graterol is being prepped for the bullpen... That's great. That's what should happen if the front office thinks he is the next man up. The A's are doing it right now with Puk. The Dodgers have always been ahead of everyone else by stashing excess starting pitching in the bullpen. May is currently in the Pen, Urias would be pitching out of the bullpen if he wasn't suspended, Maeda has gone back and forth to hang zeroes where needed. The next man up is the next man up. Pitching is pitching. Length is always helpful... the Dodgers don't have to throw Urias for one inning in the playoffs... he can throw 5 innings if he has to. 

 

So... How would I do it?

 

Start with the roster spot occupied by Thorpe. Is he the next guy up? If he is... you throw him now and find out. If he isn't... Send him down and try the next guy. If the manager won't give him some meaningful innings to find out if he can be better than mediocre, he is in the way and he's just wasting a valuable roster spot when the clock is ticking. Call up Graterol or Smeltzer or Alcala or Dobnak or Diplan in his place. I'm throwing out names... I don't know who the next man up is but the front office better. 

 

Whoever it is. The clock is ticking and it showtime right now because if the next man up can't carry the load, you got to move on to the next option to see if he can carry the load while the clock is ticking. 

 

Next step... Who needs a break in the rotation. Does Berrios? His fastball is down, he has had a bad string of starts recently. Does he need a little DL dead arm recovery time. Give it to him if he does and give the ball to someone else and let's see if that pitcher can out perform the mediocrity of Perez or Gibson.

 

By the end of September... we might have clear data that the next man up is bette than Gibson and Perez. If you have to make a hard choice on Gibson or Perez... you make it and you are comfortable making it because you have the performance to support your decision.  

 

I understand that there is a significant total of baseball fans who gulp at the thought of handing the ball to someone unheralded or untested during a playoff chase. 

 

I'm telling all of you... we have no choice. We didn't get Stroman or the equivalent at the trade deadline. Once that didn't happen... the front office declared that we have the talent in house. If we do... we need the data to prove it now.

 

I'm also asking everyone to look at the Indians starting rotation right now, I'm asking everyone to look at bullpens across the league to get a gauge on how many unheralded and untested guys are performing. 

 

Don't settle for Mediocre or worse and say you can't do better. 

 

I'm not naming names... that's the job of the front office. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

But which pitcher is he?. The guy with an 9 ERA or .59? That's my point. He had good stuff but the results often were not there. The year before he managed 61 K's in 61 innings. Good but not elite and his ERA was over 4 hardly top notch. Even his great year in 2018 his ERA was 3.4 for the Twins. Trevor May is doing that well this year do you consider him an elite reliever?. Yeah the guy goes to Houston and has a .7 ERA and excellent K rate to boot but he wasn't that consistent in Minnesota thus the perceived risk and the reason Houston did not give up a top 100 prospect.

Maybe if don’t have him pitch in more than half the games you play in April and May he won’t get lit up in June? May 30th was his 29th game during team game 51.

[USAFChief]

But which pitcher is he?. .

The pitcher with the 70-19 K/W ratio when traded.

 

Looking at a reliever's ERA for a month is not a reasonable way to evaluate.

 

He was clearly the Twins most talented reliever at the time of the trade.

 

I think this is a case of people refusing to admit they were wrong, more than anything. I don't see a reasonable argument to be made that trading Pressly was anything but a colossal mistake, and looking at it a year later only confirms that fact.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm also asking everyone to look at the Indians starting rotation right now...

 

Yeah... let’s not! Even if Carrasco remains out of baseball, that could be a top 3 rotation in 2020.

 

Fortunatey this is 2019 and the Twins have a great chance, and should be going all hands on deck, in my opinion. Like you said. If they are in the system and can help, they need to be here.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's a fair return.

For me, this is the issue. I didn't think Alcala and Celestino were chopped liver, and I didn't think Pressly was an all-star -- but a hopeful contender shouldn't be in the business of dealing useful present-day assets, at a position of need, for a longer term "fair return."

 

For me, you either need to bet right and sell on a player just before his performance declines, or it needs to be a return that is truly "too good to refuse". And while the jury is still out, that's going to be a high bar for Alcala and Celestino to clear. It won't be a simple WAR accounting to figure out the ultimate outcome of this trade -- whatever contributions Alcala and Celestino make, we will have had multiple seasons/offseasons to plan for. By comparison, we had very little time/opportunity to adequately replace Pressly's utility.

[Riverbrian]

 

Yeah... let’s not! Even if Carrasco remains out of baseball, that could be a top 3 rotation in 2020.

Fortunatey this is 2019 and the Twins have a great chance, and should be going all hands on deck, in my opinion. Like you said. If they are in the system and can help, they need to be here.

 

I'll say it again... You can't discount the possibility that Kluber and Carrasco coming back weakens the rotation if they bump one of those guys in the process.  

 

However, I'm also comfortable in knowing that success isn't automatically sustained from year to year. I believe it is quite possible that Plesac (for example) chucks a 6.00 ERA in 2020 and leaves Cleveland holding the bag. 

 

For 2019... Yeah... we can do this. Our offense is real and managers will get innings here and there from anyone to piece it together.  

 

It's baseball, It's possible that Adrianza hits the game winning grand slam in the 10th inning off of Kluber in Game 7 of the ALCS after he pinch ran for Cruz in the 8th. 

 

It's why I love baseball.  

[Riverbrian]

 

Great. Now ... where are we now? We are without Anderson. Who is next that we should be looking at so this doesn't happen again, before the next off-season and rule 5? That's where this goes now. We can talk about losing Anderson until we're blue in our collective faces, mistake or not ... to what end? I'd like to hear from you not what should have or could have happened, because that truly is hindsight, but what's next? How do you use this mistake and learn from it going forward. This off-season, who might we lose to rule 5 that we need to give a shot to now. And how would you go about doing that. I get that there were people on last year's roster that we could have removed in order to give Anderson his shot, but, that didn't happen so now that is in the past. Given this information, what is our next step to ensure that doesn't happen again, that we never lose someone who can help us, and apply it to this year, to this year's roster, and to this year's prospects who need to be added ... who would you remove in order to add, to try them out before we might potentially lose them? And this would not include the likes of Graterol because we will be adding him, likely soon, and not lose him. But who right now looks on that bubble, that we need to take a look at before season's end? Who comes off the 40-man to do that before the end of September so we can get these prospects up when rosters expand.

 

I think I misunderstood Caro umm... Squirrel's question when I typed my long manifesto.

 

I think she was asking who is "next years Nick Anderson" that we need to find out about it. 

 

To that question... I don't know. 

 

I didn't know Nick Anderson would end up being this years Nick Anderson. 

 

The front office will have a little more cover with another mistake like that because they are in contention this year. That changes the dynamic considerably than what we were doing last year but... 

 

I promise you... If they trade Kohl Stewart (For Example) (not making a statement about Kohl Stewart) to the Royals and Kohl sticks in that rotation and out performs whoever we grab to fill one of our available spots. 

 

I will be there to ask why we spent so much time with Morin. Or Why we spent so much time with Perez, or Parker or Magill when we could have gotten information on Kohl Stewart (For Example). 

 

I don't know who specifically to answer Carole's question but I do know that mediocre talent to worse than mediocre talent is nothing to lock on to unless it has a chance to increase in value. I think we can agree that Morin was mediocre and had little chance increasing in value, especially if the manager was clearly not using him in situations where is value could increase. 

 

I wish the front office the best of luck in the upcoming rule 5 draft. 

 

 

[jokin]

 

 

I don't know who specifically to answer Carole's question but I do know that mediocre talent to worse than mediocre talent is nothing to lock on to unless it has a chance to increase in value. I think we can agree that Morin was mediocre and had little chance increasing in value, especially if the manager was clearly not using him in situations where is value could increase. 

 

I wish the front office the best of luck in the upcoming rule 5 draft. 

 

 

Mike Morin = younger 2019 version of Matt Belisle?

 

Their career stats, pitching velocity, height and weight are virtually identical.

 

Is the FO locked into the idea of annually seeking a certain "idealized" (inexpensive) and established RP over a well-thought-out plan in developing and trying out new arms? (Blake Parker and before that, Addison Reed are other virtual carbon copies of Morin).

 

On your last point... based on recent evidence which seems as reliable as a coin flip...

I have no faith that the Twins will choose the right position players/pitchers to protect or not protect.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

For me, this is the issue. I didn't think Alcala and Celestino were chopped liver, and I didn't think Pressly was an all-star -- but a hopeful contender shouldn't be in the business of dealing useful present-day assets, at a position of need, for a longer term "fair return."

For me, you either need to bet right and sell on a player just before his performance declines, or it needs to be a return that is truly "too good to refuse". And while the jury is still out, that's going to be a high bar for Alcala and Celestino to clear. It won't be a simple WAR accounting to figure out the ultimate outcome of this trade -- whatever contributions Alcala and Celestino make, we will have had multiple seasons/offseasons to plan for. By comparison, we had very little time/opportunity to adequately replace Pressly's utility.

 

This is a fair point. The FO clearly really liked one or likely both of these guys because I don't think that they thought they were selling high on Pressly. 

 

It is rather ironic that with Pressly going down and Alcala a candidate for the Twins pen come September 1st that the Twins could have the guy who helps them out the most this year (by virtue of potentially pitching in high leverage playoff situations). 

 

I still like the trade but can absolutely see your well-put point.

[Jham]

The pitcher with the 70-19 K/W ratio when traded.

Looking at a reliever's ERA for a month is not a reasonable way to evaluate.

He was clearly the Twins most talented reliever at the time of the trade.

I think this is a case of people refusing to admit they were wrong, more than anything. I don't see a reasonable argument to be made that trading Pressly was anything but a colossal mistake, and looking at it a year later only confirms that fact.

It's not even that the Stros were so much smarter. As I recall, fangraphs had recently posted an article on Presley's curve being one of the most untouchable pitches in the entire game, but that he relied too frequently on 97. Everyone knew he was good. In fact, if we intended to trade him, we probably should have shopped him around rather than surprise snapping up the Astros offer.

[Jham]

I'll say it again... You can't discount the possibility that Kluber and Carrasco coming back weakens the rotation if they bump one of those guys in the process.

 

However, I'm also comfortable in knowing that success isn't automatically sustained from year to year. I believe it is quite possible that Plesac (for example) chucks a 6.00 ERA in 2020 and leaves Cleveland holding the bag.

 

For 2019... Yeah... we can do this. Our offense is real and managers will get innings here and there from anyone to piece it together.

 

It's baseball, It's possible that Adrianza hits the game winning grand slam in the 10th inning off of Kluber in Game 7 of the ALCS after he pinch ran for Cruz in the 8th.

 

It's why I love baseball.

 

With all so respect, RB, I don't think the Indians and Astros found their diamonds in the rough by accident. I disagree that they sort through sand to find gold nuggets. They're better at identifying and evaluating. They knew what they had in Kuechel, Kluber,Civale, Plesac. You shouldn't have to rotate through your prospects at the major league level to "know what you have". Evaluate in the minors. Everyone loves prospects. Trade the ones that are more hype than ability. Dumpster diving and finding under the radar prospects both can be effective. It's hard to build a team that way. I've criticized the organization for not knowing what they have, and just as importantly knowing what they don't have. They let prospects plummet in value and hold them too long. They call guys up before they're ready.

 

We've seen some things this that make me hopeful this year. Are rotating long men is both innovative and effective. They correctly identified Arraez as worthy of taking an immediate predominant roll despite not really appearing in rankings. They held onto Adrianza.

 

Nick Anderson's happen to everyone. The A's waived Hendricks last year and no team picked him up. He's an all star closer throwing 99. Some things are impossible to predict. The Twins or Marlins identified Anderson as a talent and made a definitive move. I like that. We need more of that. If we were this confident in Arraez, Gordon should have been moved. Evaluate well and move with conviction.

[Dman]

 

The pitcher with the 70-19 K/W ratio when traded.

Looking at a reliever's ERA for a month is not a reasonable way to evaluate.

He was clearly the Twins most talented reliever at the time of the trade.

I think this is a case of people refusing to admit they were wrong, more than anything. I don't see a reasonable argument to be made that trading Pressly was anything but a colossal mistake, and looking at it a year later only confirms that fact.

 

I can admit that Pressly had good stuff and a good K ratio and that he arguably was the best reliever the Twins had in 2018 not that that was a high bar but what I can't admit is that anyone really saw him as an elite reliever at that time.  He was maybe trending there which is why he had value but at the time of trade he was a good reliever not a great one.

 

If I would have known we would need him this badly this year I would have never wanted to trade him but at the time it seemed like a deal that could make us stronger in the future and a position that could be replaced in the off season.  It didn't work out that way and we lost present value big time in that deal as no one the FO brought in replaced his production.  In Hindsight I can agree on Colossal mistake but at the time of the trade not so much.  I guess we just agree to disagree on this one.  It has been fun discussing it.  Thanks!

[Squirrel]

 

With all so respect, RB, I don't think the Indians and Astros found their diamonds in the rough by accident. I disagree that they sort through sand to find gold nuggets. They're better at identifying and evaluating. They knew what they had in Kuechel, Kluber,Civale, Plesac. You shouldn't have to rotate through your prospects at the major league level to "know what you have". Evaluate in the minors. Everyone loves prospects. Trade the ones that are more hype than ability. Dumpster diving and finding under the radar prospects both can be effective. It's hard to build a team that way. I've criticized the organization for not knowing what they have, and just as importantly knowing what they don't have. They let prospects plummet in value and hold them too long. They call guys up before they're ready.

We've seen some things this that make me hopeful this year. Are rotating long men is both innovative and effective. They correctly identified Arraez as worthy of taking an immediate predominant roll despite not really appearing in rankings. They held onto Adrianza.

Nick Anderson's happen to everyone. The A's waived Hendricks last year and no team picked him up. He's an all star closer throwing 99. Some things are impossible to predict. The Twins or Marlins identified Anderson as a talent and made a definitive move. I like that. We need more of that. If we were this confident in Arraez, Gordon should have been moved. Evaluate well and move with conviction.

Great. Post.

 

Thank you.

[John Kelsey]

This was a pretty interesting article on this topic: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/8/23/20828442/the-one-that-got-away-corey-kluber-max-muncy-fernando-tatis

 

I had completely forgotten the White Sox had Tatis originally. 

[howieramone2]

 

The pitcher with the 70-19 K/W ratio when traded.

Looking at a reliever's ERA for a month is not a reasonable way to evaluate.

He was clearly the Twins most talented reliever at the time of the trade.

I think this is a case of people refusing to admit they were wrong, more than anything. I don't see a reasonable argument to be made that trading Pressly was anything but a colossal mistake, and looking at it a year later only confirms that fact.

Anyone who has ever swung a bat, knows when the headliner in a trade is 19 years-old, it makes no sense to judge the deal in little over a year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe sometime ago you mentioned you did not consider Alcala or Celestino to be prospects. Be sure you're sitting down when the guys publish their prospects list this winter.

 

The One Play-Off Pressly trade will go down as one of the best in franchise history.

[USAFChief]

 

Anyone who has ever swung a bat, knows when the headliner in a trade is 19 years-old, it makes no sense to judge the deal in little over a year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe sometime ago you mentioned you did not consider Alcala or Celestino to be prospects. Be sure you're sitting down when the guys publish their prospects list this winter.

 

The One Play-Off Pressly trade will go down as one of the best in franchise history.

I sit down a lot in the winter, so there's a good chance I will be. Prime nap time. 

 

But either way, point them out to me, because I don't pay much attention to them. 

[drivlikejehu]

My favorite aspect of the Anderson criticism is that the Twins were the only MLB club that even wanted him to begin with - he was freely available to all 30 clubs for literally nothing.

 

They saw him make strides but didn't see a further, dramatic breakout occurring at age 29. No one else saw it coming either, or someone would have offered more to the Twins than the Marlins did (which was essentially nothing).

 

No one who criticizes the Twins over Anderson can be taken seriously. It's simply a fact that his breakout was a fluky thing, for the reasons cited above. 

 

The Pressly trade, though beaten far beyond death and vastly out of proportion with reality, at least is (or was) a legitimate topic.

 

And posters here (not necessarily in this thread) have in fact argued Falvey should be fired for Pressly, the bullpen, etc. I've specifically asked that question multiple times in the past in order to get some clarity on what the upshot of all the criticism is. It's helpful when posters admit to this position because it's so incredibly irrational that it instantly invalidates anything that person could say.

[Squirrel]

MODERATOR WARNING:

 

I'm tired of the negative-positive debate. If you don't like a topic, don't post in it. If you think posters are wrong, rebut their posts without broad classifications as to their character or motives. But if all you want to do is complain and pile on, that can stop, too. And on both sides of this issue, find a way to see the other side, find some common ground. Quit the proclamations of 'not understanding how anyone can think like that' and just agree to disagree if you just can't make any further points of discussion. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No one else saw it coming either, or someone would have offered more to the Twins than the Marlins did (which was essentially nothing).

By this logic, isn't it wrong to criticize any trade, ever? After all, apparently no one offered more?

 

Also, the Twins limited their own trade market for Anderson by leaving him eligible for the Rule 5 draft, which is I think what prompted the trade to the Marlins, since we realized he was likely to be selected. Give him a 40-man audition and there may be no reason to trade him.

 

Wouldn't trading a guy for "essentially nothing", as you say, be a big pretty red flag questioning why you should be trading him in the first place?

[drivlikejehu]

By this logic, isn't it wrong to criticize any trade, ever? After all, apparently no one offered more?

 

Also, the Twins limited their own trade market for Anderson by leaving him eligible for the Rule 5 draft, which is I think what prompted the trade to the Marlins, since we realized he was likely to be selected. Give him a 40-man audition and there may be no reason to trade him.

 

Wouldn't trading a guy for "essentially nothing", as you say, be a big pretty red flag questioning why you should be trading him in the first place?

Um no, teams make minor trades all the time. Guys get bought and sold for small amounts of cash . . . this is a routine part of the game. Other times there are exchanges of marginal prospects, for instance due to a roster crunch.

 

And also, no, my logic doesn't mean trades are free from criticism. I was merely pointing out the fact that at least 29, and probably 30 teams thought Anderson had minimal value.

 

Whether or not the Twins can reasonably be blamed for trading Anderson is resolved, in the negative, by this fact.

 

Why didn't the Rays get him when he was free? Incompetence?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

 

They saw him make strides but didn't see a further, dramatic breakout occurring at age 29. 

 

I don't fault the Twins for not seeing his dramatic breakout occurring.

 

But I think it's fair to fault them for not taking a chance on him being useful, at minimal cost (basically a 40-man spot), considering how close he was at AAA, how opportunities were available here, and how we had a new pitching coach coming in.

 

And I guess I need to disclose that this fault is not worth firing over. But it's worth discussing on a Twins fan site, hence my post.

[howieramone2]

 

By this logic, isn't it wrong to criticize any trade, ever? After all, apparently no one offered more?

 

Also, the Twins limited their own trade market for Anderson by leaving him eligible for the Rule 5 draft, which is I think what prompted the trade to the Marlins, since we realized he was likely to be selected. Give him a 40-man audition and there may be no reason to trade him.

 

Wouldn't trading a guy for "essentially nothing", as you say, be a big pretty red flag questioning why you should be trading him in the first place?

No and No. I've mentioned it before, Nick Anderson and I pitched in the same college conference, not even 40 years apart.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I was merely pointing out the fact that at least 29, and probably 30 teams thought Anderson had minimal value.

Someone thought he had enough value to be a Rule 5 selection, or the Twins probably don't trade him.

 

If he has even that much value, that close to MLB, I'd prefer to give him a look ourselves rather than trade him for "essentially nothing" as you say.

 

I think it's fair to point that out.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I also acknowledge it happens to other teams too. Hence why it's not anywhere close to a firing offense in my book. But that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to discuss it.

 

A guy like Dereck Rodriguez, with modest numbers in AA? He's too far away from contributing, there is a bigger cost to giving him a 40-man spot -- not a big deal to lose him. Oliver Drake or some other out-of-options guy? Zero flexibility -- generally not a big deal if we have to cast them aside.

 

But Anderson sticks out a little more, because he was so close to MLB, at a position of need, and still had the flexibility of minor league options available too. Plenty of times those guys don't amount to anything either (Luke Bard), but unless you're really confident they're another Jake Reed at best, you'd at least like to give them a look first like we did for Curtiss, Chargois, etc. Especially when Belisle was still on the roster, or later with a new pitching coach.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Someone thought he had enough value to be a Rule 5 selection, or the Twins probably don't trade him.

 

If he has even that much value, that close to MLB, I'd prefer to give him a look ourselves rather than trade him for "essentially nothing" as you say.

 

I think it's fair to point that out.

 

Rule V picks cost $50,000, for MLB teams that's pretty much nothing.

 

There are 2 major problems with even the "try him out" argument. First, there are always marginal prospects with good minor league numbers. Teams can't try them all out. Second, and more importantly, Anderson wasn't as good last year. Trying him out wouldn't have necessarily changed anything. 

 

29-year old minor league relievers are usually not the guys a club is most concerned about from a future standpoint. 

 

So even this "try him out" argument is hindsight-based. The unpredictability of baseball means that a substantial number of decisions, from minor to significant, wind up poorly. That's true of every organization. The key is for the favorable outcomes to significantly outnumber the unfavorable.

 

It's ironic that the Twins were the only club that thought Anderson even belonged in the minor leagues, and that he went on to success elsewhere. But it's the kind of thing that will happen occasionally no matter what a club does.

[Mike Sixel]

Of course, given that people called for the old RPs to be gone, and AAA players to get tryouts..... All of last year.... Means it isn't hindsight.

 

Also, the FO needs to be better at this than we are. If they want to have sustainable success, they need to be better than most of the teams. Not, just like the other teams.

 

They literally DFAd half or more of their bullpen this year. That seems like a less than ideal job of picking players on a team that was on the verge of contending at the beginning of the year.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Of course, given that people called for the old RPs to be gone, and AAA players to get tryouts..... All of last year.... Means it isn't hindsight.

Also, the FO needs to be better at this than we are. If they want to have sustainable success, they need to be better than most of the teams. Not, just like the other teams.

They literally DFAd half or more of their bullpen this year. That seems like a less than ideal job of picking players on a team that was on the verge of contending at the beginning of the year.

 

Anderson was low on the pecking order. Getting rid of Belisle or whatever wouldn't have opened up a spot for him.

 

So far as the other teams, I'm still at a loss to understand how the "smart" organizations like the Astros and Rays missed on Anderson, when they could have had him for virtually nothing?

 

And by the way, no front office can compete against someone with knowledge of the future. An ordinary fan with that knowledge would crush every front office in the league.