The Rays got their man at the deadline. Arggggh!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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?

A team may have interest in 10 guys like Anderson in other organizations around the league. They can't acquire and roster them all, though. Maybe the Rays picked up a different one. Maybe they already had their own guy to look at. (I doubt guys like Anderson are shopped to every team around the league either -- maybe the Rays would have done the Marlins deal too if it was presented to them, or even beaten it in their own opinion, although the Twins may have valued Schales differently.)

 

That doesn't mean if a team *already has* one of these guys, that they should necessarily dump them without giving them a low-cost look.

 

I don't fault the Twins for missing out on another team's Anderson, although I hope we're always looking and we can pick one up occasionally.

[yarnivek1972]

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!

Who cares if he is or is not “elite”? Whatever that even means in an era where good today, gone tomorrow is the new normal. If he is the best the Twins have (your words) why on earth are you trading him away if you have any hope of contending the following year? And the FO obviously felt contending was a possibility in 2019 or they would have dealt Gibson who’s value was sky high.

[yarnivek1972]

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.

I’m looking at the Red Wings list of pitchers from last year. Pretty much anyone with an ERA under 4 got at least a “look see” at the MLB level last year except Anderson and Jake Reed. So, it seems to me that at the very least he would have had a shot to pitch at the MLB level if Drake and Belisle weren’t on the roster.

 

Mistakes in evaluation can happen. The mistake here is in not evaluating him against MLB competition in a non-contending year. That’s a mistake that can’t happen again.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

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.

just a quick point: 2018 would have been Anderson’s age 27 season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

Rule 5 (not V ) picks are $100k now -- but the bigger cost of a Rule 5 pick has always been the roster spot.

 

Teams obviously don't have to try out every minor leaguer with good numbers -- but if a guy is good enough to be a likely Rule 5 pick, and close to MLB at a position of need, I generally want my team to try them out. Or at least force other teams to roster them under Rule 5 restrictions rather than trade him for "essentially nothing."

[Dman]

 

Who cares if he is or is not “elite”? Whatever that even means in an era where good today, gone tomorrow is the new normal. If he is the best the Twins have (your words) why on earth are you trading him away if you have any hope of contending the following year? And the FO obviously felt contending was a possibility in 2019 or they would have dealt Gibson who’s value was sky high.

 

Elite was only in reference to the return.  Some were questioning the return the FO got for Pressly.  I think Hand and some other relievers who had established consistency brought better returns like top 100 prospects.  It was just a reference to how I believed Pressly was viewed by other teams.

 

Even though he was a good reliever there were relievers in FA that had similar stats to what Pressly had put up at that time.   Just grab one of those and he is essentially replaced and you have two future prospects to boot.  Likely have to pay more but they had the money if they chose to spend it.  As has been pointed out it isn't always as easy as that because relievers are volatile and can easily regress, but Pressly could have regressed too and then you would have no prospects, and no good reliever as well.

 

Trades involve risks and rewards.  I fully acknowledge that given our current situation I wish they would have kept Pressly but at the time I felt the reward would be greater by trading him and the risk fairly minimal.  A fair number of other people did as well. 

 

The FO did not really invest in the reliever market and their gamble to use the guys they had didn't work.  Lot's of guys I believe they thought would grow into the reliever role regressed or were just not effective so the gamble did not work out as expected.  They lost more present value than calculated IMO. So here we are talking about Pressly.   If their gamble pays off no one would have cared about Pressly at all. If Romero were lights out in the pen and Meija just solid no one would have thought the Pressly trade was that bad.  It just didn't work out that way and we are all asking what if.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean it's foolish to discuss the individual outcomes (good or bad) on a fan message board. (Well, maybe it is foolish, but for different reasons. )

 

We can discuss the success of Ryne Harper. We can discuss the miss on Anderson. We can discuss all kinds of things. As long as we keep the proper perspective, there's nothing wrong with that. (And that proper perspective can include reminders that this FO, on balance, has done more right than wrong so far. Probably best to do that without dismissing the discussion entirely, though!)

[Riverbrian]

 

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.

 

No disrespect taken. Truth of the matter... I am appreciative of the honest conversation. It's a subject that I'm dying to discuss on Twinsdaily because I think it's important. I've felt this way for quite some time. Thank you for that. 

 

WIth all due respect, I gotta point out that you have contradicted yourself in your post. You are saying that the Astros knew exactly what they had in Kuechel and that the Indians knew exactly what they had in Kluber, Civale and Plesac. 

 

Then later on you state that Nick Anderson's will happen because these things are impossible to predict and you use Liam Hendriks as an example and I believe that you use Liam Hendriks correctly because the A's did let him go, he did go unclaimed and he found himself back with the A's... and look what he has done with the opportunity. 

 

It is the 2nd part that I am in complete agreement with you. 

 

On the subject of Dallas Kuechel. I was listening to MLB Radio and they were interviewing Mike Elias (GM of the Orioles). They were talking about the rebuilding process that the Orioles are currently going through. My ears perked up because he was touching on the very points that I make over and over again. Prior to becoming the Orioles GM, he was with the Astros organization for 7 years. 

 

I didn't transcribe the entire conversation but paraphrasing what he said when he was asked about the rebuilding process:

 

It isn't just about the prospects that you acquire in a trade, it's also about discovery. We have guys on this roster right now who are getting the chance to show they belong in the major leagues. When I was with the Astros... Dallas Kuechel is a good example. Dallas wasn't a highly regarded prospect. His minor league numbers didn't jump off the page but he came along at the right time. He was given an opportunity because of where the Astros were as franchise and he exceeded all of our expectations. John Means could be a Dallas Kuechel for us. People nowadays think that Jose Altuve was born a superstar. Jose Altuve was an unheralded prospect that was given the chance to take the job and he took it. Sure we had the Springers and Correa's with the pedigree but you can't minimize the role that players like Altuve and Keuchel played. We were able to give them a chance with the Astros that they may not have gotten elsewhere because of the process. 

 

I have no idea what is happening inside the Cleveland Front office but I am willing to bet that they are looking at Zach Plesac right now and thinking to themselves. "I didn't know he could do this". 

 

My main point... Is Yes... Nick Anderson's will happen. The 40 man roster limitations will guarentee that you will spit out players that go on to greatness elsewhere. I don''t blame the front office for losing Nick Anderson. It's a hard job and the margins are thin. 

 

I'm saying there is only one way to lessen the amount of times this will happen to you.

 

Play them, let the players help you make these tough decisions. 

and don't settle for mediocre results. Belisle, Drake, Plouffe. Keep trying to find better.  

 

You want to know why the Twins rebuild has taken so long... They never rebuilt. That's why. 

 

They said we got Plouffe. Nobody else gets a look. They settle for his mediocrity. 

 

That's how the Astros beat us. That's how the Dodgers beat us. 

[USAFChief]

 

Elite was only in reference to the return.  Some were questioning the return the FO got for Pressly.  I think Hand and some other relievers who had established consistency brought better returns like top 100 prospects.  It was just a reference to how I believed Pressly was viewed by other teams.

 

Even though he was a good reliever there were relievers in FA that had similar stats to what Pressly had put up at that time.   Just grab one of those and he is essentially replaced and you have two future prospects to boot.  Likely have to pay more but they had the money if they chose to spend it.  As has been pointed out it isn't always as easy as that because relievers are volatile and can easily regress, but Pressly could have regressed too and then you would have no prospects, and no good reliever as well.

 

Trades involve risks and rewards.  I fully acknowledge that given our current situation I wish they would have kept Pressly but at the time I felt the reward would be greater by trading him and the risk fairly minimal.  A fair number of other people did as well. 

 

The FO did not really invest in the reliever market and their gamble to use the guys they had didn't work.  Lot's of guys I believe they thought would grow into the reliever role regressed or were just not effective so the gamble did not work out as expected.  They lost more present value than calculated IMO. So here we are talking about Pressly.   If their gamble pays off no one would have cared about Pressly at all. If Romero were lights out in the pen and Meija just solid no one would have thought the Pressly trade was that bad.  It just didn't work out that way and we are all asking what if.

False. 

 

I cared then, and I would still care now. There is no combination of events that could have occurred that would have made trading Pressly acceptable, IMO. And no outcomes from Alcala/Celistino will change that view. I don't know how many times or ways I can say this. 

 

The trade should be judged based on what's known at the time. And even if we accept this year-later hindsight view, or the "they should have followed up with these other moves" view, there is zero chance the Twins bullpen wouldn't have been been better in 2019 with Pressly than without. NO MATTER WHO they might have added, short of 8 Mariano Rivera clones.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Rule 5 (not V ) picks are $100k now -- but the bigger cost of a Rule 5 pick has always been the roster spot.

 

Teams obviously don't have to try out every minor leaguer with good numbers -- but if a guy is good enough to be a likely Rule 5 pick, and close to MLB at a position of need, I generally want my team to try them out. Or at least force other teams to roster them under Rule 5 restrictions rather than trade him for "essentially nothing."

 

OK, so let's assume for the moment that, objectively and contemporaneously, the Twins should have given Anderson a "try out." 

 

This still doesn't address the facts that (1) Anderson wasn't as good then and (2) it would have been a small sample size.

 

So let's say Anderson was called up and pitched 20 innings or whatever. Based on his AAA performance, a reasonable projection would be a 4-ish ERA and a K/9 of 10-11. Not bad, but not world beating either. Most likely he'd have been gone just like Drake.

 

So is the issue here that Anderson didn't get called up, or that he's gone? Because they aren't the same thing. Anderson would likely be gone regardless. Given that, what difference would it have made? The Twins called up younger guys that they were more likely to keep.

 

The actual 'problem' is that the Twins didn't realize Anderson would significantly improve in 2019. No one else did either. But that's really the only knowledge that would have changed anything. Anderson wasn't going to magically improve when he put on an MLB uniform. He obviously made some tweaks after the 2018 season that took him to another level.

 

Your posts falsely equate a call-up to the Twins having Anderson in their 2019 bullpen, which is not a valid inference at all. 

[Dman]

 

False. 

 

I cared then, and I would still care now. There is no combination of events that could have occurred that would have made trading Pressly acceptable, IMO. And no outcomes from Alcala/Celistino will change that view. I don't know how many times or ways I can say this. 

 

The trade should be judged based on what's known at the time. And even if we accept this year-later hindsight view, or the "they should have followed up with these other moves" view, there is zero chance the Twins bullpen wouldn't have been been better in 2019 with Pressly than without. NO MATTER WHO they might have added, short of 8 Mariano Rivera clones

 

Honestly I don't think you can logically be that definitive about "what is known at the time".  What if Pressly regressed this year and couldn't get anyone out alla Hildenberger who was in a Closer role last year by the way.  What if Pressly got hurt in spring training and wasn't able to pitch this year then you end up with nothing.  There are all kinds of outcomes and we never know what they will be.  If Pressly was bad for the Astros this year would you still feel that strongly about not trading him?  Personally I think your view would change.  The stats would simply say he is horrible and everyone would say we sold at the right time.  Sure hindsight tells another story but you are saying no matter what and that seems unlikely to me.

[yarnivek1972]

That’s just it. It’s all a “projection” until he actually faces MLB hitters. Sure, he could have come up and been terrible. If that’s the way it had played out, there would be a lot less angst (from me anyway). Because at least then they were able to see how he handled facing MLB hitters first hand. Some guys are just jittery their entire careers (one Kyle Gibson comes to mind). Others look unfazed from day one (Littell has, for example). That is an extremely important evaluation that can’t be made unless he is facing MLB hitters. But the reason we’ll “never know” is because this FO decided that giving innings to Oliver Drake and Matt Belisle was more important than loooking at Nick Anderson or Jake Reed. Reed has obviously fallen off this year, but he probably should have been called up in 2018 as well.

 

That’s never the right decision in a non-contending year. And as has been stated, it is why the Twins rebuild has taken a decade.

[drivlikejehu]

 

That’s never the right decision in a non-contending year. And as has been stated, it is why the Twins rebuild has taken a decade.

 

This is an obviously false statement, repeating it does nothing to make it more accurate. 

[yarnivek1972]

This is an obviously false statement, repeating it does nothing to make it more accurate.

When exactly is it the right decision to have a 36-7 year old who’s career is all but over pitch instead of a guy that is 24, doing reasonably well at AAA and that is going to be rule 5 eligible? Just because YOU think it is “obviously false” doesn’t make it fact.

[drivlikejehu]

 

When exactly is it the right decision to have a 36-7 year old who’s career is all but over pitch instead of a guy that is 24, doing reasonably well at AAA and that is going to be rule 5 eligible? Just because YOU think it is “obviously false” doesn’t make it fact.

 

That's not what you said. You said not calling up enough young players is why the Twins rebuild took so long. However, you have provided zero support for this assertion.

 

Unless you are saying that the Twins lost in 2011-17 because they didn't call up Anderson in 2018?

[Squirrel]

When exactly is it the right decision to have a 36-7 year old who’s career is all but over pitch instead of a guy that is 24, doing reasonably well at AAA and that is going to be rule 5 eligible? Just because YOU think it is “obviously false” doesn’t make it fact.

Who was 24 and didn’t get a look? If we are still talking about Anderson ... which is the topic of this thread ... he was 27 st the time.

[Doomtints]

A common opinion in this thread is, "Oh well. You win some, you lose some."

 

One fact being missed: This front office has never put together a good bullpen. They don't have a closer. They don't have a set up man. They don't have any specialists. They don't have a manager who seems to play matchups.

 

If the Twins win the world series by having a bunch of nonspecific, unmemorable relievers then we can admit that all of us were wrong when we talked about this more than any other topic over the past couple of years, of course. But when all of us see this as the missing piece we are probably right. (Though some defense would be nice, too.)

 

I'm not saying this guy was the answer -- he wasn't because the Twins need more than one guy -- I am merely pointing at the elephant in the room.

[Otto von Ballpark]

OK, so let's assume for the moment that, objectively and contemporaneously, the Twins should have given Anderson a "try out."

 

This still doesn't address the facts that (1) Anderson wasn't as good then and (2) it would have been a small sample size.

 

So let's say Anderson was called up and pitched 20 innings or whatever. Based on his AAA performance, a reasonable projection would be a 4-ish ERA and a K/9 of 10-11. Not bad, but not world beating either. Most likely he'd have been gone just like Drake.

 

So is the issue here that Anderson didn't get called up, or that he's gone? Because they aren't the same thing. Anderson would likely be gone regardless. Given that, what difference would it have made? The Twins called up younger guys that they were more likely to keep.

 

The actual 'problem' is that the Twins didn't realize Anderson would significantly improve in 2019. No one else did either. But that's really the only knowledge that would have changed anything. Anderson wasn't going to magically improve when he put on an MLB uniform. He obviously made some tweaks after the 2018 season that took him to another level.

 

Your posts falsely equate a call-up to the Twins having Anderson in their 2019 bullpen, which is not a valid inference at all.

Every successful player had to make adjustments to be successful. That doesn't excuse teams from any transaction before that point.

 

Maybe Anderson shows some ability to adapt in those 20 innings, enough to beat out Zack Granite for a 40-man spot, and they want to see him work with the new pitching coach in the spring. Who knows? Maybe we ultimately are unable to help him make the adjustments that the Marlins made, but I'd rather try a little bit more than we did, than instead pointlessly trade him for -- in your own words -- "virtually nothing." If the Twins thought Anderson was no different than DJ Baxendale, well, they were wrong and I think it's fair to point that out.

 

Let's flip this: in a bizarro world, the Twins are the ones who turned Schales into Anderson last offseason, and got some good performance out of him in 2019. Don't you think we'd see lots of posts here crediting the Twins for that pickup? (There would be adjustments to discuss too, but the original acquisition is related and a necessary precondition to making any adjustments.) In that bizarro world, would you still chime in to say that giving credit for the trade is pointless because there was no way the Twins could have predicted Anderson's success when making such a minor trade? Would you also point out that even if the trade was a success, it's not worth discussing in isolation because every team has successes and failures and all that matters is the aggregate of such moves? That's how your posts to me are reading right now, and it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

I mean, if you think some are being too hard on the Twins and you are trying to counter that, I understand -- but you are making some pretty generalized, blanket statements here. There's nothing definitionally wrong with questioning the Twins actions and approach in this particular case, even if they've earned some credit from other moves.

[yarnivek1972]

That's not what you said. You said not calling up enough young players is why the Twins rebuild took so long. However, you have provided zero support for this assertion.

 

Unless you are saying that the Twins lost in 2011-17 because they didn't call up Anderson in 2018?

I was actually repeating what riverbrian had said. That settling for mediocre established players instead of seeing if someone else is better is why the rebuild took so long. There were plenty of examples over the last decade. Just take a look at the “former Twins” thread for names.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Let's flip this: in a bizarro world, the Twins are the ones who turned Schales into Anderson last offseason, and got some good performance out of him in 2019. Don't you think we'd see lots of posts here crediting the Twins for that pickup? 

 

No, I don't. And I have a good reason to think that: the Twins actually made some unequivocally good trades last year (not including the controversial Pressly deal, regardless of my personal view), and have received minimal praise at best for those moves:

 

For a few months of Escobar, Jhoan Duran, who has gone from a 40+ prospect to a 50 and top 100 on Fangraphs. Tonight his line is AA is 7 IP, 1 H, 1 BB, 0 R, 10 Ks.

 

One of the throw ins to that deal, Maciel, isn't a top prospect but is having a solid year and could be a 4th OF.

 

For a few months of a horrible Dozier, Devin Smeltzer, who has contributed this year and has the potential to do so going forward, and some decent depth in Raley.

 

For the then-mediocre Lynn, a rookie ball pitcher, Luis Rijo, who is now having a great year in A ball.

 

In other words, the Twins appear to have made some very good prospect evaluations. There were some snarky comments about the Twins actually getting something for Dozier, but in terms of credit for those evaluations, there's little, if any, to be found. 

 

I'm sure in your scenario, some posters would have commented on the deal. But most attention would be finding other things to criticize.

[Mike Sixel]

So, we have to acknowledge every good and bad trade in every post? That's some long posts.....

 

This is a specific discussion about relief pitchers, not a discussion of every move ever made.

[drivlikejehu]

 

So, we have to acknowledge every good and bad trade in every post? That's some long posts.....

This is a specific discussion about relief pitchers, not a discussion of every move ever made.

 

He asked an on-topic question and I provided an on-topic answer. The point was not to delve into the details of those deals.

 

Though another interesting move, with relevance to this year's bullpen, was the pick up of Zack Littell for Jaime Garcia in 2017.

[Riverbrian]

 

A common opinion in this thread is, "Oh well. You win some, you lose some."

 

One fact being missed: This front office has never put together a good bullpen. They don't have a closer. They don't have a set up man. They don't have any specialists. They don't have a manager who seems to play matchups.

 

If the Twins win the world series by having a bunch of nonspecific, unmemorable relievers then we can admit that all of us were wrong when we talked about this more than any other topic over the past couple of years, of course. But when all of us see this as the missing piece we are probably right. (Though some defense would be nice, too.)

 

I'm not saying this guy was the answer -- he wasn't because the Twins need more than one guy -- I am merely pointing at the elephant in the room.

 

Baldelli has stated on multiple occasions that they are not going to use a specific closer. 

[Riverbrian]

 

That's not what you said. You said not calling up enough young players is why the Twins rebuild took so long. However, you have provided zero support for this assertion.

 

Unless you are saying that the Twins lost in 2011-17 because they didn't call up Anderson in 2018?

 

 

I was actually repeating what riverbrian had said. That settling for mediocre established players instead of seeing if someone else is better is why the rebuild took so long. There were plenty of examples over the last decade. Just take a look at the “former Twins” thread for names.

 

Yep I said it. And I never said "Young Players" 

 

If you want me to support it, I will and it will be a really really really long post that will happen in a new thread specific to the actual topic... Not Here in the "Anderson" thread. 

 

I am prepared for the conversation. 

 

I stand by my comment... the Twins rebuild has taken longer than it should because the Twins never actually rebuilt. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

OK, so let's assume for the moment that, objectively and contemporaneously, the Twins should have given Anderson a "try out." 

 

This still doesn't address the facts that (1) Anderson wasn't as good then and (2) it would have been a small sample size.

 

So let's say Anderson was called up and pitched 20 innings or whatever. Based on his AAA performance, a reasonable projection would be a 4-ish ERA and a K/9 of 10-11. Not bad, but not world beating either. Most likely he'd have been gone just like Drake.

 

 

 

Why is it a fact that (1) Anderson wasn't as good then?

 

(2) How do you increase a sample size? 

 

Where did the reasonable projection come from?

 

What is the frequency of accuracy when it comes to actual performance compared to reasonable projections? 

 

The guy was striking out two batters an inning in Rochester and he went on to strike out two batters an inning in Miami and Tampa. Would he have to strike out 3 batters an inning in AAA to earn a reasonable projection of two batters an inning in the majors? 

[jokin]

 

So, we have to acknowledge every good and bad trade in every post? That's some long posts.....

This is a specific discussion about relief pitchers, not a discussion of every move ever made.

 

Yeah... some folks are really stretching to make a point.

 

Can anyone argue that relief pitching evaluation/development (both prospects and veterans) hasn't been a problematic blind spot for this organization, both the present and previous FO, throughout the last decade?

[jokin]

To put it succinctly and in a nutshell, and using Ryne Harper as a very recent example, we have a very close comp in terms of the Twins' pitching evaluation/development acumen.

 

Ryne Harper, aging veteran minor league RP, ultra-late round draft pick, never made a major league roster, fastball essentially non-existent, is picked up off the minor league FA scrap heap in 2018, does fairly well in in AA and AAA, and then magically/miraculously makes the Twins at age 30 in 2019 with a gimmick 70 MPH breaking pitch.

 

Nick Anderson, late-blooming, unheralded veteran minor league RP who played almost solely in the Twins farm system, ultra-late round draft pick, never made a major league roster, possesses legit 96.5 MPH major league fastball and developing a legitimately good breaking pitch, outptiches Harper's #s while pitching season-long in AAA in 2018, is then let go heading into 2019 by the Twins for zilch at age 28 after 4 great MiLB seasons for the only club he ever played for.

 

 

[jokin]

 

He asked an on-topic question and I provided an on-topic answer. The point was not to delve into the details of those deals.

 

Though another interesting move, with relevance to this year's bullpen, was the pick up of Zack Littell for Jaime Garcia in 2017.

 

 

Zack Littell... Nick Anderson

 

Zack Littell... Nick Anderson

 

Zack Littell... Nick Anderson

 

Hmmmm

 

Based on stats, both had promising and intriguing 2018 minor league stats, Anderson's numbers suggest that in his role as a AAA relief specialist, had a superior year to Littell, who was primarily a back-end SP with mixed results in AA and AAA. He was converted to the AAA pen during 2019 beginning in June. His AAA RP peripheral numbers pale in comparison to Anderson's RP numbers in 2018. (And of course, to Anderson's major league numbers in 2019.)

 

The result? Littell got the major league call-up in 2018, with predictably poor results in 20+ innings.

 

Why didn't Anderson get the same major league call-up?

 

In 2018 Littell was 22 years old and Anderson was 27/28. Was it an analytical statistic decision?

 

In which case, I don't get it, Anderson was missing bats regularly, with a 96.5 MPH FB and a good slider. The Twins let Anderson go and stuck with an even older aging lifetime minor leaguer in Ryne Harper.

 

[jokin]

FYI follow-up:

 

How good was Nick Anderson in AAA in 2018?

 

For all pitchers with 60 or more innings:

K/9- 13.20 Ranked #1 in the International League

K%- 36.2% Ranked #1 in the International League

K-BB%- 28.4% Ranked #1 in the International League

xFIP- 2.49 Ranked #1 in the International League

 

Pretty questionable to just let someone go, without even a 2018 look-see call-up with these strike-throwing, result-driven numbers, especially with all the uncertainty in the Twins pen going into 2019.

[D.C Twins]

I actually penned a few fake letters to the FO from Nick Anderson asking for a shot last year...so yeah I'm was a little miffed that we didn't give him a good look then and even more so now.

 

But the main point that is being made is that WE DID NOT GIVE HIM A GOOD LOOK so we could role out a washed up reliever at infinitum.....

 

Nobody (including me) claimed to know FOR SURE that Anderson was going to be good....we just claim that he DEFINITELY showed enough to investigate thoroughly.....and we didn't

 

Let just make sure THAT part doesn't happen again.