Twins Daily 2020 Top Prospects: Recap

[Riverbrian]

 

Part of that is true - I even mentioned that it was too early to grade trades. But the Twins got Escobar in his age 23 season. He didn't play much during his age 24 season (I believe he had a somewhat serious injury as well) but in 2014 at age 25 he was our primary shortstop, starting more games at short than Nunez, Floriman and Santana combined. He was fifth on the team in PA. And he was already showing a strong bat - posting a 102 OPS+ and amassing 2.5 WAR. He followed that up with another 2 WAR season in 2015 although it is true that Molly in his first season as manager wanted Escobar in the utility role, giving Santana the start of the season to be his primary shortstop. Escobar still ended up starting more games at short. He started 2016 as our primary shortstop but that was his worst season as a Twin (posting a negative WAR) and Nunez pushed him out. He started 2017 behind Polanco as Molly's main utility guy again but took over thirdbase and put in another nearly 2 WAR season and again showed a solid bat. 2018 he was our opening day shortstop again and took over third with another Sano injury, and managed about a 3.5 WAR season split between us and Arizona.

 

So I'm not sure it's fair to say the Twins held him back under Gardy and Molly - He was the opening day starter at short several times and his bat was strong from the get-go. He was certainly established as a quality MLer after one full season with us.

 

I want to be clear that I absolutely love Escobar. I've always been a fan of his. However, with the exception of 2016 (which you list). Whenever he was an opening day starter, it was only because of injury or suspension that gave him that opening day assignment. 

 

His role on the roster was utility under Gardenhire and Molitor and with those guys, that is getaway day playing time. Now, he ended up the primary in multiple years but, that wasn't planned by the front offices or managers. A (too long) list of (too many) players had to absolutely collapse in front of him. 

 

2016 was the only year that (I believe) the team planned on Eddie being "the" starter. Notice how easily Eddie lost that starting job after 2016, notice how others who played just as terribly or worse in 2016 were starters in 2017 but not Escobar. 

 

We didn't know what we had. If we weren't so consistently awful choosing a starting 9 in front of him, we may have lost him to the pile of baseball souls. 

 

it turned out over time that Escobar was indeed (perhaps) Terry Ryan's best trade in his 2nd stint.

 

However, the Twins made less trades than any organization during Ryan's 2nd tenure so the Liriano/Escobar trade wasn't really challenged. 

 

Dozier was the crown jewel of our in-house production and you are criticizing the return we got back for him. He is now facing a minor league deal just two years from being our best. Plouffe quickly became a minor league deal after leaving us from everyday duty that Escobar was never given. from forcing Sano to RF to a minor league deal. Hicks was deployed to early, traded for nothing and signed a bigger contract than Brian Dozier did. Buxton was deployed too early. Vargas did not develop, Arcia did not develop. Willingham was traded for something named Adam and on and on. 

 

There are no success stories from Ryan's second stint. It's too soon to tell with the current front office, they have some proving to do but the changes are visible.  

[howieramone2]

Every time someone mentions an IFA, it's a TR success story. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Every time someone mentions an IFA, it's a TR success story. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

*whispers* Actually Bill Smith was in charge when the Twins made their most impactful IFA moves... 

[gunnarthor]

 

*whispers* Actually Bill Smith was in charge when the Twins made their most impactful IFA moves... 

*whispers back* But Ryan still gets blamed for the Smith drafts ...

 

In all honesty, while 09 was an a great year it's also worth remembering Polanco and Kepler were not top international prospects. Both of their signing bonus were in the top 20 that year but not in the top 15. A reminder that the international signings are a real big crap shoot but also that those two worked their asses off to become solid ball players (no point in arguing over which development team should get credit).

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

*whispers back* But Ryan still gets blamed for the Smith drafts ...

 

In all honesty, while 09 was an a great year it's also worth remembering Polanco and Kepler were not top international prospects. Both of their signing bonus were in the top 20 that year but not in the top 15. A reminder that the international signings are a real big crap shoot but also that those two worked their asses off to become solid ball players (no point in arguing over which development team should get credit).

Ryan unfairly gets credit and blame for those drafts depending who you talk to that day.

 

Personally, I give him neither credit nor blame for much of anything under Smith's tenure, though he certainly influenced some decisions.

 

But you're right that Polanco and Kepler get a ton of credit for the work they put into becoming MLB ballplayers.

 

To swing this back around to the current front office, I don't know if I'd give them too much credit for either Polanco or Kepler, as both players were making real inroads to becoming legitimate MLB players before this front office came around.

 

But I don't need to look any further than Mitch Garver to see how this front office has improved the team. There's no way in hell previous front offices would have put the coaching staff on the field and the methodology in place to turn a tweener like Garver into possibly the best overall catcher in Major League Baseball.

 

In my opinion, the conclusive evidence everyone seems to be searching for in this thread begins and ends with Garver's improvement.

[wabene]

Six out of seven years of top five picks should lead to some talent. I never understood the moves made under TR and I don't miss those days. This new group's moves make sense to me and I feel especially excited given how many bad, hopeless years I sat through.

[gunnarthor]

 

Six out of seven years of top five picks should lead to some talent. I never understood the moves made under TR and I don't miss those days. This new group's moves make sense to me and I feel especially excited given how many bad, hopeless years I sat through.

Actually it would probably be better if we divided up the moves - a lot of the transnational moves - trades, drafts, etc have left me a bit cool and that's probably more about Levine. Some other stuff - institutional matters, promoting Sean Johnson and Brad Steil, some coaching changes etc are probably more Falvey and I'm more confident in.

 

I hated the fact that the FO threw up the flag at the deadline in 17. I hated that we kept Molly around an extra year. I don't like that we got taken in the Pressly trade or the sub-optimal returns on most of the trades we've done.

[bird]

 

*whispers* Actually Bill Smith was in charge when the Twins made their most impactful IFA moves... 

 

The club's success in IFA is highly attributable to Billy Smith, Jim Pohlad, and Andy MacPhail. It's that threesome that convinced Obstinate Carl to approve a massive new budget that included both capital expenditures and budget room to greatly expand the international scouting ranks. It wasn't until the Twins established a beachhead in the DR and began nurturing relationships with the buscones that things started to look up, and that took years! Credit Billy Smith for very competently overseeing the physical facility stuff. Credit Ryan for hiring and retaining scouts with the talent to build relationships. Credit scouts like Fred Guerrero for uncovering and negotiating and then recommending the financial offers. Just don't simplistically and wrongly give sole attribution for ANY of these signings strictly on the basis of who held the GM position when. It's truly a distortion of the picture and void of meaningful context. Give credit for the right things, I say. 

[Nick Nelson]

 

Just don't simplistically and wrongly give sole attribution for ANY of these signings strictly on the basis of who held the GM position when. It's truly a distortion of the picture and void of meaningful context. Give credit for the right things, I say. 

It all filters up to the top. Personally I use the GM's name as a shorthand referencing the operations in place during their tenures, for which they were accountable. I'm not naive enough to think that Ryan or Smith was solely responsible for any draft picks, IFA signings, or developmental successes/failures. But they built and oversaw the groups that made it all happen.

 

Bottom line is that baseball ops was a total and complete mess during TR's second stint. That's how you lead the game in losses over a five-year span. He has to wear that. I don't think it's a controversial statement. The other poster's assertion that there's "hatred" for Ryan being expressed is quite dramatic. Myself, I look back on him very fondly, both for the person he is and what he built in the 2000s. But the 180-degree turnaround we've seen in the past 3 years makes it all the clearer how bad things had gotten by the end. 

[Riverbrian]

Sano and Polanco were signed while Smith was the GM, Developed while Ryan was the GM and deployed for maximum benefit while Falvey and Lavine are in charge. They all get credit. 

 

But while we waited for Sano, Polanco, Kepler and everybody to get here. We endured an extended dark age that didn't need to be so extended. 

 

[DocBauer]

Sano and Polanco were signed while Smith was the GM, Developed while Ryan was the GM and deployed for maximum benefit while Falvey and Lavine are in charge. They all get credit.

 

But while we waited for Sano, Polanco, Kepler and everybody to get here. We endured an extended dark age that didn't need to be so extended.

This.

 

At this point, it is about today and future tomorrows. Any mistakes or blame to anyone for any dark ages of drafting and development are moot. They are over and done. Just being honest, the jury will be out on the FO for a couple more years as virtually anyone they have drafted or acquired as a prospect has yet to reach the ML level.

 

Early returns for development look very good for our current FO. Early returns on player acquisition outside the draft look very good. But for me, I am hopefully and enjoying what we are seeing and will refrain from any sort of judgment for another year or two.

 

But yeah, I like what I'm seeing thus far.