First quarter over...on pace for 89 losses

[ThePuck]

Has anyone said they hated Gardy? There is a distinction I hope you are aware. I like Gardy a lot and long ago he was great for the Twins, but the product is getting stale, something has to change.

 

 

 

No grey area there huh? I must have voted wrong.

 

Again, are you surprised by that? Did you see that huge rant he put on me because I said if he deserves no blame than he deserves no credit?

[Alex]

Nobody said it was a garuntee, im just saying thats the Twins best shot at winning a WS. They need to get as much high end talent together at once and hope most of them reach their potential around the same time. It has failed but it has worked very well to like with SF, WSH, TB, TEX and now BAL is getting really good too.

 

The thing is, the Twins future hope was mostly acquired through trading assets and international signings. The only player that they've drafted high is Buxton. While he's certainly a top prospect, even without him they could still have May, Meyer, Sano, Arcia, Rosario, Hicks, Gibson.....etc...

 

The idea that you need to be terrible to acquire/draft young talent just isn't correct.

[jokin]

gunnarthar, you had me until the last line. You made some good arguments, with some great humor. But that last line, you lost me. I was willing to consider your arguments, then you dismissed any counter arguments with name calling. Bummer.

 

He lost me on the line before, the one he didn't see fit to edit

[jokin]

Has anyone said they hated Gardy? There is a distinction I hope you are aware. I like Gardy a lot and long ago he was great for the Twins, but the product is getting stale, something has to change.

 

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Gardy haters are birthers

 

No grey area there huh? I must have voted wrong.

 

Just following the poster's logic here:

 

If, Gardy haters are "birthers"

 

Then, Gardy lovers are "truthers"

[kryptik]

If Gardy finds a way to be within +/- 5 games of .500 ball he has a good shot at keeping the post another year.

 

In terms of organizational development I would prefer a top draft pick and a new manager next year though. Another 90 loss season, some roster moves at the deadline, a top 5 pick next year and a new manager would help more than a .500 year and another season with Gardy in charge.

[launchingthrees]

The thing is, the Twins future hope was mostly acquired through trading assets and international signings. The only player that they've drafted high is Buxton. While he's certainly a top prospect, even without him they could still have May, Meyer, Sano, Arcia, Rosario, Hicks, Gibson.....etc...

 

 

The idea that you need to be terrible to acquire/draft young talent just isn't correct.

 

You're using a list dominated by 1st round picks, and players acquired by trading 1st round picks to illustrate that you don't need high draft picks to succeed? Yeah that makes sense.

[jokin]

You're using a list dominated by 1st round picks, and players acquired by trading 1st round picks to illustrate that you don't need high draft picks to succeed? Yeah that makes sense.

 

Stating it kindly, yeah, since he make more sense than you do. May was a 4th round pick- so 3 out of 7 is not "dominated". He correctly showed that you can acquire prospects like May and Meyer by trading for them- that knocks your "dominated" list down to 2 out of 7. Gibson was a late first rounder, Hicks mid, both have a lot left to prove. Care to try again?

[launchingthrees]

Stating it kindly, yeah, since he make more sense than you do. May was a 4th round pick- so 3 out of 7 is not "dominated". He correctly showed that you can acquire prospects like May and Meyer by trading for them- that knocks your "dominated" list down to 2 out of 7. Gibson was a late first rounder, Hicks mid, both have a lot left to prove. Care to try again?

 

May and Meyer were acquired by trading former 1st round picks who turned into good players. Either way, this isn't subjective. It's already been solved and getting the top pick will generate about 16 more wins than the 30th pick on average. Later round picks have little value

 

Bottoming out for 2-3 years is now more than ever the optimal strategy for rebuilding.

The Changing Value of Draft Picks | FanGraphs Baseball

 

The first pick in any given draft is insanely valuable. The next few picks are pretty great too. It falls off in a hurry, though. When Sky Andrecheck (now with the Indians, by the way) did this analysis back in 2009, he had the #1 pick producing an average of +20 WAR, but the #10 pick was just at +6 WAR, while the #30 pick was only +4 WAR, and then every pick after that leveled off pretty substantially,

[Alex]

You're using a list dominated by 1st round picks, and players acquired by trading 1st round picks to illustrate that you don't need high draft picks to succeed? Yeah that makes sense.

 

Yes I did. Turns out you get a first rounder regardless of if you are bad or good provided you avoid signing a compensation eligible FA.The post I was referring to implied that being bad, and thus high draft picks (not just first round) were needed. In particular, this quote:

 

This sink to the bottom was necessary to be successful in the future. Thats what almost every team has to go through to get back to the top.

 

Back to my point....

 

Span and Revere we're 20th and 28th, respectively, and were used to acquire pitching prospects that people are now excited about (Meyer was a #23 pick, btw). Gibson was 22nd. Hicks was 14th. So you don't need a bunch of top 5 picks to get good young talent. The Twins would have a formidable rebuild underway even if they didn't have Buxton. He does make it all that much sweeter, but he's just the most recent (and maybe most distant) piece.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't help to get early picks or that they're not valuable (that argument is from other posters), just that the argument that you need to be terrible to rebuild is false.

[launchingthrees]

"just that the argument that you need to be terrible to acquire good young talent is false"

 

Of course you don't "need" to be terrible to get some young talent. Could a team technically draft in the bottom half of the first round, have a 74m dollar payroll, and field a competitive team? Possibly, but it's unlikely based on quantifiable expected value. If they refuse to sign costly free-agents, don't draft in the top 5 then they will be likely be terrible forever.

 

Washington and Tampa Bay have done it the right way. Can you name any teams over the last 10 years with below average payrolls that have won consistently without rebuilding through the top of the draft?

[Mike Sixel]

The Cards keep shedding high priced players, and replacing them with guys they drafted. I can name a ton of teams with below average payrolls that have tried to build exclusively through the draft, and have stunk for more than a decade. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY. And even if there is, it likely involves using ALL paths to acquire players, not ignroing one of them.

[launchingthrees]

So you can't name a single team?

 

eh...St Louis has a 116m payroll this year and has kept an above average payroll for the last decade.

[Mike Sixel]

No, I'm just not going to spend hours scouring the internet to answer your question......I'm not that interested. Did you read the whole post, or just cherry pick the one part?

 

Are you certain drafting is the only way? You want to be Pittsburgh or KC or Seattle or Cleveland (who changed their path this year, and are better, weird how that worked)? You want to be Houston? Colorado?

[launchingthrees]

No, I'm just not going to spend hours scouring the internet to answer your question......I'm not that interested. Did you read the whole post, or just cherry pick the one part?

 

I'm simply asking you to give an example with a payroll comparable to the twins. If there are other ways there should be an example.

[Mike Sixel]

I never said that.

[launchingthrees]

I never said that.

 

Yeah you're right. edited.

 

And an example?

[Guest USAFChief]

May and Meyer were acquired by trading former 1st round picks who turned into good players. Either way, this isn't subjective. It's already been solved and getting the top pick will generate about 16 more wins than the 30th pick on average. Later round picks have little value

 

The baseball draft isn't subjective? It's been "solved??"

 

 

Huh. The things one learns at Fangraphs.

[launchingthrees]

The baseball draft isn't subjective? It's been "solved??"

 

 

Huh. The things one learns at Fangraphs.

 

Reread the exchange. Yes, the career WAR value of a given pick has essentially been solved. You won't see more work on it because the study was exhaustive and the confidence interval was high.

 

Also it's not a fangraphs original.

The Baseball Analysts: Draft Picks and Expected Wins Above Replacement

[Alex]

"just that the argument that you need to be terrible to acquire good young talent is false"

 

Of course you don't "need" to be terrible to get some young talent. Could a team technically draft in the bottom half of the first round, have a 74m dollar payroll, and field a competitive team? Possibly, but it's unlikely based on quantifiable expected value. If they refuse to sign costly free-agents, don't draft in the top 5 then they will be likely be terrible forever.

 

Washington and Tampa Bay have done it the right way. Can you name any teams over the last 10 years with below average payrolls that have won consistently without rebuilding through the top of the draft?

 

It's tough to have a team that consistently wins for 10 years regardless of how it's done, so the argument is a false one. Money isn't always the answer, but the Twins could certainly have more than they've been spending and can take multiple approaches.

 

I just gave you concrete examples of how the Twins have acquired top young talent without needing to tank, and they're the team I care about. At this rate, they could be back to competitive before Buxton and their 2013 pick are a factor.

[jokin]

No, I'm just not going to spend hours scouring the internet to answer your question......I'm not that interested. Did you read the whole post, or just cherry pick the one part?

 

Are you certain drafting is the only way? You want to be Pittsburgh or KC or Seattle or Cleveland (who changed their path this year, and are better, weird how that worked)? You want to be Houston? Colorado?

 

Some would term that response "rude". You are required to link everything, in triplicate...

[Mike Sixel]

Some would term that response "rude". You are required to link everything, in triplicate...

 

 

It wasn't meant as rude, but I can see how you might think that. My apologies. I'd like to some youtube video of someone apolgizing, but I'm at work, and blocked.....

[jokin]

May and Meyer were acquired by trading former 1st round picks who turned into good players. Either way, this isn't subjective. It's already been solved and getting the top pick will generate about 16 more wins than the 30th pick on average. 1)Later round picks have little value

 

Bottoming out for 2-3 years is now more than ever the optimal strategy for rebuilding.

The Changing Value of Draft Picks | FanGraphs Baseball

 

The first pick in any given draft is insanely valuable. The next few picks are pretty great too. It falls off in a hurry, though. When Sky Andrecheck (now with the Indians, by the way) did this analysis back in 2009, he had the #1 pick producing an average of +20 WAR, but the #10 pick was just at +6 WAR, while the #30 pick was only +4 WAR, and then every pick after that leveled off pretty substantially,

 

1)Evan Gattis and Dan Uggla would beg to differ (just to take the most recent opponent example).

 

2)This article doesn't necessarily show what you have been arguing, and supports my argument- the Twins 1st round draft picks were late in that round. The article is not talking about the round, but the number taken in the draft. And the teams that repeatedly draft in the top 5 picks are generally the same ones, year after year, only Tampa Bay and Washington have been able to escape from your "optimal strategy", and they still look years away from legitimately being considered World Series contenders- and which in real practice has led to year after year of futility for most of the others who choose to go that route. And the timing for the Twins- who have just moved into a new stadium based on the premise that Target Field will make them immediately a legit and continually competitive club against the big-market teams- in accepting the premise that they voluntarily tank for 4 years, would permanently damage the team's credibility down to Miami Marlins level.

[jokin]

It wasn't meant as rude, but I can see how you might think that. My apologies. I'd like to some youtube video of someone apolgizing, but I'm at work, and blocked.....

 

Mike, I was being entirely facetious, as I have been chastised for saying much the same thing.

[jokin]

I'm simply asking you to give an example with a payroll comparable to the twins. If there are other ways there should be an example.

 

 

I've given them on this very board.

[jokin]

Yes I did. Turns out you get a first rounder regardless of if you are bad or good provided you avoid signing a compensation eligible FA.The post I was referring to implied that being bad, and thus high draft picks (not just first round) were needed. In particular, this quote:

 

This sink to the bottom was necessary to be successful in the future. Thats what almost every team has to go through to get back to the top.

 

Back to my point....

 

Span and Revere we're 20th and 28th, respectively, and were used to acquire pitching prospects that people are now excited about (Meyer was a #23 pick, btw). Gibson was 22nd. Hicks was 14th. So you don't need a bunch of top 5 picks to get good young talent. The Twins would have a formidable rebuild underway even if they didn't have Buxton. He does make it all that much sweeter, but he's just the most recent (and maybe most distant) piece.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't help to get early picks or that they're not valuable (that argument is from other posters), just that the argument that you need to be terrible to rebuild is false.

 

"Almost every team"? When a person asks others to document his assertions, isn't it incumbent upon him to likewise show the "exhaustive" studies that "solved" that particular claim?

[Mike Sixel]

Mike, I was being entirely facetious, as I have been chastised for saying much the same thing.

 

 

So hard to "hear" humor on the interwebs....

[jokin]

So hard to "hear" humor on the interwebs....

 

I should have put a laughing smiley right after my "link in triplicate" remark.

[fairweather]

Look there was never any reason to believe that the Twins could maintain to hang around the .500 mark. There was never any reason to think of it as anything but a "hot start" for a really bad starting rotation. Getting Deduno, Gibson, and eventually DeVries in the rotation taking the spots of Hernandez, Worley, and eventually Pelfrey will make the team better. How much better? That is the question.

[fairweather]

Oh and the Ben Revere trade is looking really bad right now.

[snepp]

I should have put a laughing smiley right after my "link in triplicate" remark.

 

I would have gone with the deadpan smiley myself.