Article: Royals Present a Note of Prospect Caution

[Nick Nelson]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1978-Royals-Present-a-Note-of-Prospect-Caution

[Mike Sixel]

Prospects are prospects, and have not proven much of anything........it is one reason that sometimes you should trade them for proven, legit, MLB players. I'm not suggesting trading Sano or Buxton, I'm saying that sometimes you should give up a top prospect for a proven player(s). that's one way you close gaps.

[old nurse]

Before the 2011 season Moustkas had already played at the AAA level, Hosmer at the AA level. Sano had not played above A ball, Buxton rookie to get similar ratings. That is a big difference when you compare and contrast them. The year before Moustakas was at 80 and Hosmer was not in the top 100 (apolgies if I missed) when they were playing near the same level of ball as Buxton and Sano.

BA has pretty good luck projecting good players at 8, 9, and 10. The last player before the KC duo to not preform as well as expected was 2008 Franklin Morales

[Nick Nelson]

Before the 2011 season Moustkas had already played at the AAA level, Hosmer at the AA level. Sano had not played above A ball, Buxton rookie to get similar ratings. That is a big difference when you compare and contrast them. The year before Moustakas was 80 and Hosmer was not in the top 100 (apolgies if I missed) when they were playing near the same level of ball as Buxton and Sano.

That's true. But at the same time, the fact that Hosmer & Moustakas had succeeded at higher levels made them relatively safer bets, right?

[Mave]

That's true. But at the same time, the fact that Hosmer & Moustakas had succeeded at higher levels made them relatively safer bets, right?

Not only that but Moustakas was drafted 2nd overall and Hosmer was taken 3rd the very next year... That and the upper level success should have made them safer bets. But then again, they are called "prospects" for a reason.

[TheLeviathan]

This blog expanded something I've been pointing out recently to some. We can't think of these players as certainties. A lot of the chatter on the forums lately has seemed awfully certain of future success.

[Winston Smith]

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there." Yogi

 

Kind of sums what happens with prospects because a lot them don't get where we had hoped.

[howieramone1406390264]

Good article Nick. I was kind of wondering when someone would bring Kansas City up. I don't remember the details but BA made a big deal of the record number of prospects the Royals had in their top 100 with several in the top 10 several years ago. Like the OP said, prospects are just prospects. If one wants to take a down and dirty look at the Twins future, Buxton, Stewart, and next year's pick, maybe as good of indication as any. Did I remember to say very timely choice for your article?

[Joe A. Preusser]

This blog expanded something I've been pointing out recently to some. We can't think of these players as certainties. A lot of the chatter on the forums lately has seemed awfully certain of future success.

 

Good point. I too feel our future success is all but gaurenteed. It is not only likely but almost certain that some of our prospects will fail. But the sheer number of quality arms and bats in our system ensure that enough will make it to make our MLB team very strong in the near future. That is where my confidence lies, not in assuming everyone will pan out to All-Star level.

[Guest USAFChief]

Prospects are prospects, and have not proven much of anything........it is one reason that sometimes you should trade them for proven, legit, MLB players. I'm not suggesting trading Sano or Buxton, I'm saying that sometimes you should give up a top prospect for a proven player(s). that's one way you close gaps.

 

And also a reason to be very careful about trading proven major league talent for unproven minor league lotto tickets.

 

Something to keep in mind amidst all the "trade Perkins/Willinghame/Morneau/Doumit/XXX now!" demands.

[AScheib50]

It is true the Royals have had a bad run with their prospects. Some of their draft choices have been big misses ie: Luke Hochevar...

 

It's easy to look at them and get nervous about our future. But what about using the Cardinals as a barometer? They have loads of prospects coming up right now, too. And they are a perennial contenders. They've often done so with the help of young guys coming up and playing well.

[TheLeviathan]

Good point. I too feel our future success is all but gaurenteed. It is not only likely but almost certain that some of our prospects will fail. But the sheer number of quality arms and bats in our system ensure that enough will make it to make our MLB team very strong in the near future. That is where my confidence lies, not in assuming everyone will pan out to All-Star level.

 

I'm not sure we have any more depth than they did then.

 

I think the caution has to be carefully worded - I'm excited about the potential of our future, but wary to plan on it. When we hear a lot of people talking about how we spend our money or what we do in the offseason, it's always about "WHEN we get good" rather than "IF". As if we should wait because this certainty is around the corner.

 

There is no certainty around the corner, rather we should be preparing for it actively. Prepare for the best, but don't plan on it. Maybe that's the best way I can say it succinctly.

[old nurse]

That's true. But at the same time, the fact that Hosmer & Moustakas had succeeded at higher levels made them relatively safer bets, right?

As pitchers learn what you don't do the batter has to adjust to what the pitcher throws. Hosmer and Moustakas have to adjust as well.

As the Royals became a lot more relevant it became more important for the pitchers to be more careful with what they throw. The difference in ERA for the starting pitchers for the Royals might be near 2 runs. Pitching against the Royals you have to pitch better because you are not going to score as many runs. The playing to the level of your opponent may be a factor.

[jokin]

It is true the Royals have had a bad run with their prospects. Some of their draft choices have been big misses ie: Luke Hochevar...

 

It's easy to look at them and get nervous about our future. But what about using the Cardinals as a barometer? They have loads of prospects coming up right now, too. And they are a perennial contenders. They've often done so with the help of young guys coming up and playing well.

 

And the Braves...

And the Rays...

And the Red Sox...

And the Rangers...

And the Giants...

 

Being smart and not stupid about who you pick and how they are developed and profiling what those teams are doing right is a more illuminating cautionary tale in telling the Twins to get off the Schneid, already..... as opposed to KC Royals scare tactics. These teams draft and develop talent with a consistently smart and comprehensive plan and aren't overly dependent on getting top 5 picks year after year like KC.

[old nurse]

Baseball Prospectus | Future Shock: Organizational Rankings, Part 2

2010 Baseball prospectus had KC rated at 10, the Twins at 8 in rating the team's prospects overall

[cmb0252]

And also a reason to be very careful about trading proven major league talent for unproven minor league lotto tickets.

 

Something to keep in mind amidst all the "trade Perkins/Willinghame/Morneau/Doumit/XXX now!" demands.

 

When did major league talent become so proven? Capps, Liriano, Mauer, Morny, Willingham, and every other big leaguer not named Mcab or Pujols has up and down years. While prospects do have a high bust rate and don't always make it to bigs they are at least cheap. How often do we see players fade after signing a big contract which cripples a team financially? The answer is a lot.

 

While I agree comparing the Royals "historic" group of prospects a few years ago to the Twins current group is a good cautionary tale but let's not kid ourselves that the Royals problems has only come from specs not working out. Their front office has made just as many, if not more, bad calls with big league signings. The Twins are not the Royals.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think the most important thing we can take away from Kansas City's situation is that it's really freakin dumb to trade away a AAA masher for a pitcher before you find out if your other young mashers can actually mash the ball.

 

Can't hit homers, eh? Well, there's a young kid in Tampa who could have helped a bit with that. After all, he already has two homers in 42 PAs.

[howieramone1406390264]

I think the thing you learn is how difficult it is to be a GM. At the time of the trade, opinions were no worse than evenly split. There is pressure to produce immediately in Kansas City, which at this point in time we are immune to.

[Mave]

I saw something pop up on Twitter a while back, "Little League 2 million players, High School 455,00 players, College 25,000 players, Drafted 1,500 players, MLB 750 It isn't easy. " Numbers aside, it does reverberate the big point brought up here. Nothing is guaranteed until players/"prospects" consistently perform on the big stage.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think the thing you learn is how difficult it is to be a GM. At the time of the trade, opinions were no worse than evenly split. There is pressure to produce immediately in Kansas City, which at this point in time we are immune to.

 

I thought the trade was awful. You let your young kids break out and then you go pick up a "final piece". You don't pick up a guy in his prime that you'll have for only a couple of years and cross your fingers that the young players will break out. Doubly so if you have to trade one of those young guys to pick up that in-his-prime player, thereby reducing the number of failures you're allowed to have and still succeed as a whole.

 

The Royals have the bulk of their young players for 4+ more years. What's the rush? You get your own house in order and then you upgrade. It's not a difficult concept.

[Kwak]

"Final piece?" How would anybody know if they have 'the final piece"? I think it make sense to think like a collector of fine art--you acquire pieces that fit, when they become available. Case in point. I read an article today about "trading dealine players"--guys that will become free agents at the end of the season. One name was Matt Garza. A guessimated price of $15-16MM per season was stated--guessimated! It is clear the Twins need several replacements in their rotation. Garza was the only pitcher named either! My point is that a significant improvement in the rotation is needed, not all "prospects" will succeed (point of this thread) and this off-season there will be some very "useful pieces" available--it would be folly to think that all needed "pieces" can be acquired in one season.

[Thegrin]

Ask yourself this... Would you trade Plouffe straight up for Moustakas ? Would you trade Morneau for Hosmer ? or would we take Hosmer for Parmalee and Colabello ? Maybe the Twins aren't so bad after all?

[Brock Beauchamp]

"Final piece?" How would anybody know if they have 'the final piece"? I think it make sense to think like a collector of fine art--you acquire pieces that fit, when they become available. Case in point. I read an article today about "trading dealine players"--guys that will become free agents at the end of the season. One name was Matt Garza. A guessimated price of $15-16MM per season was stated--guessimated! It is clear the Twins need several replacements in their rotation. Garza was the only pitcher named either! My point is that a significant improvement in the rotation is needed, not all "prospects" will succeed (point of this thread) and this off-season there will be some very "useful pieces" available--it would be folly to think that all needed "pieces" can be acquired in one season.

 

Are you responding to me?

 

If so, what do the Royals trading away prospects have to do with the Twins acquiring a free agent like Matt Garza?

 

And the simple reason why you shouldn't trade prospects for established players before you're competitive is cost and window; established players cost more money and you don't get them for six years. Again, look at the Royals. They jumped the gun without making certain that their offensive prospects were ready, traded off a piece that could help them for six years, and they lose Shields after next season. This Shields trade could have single-handedly dismantled the potential of one of the best farm systems in the past 20 years because the GM got impatient.

[Seth Stohs]

Very important article, and a great reminder of what prospects are. Kyle Gibson once told me when I asked him what it was like to be the Twins top prospect, "It's a nice honor, but all it really means is that I haven't done anything yet." It's certainly not unusual for a Top prospect not to become a star. Some barely become regulars. But the nice part is that there are often players who are no highly ranked who do become long-time regulars.

[jorgenswest]

Lots of risk in baseball.

 

Sign guys over 30 and watch them decline. Give any pitcher a long term deal and see them lose a season to injury.

 

Developing talent and retaining control of those players through arbitration is essential to sustained success. The a twins have both depth and top end talent. It is an encouraging position.

 

That doesn't mean that those players won't struggle together before putting it together. The 1986 Twins took a step back before a pretty good 5 year run when the key players entered their primes. Hrbek and Gaetti were 27 and 28 at the beginning of that 5 year run. Hosmer and Moustakas are 23 and 24. Will the a Royals have enough patience?

[troyhobbs]

Lots of good points but having multiple top 10 prospects in your system is better than not having any.

[Riverbrian]

 

Developing talent and retaining control of those players through arbitration is essential to sustained success. The a twins have both depth and top end talent. It is an encouraging position.

 

I agree with this paragraph 100 percent. Long term success can only be built with a productive farm.

[Kwak]

I don't follow the Royals (nor really care to follow them). Yes, there is risk in longer term contracts--there is different type of risk in limiting the team to two-year contracts too! But then we need to pull way back to answering the question: "What are we trying to do?"

Unless that question is closely defined we are likely talking to cross purposes. Consider the 2011/12 off-season where Willingham, Doumit, Carroll, and Marquis were signed. I think the answer is simple--just make the team palatable until younger, and better, players are acquired--as opposed to building a team for the future. The lowest cost option (eg. Houston and Florida) wasn't adopted for a reason. A higher cost option of obtaining one young star and paying him free agent salary, was also not adopted. What was the Royals plan?--I don't know, it seems like a hybrid of what the Twins did before the '12 season, and the "higher cost option" I wrote above. Admittedly, it is more expensive than the Twins plan, but it does show a committment by the Royals to their fans that status quo was unacceptable and a better team needed to be put on the field.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What was the Royals plan?--I don't know, it seems like a hybrid of what the Twins did before the '12 season, and the "higher cost option" I wrote above. Admittedly, it is more expensive than the Twins plan, but it does show a committment by the Royals to their fans that status quo was unacceptable and a better team needed to be put on the field.

 

Winning trumps all and it looks like there's a good chance that Moore just blew the Royals' shot at winning. Unless they pull it together in 2014, their window could slam shut.

 

No matter how you look at it, taking a 3-4 year window, gambling with a prospect, and reducing that window to 1-2 years is a pretty sketchy idea.

 

So I'll take a patient route over impatience, bad decisions, and grandstanding.

 

An addendum: this does not excuse the Twins from spending money. They could easily be chasing 1-3 year contracts without hurting their future one bit.

[howieramone1406390264]

IMO one could even speculate they once again changed their 5 year plan after 3 years.