Article: Moving Goalposts

[JB_Iowa]

Agree, it sounds like they tried to spend. But, it's awfully tough convincing players to come to Minnesota after the last 2 winters

 

I don't want to be snarky but what do the winters have to do with it? How many players actually spend their offseason in the city where they play?

 

I get that there are challenges in bringing players to Minnesota. But are the Twins Cities that much more unattractive, for example, than Detroit? $$$$$ speaks.

[Riverbrian]

In my eyes, there is a plan D and F for most positions (ironically, other than SP) this year. Let's hope for a nice change in luck and performance this year (or more like Dozier)......

 

At first I thought you skipped Plan E... (time went by)... light bulb went off... I figured it out.

 

LOL... Sometimes it takes me a little while.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, but the Twins do. All things considered, they do not like to hire people for long-term deals when they have as good or better options a year or two down the road. And short-term options might give you a year or two above replcement level. But rarely do they make enough of a difference to be worth it.

 

So what was that whole paragraph of yours about free agents considering the "scale of opportunity"? Are you conceding that it's probably a pretty negligible factor after all, especially when the internal guys expected to "occupy" several of our positions haven't played above A-ball yet?

 

EDIT TO ADD: Also, conveniently, you just provided blanket reasons to basically never sign long-term OR short-term free agents. Unless you are historically bad at a position for several years (rotation) and your fill-in options are further away than, what, Single-A? Why did we sign Nolasco for 4+ years? We're going to need that spot for Berrios, Stewart, and Thorpe, right?

[Riverbrian]

 

I'd like to believe they don't think the entire fan base are complete morons so for now I'm giving them a pass on #1.

 

 

I don't think they think the entire fan base are complete morons... But I think they read Twins Daily and chuckle from time to time.

 

Where this front office fits into the rankings of the other front offices is impossible to know and a worthy discussion from the sidelines.

 

However... they are still baseball professionals who are exposed to every nuance that most of us are miles from. Moron's they are not.

 

It is almost impossible for a staff that large that has been working in the industry for as long as they have... to be made up entirely of baseball moron's.

[Winston Smith]

Actually, money cures most things. If they had offered A LOT MORE money to AJ, he probably would have come here. Not certainly, but probably......like, they have another 20million or so they could spend, if they offered AJ $5MM more, you think he would have said no?

 

Don't kid yourself, look where players sign. They sign for money first, winning second (or third, after location).

 

A couple years ago on the MLB Network a group of ex-players were talking about where free agents might sign. They said to a man that nearly all players will sign where they get the most money. These were ex-players, not bloggers or scribs, but guys that had gone thru the process themselves.

So when I see the "we can't give the money away" I think it's not because of the weather or the record or anything other than they didn't offer enough compared to the market.

[cmathewson]

In my opinion... The Front office probably has a plan B and a Plan C for CF and 3B.

 

With my eyes... it appears that we have no plan B for CF or 3B.

 

All eggs seem to be in the Hicks and Plouffe basket and that leaves me uneasy considering how Hicks and Plouffe performed in 2013.

 

I'm more concerned about third than center. If Hicks bombs again (which I think is unlikely), they have Presley and Mastro, two replacement-level players. If Plouffe bombs (something that is more likely, considering he's 20 months from success), you have Romero, who is below replacement level.

[Riverbrian]

I'm more concerned about third than center. If Hicks bombs again (which I think is unlikely), they have Presley and Mastro, two replacement-level players. If Plouffe bombs (something that is more likely, considering he's 20 months from success), you have Romero, who is below replacement level.

 

I feel the same.

 

Although... I hope Plouffe Bombs a lot... About 30 of them total. That would be nice.

[Mike Sixel]

btw, do people feel the goal posts have been moved back a year or two? Are they really now looking at 2017 to be good? Or are people contending, like they did last year, that they'll be contending in 2015 or 16 at the latest?

[cmathewson]

So what was that whole paragraph of yours about free agents considering the "scale of opportunity"? Are you conceding that it's probably a pretty negligible factor after all, especially when the internal guys expected to "occupy" several of our positions haven't played above A-ball yet?

 

EDIT TO ADD: Also, conveniently, you just provided blanket reasons to basically never sign long-term OR short-term free agents. Unless you are historically bad at a position for several years (rotation) and your fill-in options are further away than, what, Single-A? Why did we sign Nolasco for 4+ years? We're going to need that spot for Berrios, Stewart, and Thorpe, right?

 

Dollars and years. Those are the most important things. Most players are willing to sacrifice dollars for security. Some aren't. The Twins didn't want Garza for more than three years, in part because they have guys like Berrios and they had already signed Nolasco. Rumor has it, they offered much the same deal to both, and Nolasco took it. They kept after Garza, but at more dollars per year and fewer years. He took more years from Milwaukee.

 

I don't believe my statement is a blanket. It is just a set of criteria that make it unlikely that they will sign guys. The fact is they did sign Nolasco and Hughes to long-term deals because they were thin in the upper minors in pitching and it takes a couple of years for most pitchers to be successful at the majors. So they needed those guys. They didn't sign Drew, in part, because he was only going to provide short-term help at a position that should have better options next year. Either Santana takes a step forward, or they can get someone from outside who is better than Drew. It was kind of a push and I'm on the fence about it myself.

 

For what it's worth, I think they should go out and get Morales today, and damn the draft pick. Given what I am hearing from the FO, they just might do it.

[cmathewson]

btw, do people feel the goal posts have been moved back a year or two? Are they really now looking at 2017 to be good? Or are people contending, like they did last year, that they'll be contending in 2015 or 16 at the latest?

 

If I had to (wildly) project right now:

 

2014: 78-84

2015: 81-81

2016: 92-70

2017: 95-67

[Mike Sixel]

the list of SS next year....

 

Shortstops

Mike Aviles (34) - $3.5MM club option with a $250k buyout

Asdrubal Cabrera (29)

Yunel Escobar (32) - $5MM club option

Rafael Furcal (37)

Alex Gonzalez (37)

Tyler Greene (31)

J.J. Hardy (32)

Jed Lowrie (31)

John McDonald (40)

Hiroyuki Nakajima (32) - $5.5MM club option with a $500K buyout

Nick Punto (37) - club/vesting option

Hanley Ramirez (31)

Jimmy Rollins (36) - vesting/club/player option

[Mike Sixel]

In glancing quickly at the FA next year.....it looks pretty ugly up and down the position player list, but maybe I'm missing something.....

[Boom Boom]

No, but the Twins do. All things considered, they do not like to hire people for long-term deals when they have as good or better options a year or two down the road. And short-term options might give you a year or two above replcement level. But rarely do they make enough of a difference to be worth it.

 

If this is true, I disagree with the approach. If a prospect comes up that's blocked by a free agent acquisition, you make a trade. Maybe you don't get the value you're looking for in the trade, but in the meantime it makes a better team.

[S.]

By that logic, we should never sign a player at any position where we have a halfway decent prospect in AA or AAA. That also seems to be assuming every prospect who is good in the minors is going to successfully transition to the majors and not suffer any injuries or experience any other delays or set backs.

 

If they don't like long term deals, and short term deals aren't worth it, what exactly are they supposed to do besides pray they don't turn into the Houston Astros? And quite frankly, we're not too many injuries away from that.

[Guest USAFChief]

If this is true, I disagree with the approach. If a prospect comes up that's blocked by a free agent acquisition, you make a trade. Maybe you don't get the value you're looking for in the trade, but in the meantime it makes a better team.

Concur. I've said this before, but will repeat it here...IMO it's very poor GM'ing to make current MLB roster decisions based on what you think you might have in a couple years.

[bird]

This is pretty much my feeling on the whole issue. I'm frustrated by their singular approach and easy willingness to sell the future, when they have the opportunity to pursue both that and continue to improve the product they are selling in the present. It's costing this team more than it needs to in the short term.

 

But I'll continue to watch, take my kids, spend all my money and hope for the best every game despite it all.

 

I respect the viewpoint and understand the frustration. I also recognize we're beating a dead horse most likely. But I think the primary distinction is about what goals we have as fans versus what the organization has established as reasonable goals and a reasonable timetable. I really think Ryan and company are looking at a 25-win problem, guys. We as fans tend to wrestle around about 2WAR decisions. They spent $84M to rectify a horrible pitching situation, and yet we're debating as to whether we'll see 68 wins or 72 wins this year. So sure, if they signed Cruz, Morales, Drew, or whomever, and spent another $84M, would we be looking at contending? And at what future cost? So sure, their needs matched the available talent, but to what end? 82 wins? And I totally disagree that they're taking a singular approach. They're taking action internationally, through the draft, though FA, and to a much lesser extent for what should be the obvious reason that they lack trade chips still, through trades. And as for the notion that they're selling the future? First, we are not witnessing the Twins pounding their chest out there. They've been pretty forthright and humble about the situation if we're looking at this fairly, IMO. Second, what else would you sell if really about all you had to sell was the future? I think they're fully aware of the short-term hit they're going to take, revenue-wise.

[Nick Nelson]

Concur. I've said this before, but will repeat it here...IMO it's very poor GM'ing to make current MLB roster decisions based on what you think you might have in a couple years.

 

Yeah, that was pretty much the overarching point of the article. People can get so caught up in prospect hype, especially with this farm system, that you start to look at these guys as sure things and planning around their impact. But as the TJ surgeries for Gibson & Sano, and the shoulder ailment that plagued Meyer last year, and the drama surrounding Rosario, and the (scary but hopefully minor) injury now hampering Buxton, all go go to show, there are a lot of factors playing into the development and arrival of those prospects. So if you're pinning your hopes solely on the future, you can get caught up in a long and dreadful cycle. Just ask the Royals.

[cmathewson]

If this is true, I disagree with the approach. If a prospect comes up that's blocked by a free agent acquisition, you make a trade. Maybe you don't get the value you're looking for in the trade, but in the meantime it makes a better team.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. You can't always trade people. And, as we have discussed in numerous threads, managers tend to favor veterans. I could cite a half dozen cases in which the better player was blocked by the veteran. The two most egregious are Castro/Bartlett and Bautista/Cuddyer. But there were many others. It leads to worse teams, not better. I don't care about dollars. I want that "clear path to the majors" (to use Antony's phrase) for the best players.

 

Maybe it's bad GMing. But it has ever been that way for the Twins.

[Boom Boom]

We'll have to agree to disagree. You can't always trade people. And, as we have discussed in numerous threads, managers tend to favor veterans. I could cite a half dozen cases in which the better player was blocked by the veteran. The two most egregious are Castro/Bartlett and Bautista/Cuddyer. But there were many others. It leads to worse teams, not better. I don't care about dollars. I want that "clear path to the majors" (to use Antony's phrase) for the best players.

 

Maybe it's bad GMing. But it has ever been that way for the Twins.

 

I don't think we're disagreeing about the same thing.

 

Castro and Batista were never major free agent acquisitions. They were fliers on journeyman players with a hope and a prayer that they'd make an impact. If the Twins would have signed better players than them, I'd have no problem with keeping Bartlett in the minors and Punto on the bench.

[bird]

Well last time I checked, Ryan, Anthony, and the rest of the FO personnel are paid to do a job, and paid quite handsomely.

 

I don't know how things work at your job, but I know at my job (and most), I don't get a whole lot of credit for "trying". I get paid for results, and results only.

 

Perhaps if the members of the FO can't figure out a way to sell their team to free agents, they should be replaced with someone who can.

 

But not every job is the same, Mr. Brooks. I can tell you that at every job I had since I was 20 years old, my bosses, shareholders, and loyal customers did not expect immediate results. But they sure wanted progress reports.

[bird]

Free agents who are good enough to look for long term deals aren't worried about prospects behind them.

 

You don't think players and their agents do a critical analysis of an opportunity with massive career ramification?

[bird]

And you wonder why some of us look like pessimists compared to you?

 

The Twins would basically have to go something like 7-for-8 in converting their closest position player and starting pitcher prospects into MLB starters by 2016 in order for this to be true.

 

As good as the farm system is, that would take an incredible amount of luck, particularly when only one of the prospects in question (Pinto) has appeared above AA, and in fact only 3-4 other key prospects have even played at the AA level so far.

 

I'm pretty sure MLB free agents aren't counting on that (particularly those signing 1 to 3 year deals, which is the vast majority), and I hope that kind of outlook isn't driving our MLB-level decision-making either.

 

spycake, I gotta call you on the 7 for 8 thing. Studies have been done. Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Stewart have a beter than 75% shot. If, as appears quite likely, we draft a stud college pitcher, he goes in the same category and 2016 isn't out of the question. At this juncture, will you concede that among Arcia, Pinto, Hicks,Gibson, and Tonkin, we can go 3 for 5? And then, there is a group, maybe a half dozen or so, of at 50/50 and an equal number at about 25%.

 

Plouffe and Parmelee were 25% types. We might have 20 prospects more highly regarded than they were in AA.

 

FA's will regard the Twins as a viable option soon.

 

And yes, I DO wonder why some of you look like pessimists compared to cmath.

[S.]

Studies have been done. Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Stewart have a beter than 75% shot.

Gonna need a source on that one.

 

Does this mean better than a 75% shot to ever make a Major League roster? Better than a 75% shot to be the superstars we all hope they'll be? Better than 75% shot to be above replacement level?

[bird]

I'm with Mr. Brooks. It isn't the FO job to try to make the team better, it is their job to make it better. Two years ago, I was told to quit being so pessimistic, that 2014 would be better. Last year I was told to be patient, that next year or 2015 would be better. Now people are saying 2016 or 2017 will be better. It's fine if some of you are happy about that. It's fine if some people will pay serious money to watch a terrible product because they love baseball. But its also fine if some of us don't.

 

mikey, mikey, TRUST me, 2014 WILL be better.

[bird]

At this point I think the backup plan is for the PR department to buy more lipstick!

 

 

What PR department. If there's any area of the business at which the Twins are completely inept, it's in doing PR.

[bird]

btw, do people feel the goal posts have been moved back a year or two? Are they really now looking at 2017 to be good? Or are people contending, like they did last year, that they'll be contending in 2015 or 16 at the latest?

 

you know my vote...

A .500 type team and improving in 2015, along with KC, while Detroit hits the skids and the other two remain "competitive".

[Otto von Ballpark]

spycake, I gotta call you on the 7 for 8 thing. Studies have been done. Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Stewart have a beter than 75% shot. If, as appears quite likely, we draft a stud college pitcher, he goes in the same category and 2016 isn't out of the question. At this juncture, will you concede that among Arcia, Pinto, Hicks,Gibson, and Tonkin, we can go 3 for 5? And then, there is a group, maybe a half dozen or so, of at 50/50 and an equal number at about 25%.

 

75% shot of what, exactly?

 

And you're already counting an as-yet-undrafted guy?

 

I just eyeballed the top of this consensus prospect list, tossed out the rookie leaguers and Polanco, and added recent grads Pinto, Hicks, and Gibson I guess:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/11/5492448/2014-minnesota-twins-consensus-top-61-prospects

 

That's nine "top" prospects.

 

As of now, the Twins basically have about 7 of 9 lineup spots, and 3 of 5 rotation spots, unclaimed for 2016. (And that's being pretty generous to Mauer, Dozier, Nolasco, and Hughes). That's 10 starting positions to fill.

 

Looking at it closer, I guess that means we'd have to go 9 for our top 9. And SS would still be open.

 

I hope to goodness that this kind of projecting isn't a driving force behind our FA decision making.

[Otto von Ballpark]

We'll have to agree to disagree. You can't always trade people. And, as we have discussed in numerous threads, managers tend to favor veterans. I could cite a half dozen cases in which the better player was blocked by the veteran. The two most egregious are Castro/Bartlett and Bautista/Cuddyer. But there were many others. It leads to worse teams, not better. I don't care about dollars. I want that "clear path to the majors" (to use Antony's phrase) for the best players.

 

Maybe it's bad GMing. But it has ever been that way for the Twins.

 

You can almost always trade people if you are willing to eat salary.

 

And if you are paying them peanuts on short term deals like Castro and Batista, you don't even have to trade them, you can just cut them.

 

And Batista didn't really block Cuddyer -- they had already moved Cuddy off third.

 

If you want to cite more cases, go ahead. If these are your most egregious, I don't think it's that big of an issue.

[bird]

Gonna need a source on that one.

 

Does this mean better than a 75% shot to ever make a Major League roster? Better than a 75% shot to be the superstars we all hope they'll be? Better than 75% shot to be above replacement level?

 

Can't give you the exact info, but I'm sure others can. I recall BA as being one source, maybe BPro another. The gist in one was tiering the draft, and finding that Players drafted #'s 1-10 were at 75%, 11-20 at just under 50%, and 21-30 a ways below 25%. A second focused on an historical review of past BA Top 100, with breakdowns. I'm basing part of my own optimism on placing 10 prospects still with us on various Top 100 lists over the last two years, all ranked higher than #52 on at least one list, and none of them were named Thorpe, Kepler, Tonkin, May, Santana,Melotakis, Harrison, Polanco, Goodrum, Walker, Jorge, or Gonsalves, all of whom have made somebody's Top 10 Twins prospect list. Add our #5 pick to my reasons for optimism....not immediate wins...optimism.

[bird]

I believe one of the studies looked at 2WAR as its threshhold, but don't recall specifics.