DOA At The Deadline

It would be similar to giving Dozier an extension after last season. Which few have called for but most have balked at.

Definitely not!  The Twins have ample replacements at 2B (and many more on other teams) to replace Dozier.  Plus, Dozier clearly stated that he wanted "to test free agency".  Starting pitching is a total open wound by comparison.  Question marks in house and hugely difficult to obtain from another team.

Except hindsight is the basis of their position.  Hughes at 90% of his "peak year" would have been a very good player to have.

Phil Hughes with the Yankees had a 95 ERA+, 4.31 FIP--and that included his one big year there when he pitched mostly out of the bullpen.

I know that some fans here had really talked themselves into Hughes when he first signed, so his first season was especially exciting because it made them look smart. "I said that he was a diamond in the rough, and, look, I was right!" It would've been prudent, though, for Terry Ryan to sell high or at least wait and see if Hughes could sustain that breakout success for another year. He already had Hughes signed for two more years, anyway. It didn't take hindsight to see this. You only had to look at his history to that point.

Of course, Terry Ryan rushed to pat himself on the back for his big find and gave Hughes a raise & an extension. And the next year, Hughes had a 92 ERA+, 4.70 FIP--just about what his track record in New York might have led anyone to expect. If Ryan just had enough sense to wait through that one season before making any further commitments on Hughes, the club wouldn't be stuck with a back-end starter struggling to come back from injury now.

Definitely not! The Twins have ample replacements at 2B (and many more on other teams) to replace Dozier. Plus, Dozier clearly stated that he wanted "to test free agency". Starting pitching is a total open wound by comparison. Question marks in house and hugely difficult to obtain from another team.

That's true. I was only speaking of extensions without regards to roster construction.

But that's not the point of a tear down. You don't hold on to veterans who have just had a career year, you move them to restock the system.

No one has to agree with a rebuild, but to do so entails trading vets at their peak.

Trading veterans after a "peak year" will accomplish the following:  Guarantee a continuous rebuild and make it nearly impossible to sign a quality veteran in the future.  Day trading isn't a strategy for building consistent winning teams.

Hoping they can sell on Kintzler, Garcia and Dozier.  I am torn on Santana.  Will he bring a big enough return back to make it worth trading him?  If not then just hang onto him until we have more competent starters in place.

By trading Santana we free up salary that could be spent on a similar, probably younger, possibly better free agent, especially if combined with other available budget funds. If you keep Santana, you have an aging starter that needs to pitch 200 inning to vest, yet again, for another season. It's a gamble if he will be better or worse. Is he the star of your rotation, or do you get something back for him, free up monies (yes, what do they do with any of the savings this year on anyone they possibly trade) and go big in 2018 or 2019.

Santana is a fine pitcher. He has a very decent contract. He should be able to play for his contract. But the chances are better than 50% that he will not get better at this point, but probably worse. 

No, refusing to trade veterans is how you extend the rebuild. You have it exactly backward, 

You're changing the story basis--again.  It not about NEVER trading, it's about specific trades, ergo Hughes after his peak season (or any other player after a big season).  Sure IF anybody knew Hughes' shoulder would be toast in a year--of course--but nobody knew that.  Regression? Often followed by a bounce back (two sides of the same coin!).  But even 90% of his peak, Hughes would be a huge bargain (and a necessity!) so trading him would be foolish. 

 People say Trade Santana.  I say for who?  if the Twins won't trade their meagre prospects for help--there is no way anyone else will trade potential stars for Santana.  Hell, Dozier could only fetch a throw-away pitching prospect!  If the Twins want to trade--they have to offer something that appears to be real value--Sano, Buxton and Kepler, Berrios.  Offering expensive, non-elite players isn't going to cut it.  All teams have placed super premiums on their top pitching prospects--if there even available at all!  A Santana wouldn't fetch as much as he is worth.

Baseball is decided in July and August. The Twins never had a team that was going to be able to grind through these months due to their pitching.

We had our fun and now it is time to be a realist again. Trade Santana, Dozier, and Garcia. If you can unload some others than do that too. It is time to wake up from this fantasy world were we put together just enough to hang in there until July baseball. We need to boost our farm system and hopefully in 2019 we have a team that can actually compete against teams with winning records.

Wonder of Kitlzer was unavaliable due to the fact he was part of a heavy trade discussion.  

I don't believe their drafting can be classified as "very good" when they've swung and missed at two pitchers drafted in the top six picks.

Nobody is going to have a 100% hit rate even in the top six.

They missed with Stewart but pick Gonsalves in the 4th (and Garver/Granite later). It could have been better but I am not unhappy about that draft.

Sure, no one hits with 100% accuracy but they essentially did the exact same thing two years later. I can't call their drafting "very good" at that point.

So you have two complaints but don't take into account the other successes?

Getting Berrios in supplemental round has been awesome. Hitting on a few lower round picks makes up for the two misses that you are focused on. I wouldn't rate their drafts as A+ but I think they are still in the very good range.

Sure, I take into account their success but when you get right down to it, this team has picked second, fourth, fifth, sixth, fifteenth, and first over the past six years.

 

And their pitching pipeline is, at best, mediocre. Once Berrios graduated, there were no pitching stars in the system behind him.

 

I simply cannot call that drafting "very good". They've done a pretty good job with hitting prospects but this rotation should be better than it is today and the guys in the high minors look like contributors but there aren't any eye-popping prospects in there. And a big reason for that gap in talent is because they missed badly on both Stewart and Jay.

 

Hit on just one of those guys and the MLB rotation looks a lot more promising than it does right now.

Very few teams can fill both their lineup and rotation just from the draft even if drafting high. They made some mistakes but every team does. I think your expectations for draft success are a little too high.

Please share your work. I'm skeptical but not trying to bait you. I'm honestly curious about your methodology.

I have not worked on it this year as I'm busy with a different project, so I can't tell you where the teams are rated right now... though I can calculate it later today if there is interest.

Here are the pieces:

Run Differential

Home W-L, home losses are penalized +20%, and home wins are further adjusted by home stadium park factors, multi-year v. current year.

Road W-L, road wins are boosted +20%.

Team hitting WAA, team pitching WAA, also adjusted by home park factors

The result goes into an algorithm that produces a normalized result (bell curve), with most teams in the 45-55 score range.  Good teams score over 55, very good teams over 60.  Great teams are in the 70-80 range.  As the season goes on and the sample size grows, teams get pulled to the middle of the scale.

Finally, to produce expected W-L records, the score is compared v. all baseball team W-L records since 1902.  The algorithm produces the answer to this question, "Past teams who had this score after X games had W-L record Y, but also finished with W-L record Z" using similar normalizing formula. We can then see if the team's current W-L record is performing to norms or not, and make a prediction as to where they will end up at the end of the year.

As I said, I haven't run this at all this year.  However, here's a write-up I did for a friend regarding the Cubs at the end of last year who was convinced his team was probably the top team in history.
 

In my system the Cubs finished with a score of 75.8.  This is ranked 59th and puts them in a tie with the 1917 Chicago White Sox.  This is in the top 3% of teams in baseball history.

 

This is the best score of a team that won a championship this century (since the 98 Yankees).  There have not been many dominant teams in our lifetime to win the WS:  09 Yankees, 02 Angels, 98 Yankees, 95 Braves, 86 Mets, 84 Tigers, 77 Yankees, 75-76 Reds, 70 Orioles.

 

Among teams which won championships, this team is ranked 30th, again tied with the 1917 White Sox.

The 1917 White Sox team is the best year of that franchise.  The Cubs have several years where they were better.  1906, 1907, 1909, 1910, 1935, 1929, 1945, though only the 1907 team has a championship.  The 1908 championship team has a score of 74.0 and the 1907 team has a score of 83.9.

I have not worked on it this year as I'm busy with a different project, so I can't tell you where the teams are rated right now... though I can calculate it later today if there is interest.

 

Here are the pieces:

 

Run Differential

Home W-L, home losses are penalized +20%, and home wins are further adjusted by home stadium park factors, multi-year v. current year.

Road W-L, road wins are boosted +20%.

Team hitting WAA, team pitching WAA, also adjusted by home park factors

 

The result goes into an algorithm that produces a normalized result (bell curve), with most teams in the 45-55 score range. Good teams score over 55, very good teams over 60. Great teams are in the 70-80 range. As the season goes on and the sample size grows, teams get pulled to the middle of the scale.

 

Finally, to produce expected W-L records, the score is compared v. all baseball team W-L records since 1902. The algorithm produces the answer to this question, "Past teams who had this score after X games had W-L record Y, but also finished with W-L record Z" using similar normalizing formula. We can then see if the team's current W-L record is performing to norms or not, and make a prediction as to where they will end up at the end of the year.

 

As I said, I haven't run this at all this year. However, here's a write-up I did for a friend regarding the Cubs at the end of last year who was convinced his team was probably the top team in history.

 

I would be interested to see this in a new thread on other baseball if you are so inclined.

I would be interested to see this in a new thread on other baseball if you are so inclined.

I should add that it's a closed system / zero sum system. The total # of points in the pool will always be the same.

Are they, though? The Twins picked sixth or higher four times (not including the 2017 draft) and have yet to produce a league average starter (either positional or pitching) from those picks. Gordon has a chance to become that guy and while Buxton *should* be better than he is right now, he's... not.

 

I'm not even saying the Twins have drafted badly, as they've acquired some nice pieces further down the draft board but their first round picks have been mostly underwhelming, which is a problem when you're picking at the top of the draft on a regular basis.

Why only exclude 2017? Are you expecting the other picks to have already produced a league average starter (your measuring stick above)? Like I said before, your expectations seem to high.

Jay has moved back to the bullpen. Stewart continues to post pedestrian peripherals. The likelihood that either will be a significant contributor to the rotation is approaching zero.

 

That leaves Buxton (an immense disappointment thus far), Gordon (something of a bright spot this season), and Kiriloff (injured).

 

Are we really arguing that those are good results? Because they look pretty disappointing to me. Four consecutive top six picks and the Twins haven't gotten league average starter performance out of any of them yet, with two of them looking as if that's incredibly unlikely at this point in their careers.

The best option when Stewart was drafted would have been to lowball so bad that you were not disappointed in the results had he signed or not signed and had a better pick the next year. I don't know if many people would have come up with that . Aaron Judge thus far is the steal of the draft but not many ranking boards had him that high.

  But even 90% of his peak, Hughes would be a huge bargain (and a necessity!) so trading him would be foolish. 

What about Hughes' track record would lead anyone to expect that he should've sustained 90% of his peak through the next four years, or even one more year?

And what made him such a necessity? Even in that career year with the crazy K/BB ratio, he had a 3.52 ERA, 111 ERA+. Good, but not an ace. And after winning 70 games that year, it's not like the rest of the team looked to be on the verge of becoming a serious contender soon. The 2014 rotation after Hughes was Gibson, Nolasco, Correia, Pino, Deduno, etc. Pretty poor, and not much depth to build on. Meanwhile, the offense built around Mauer-Plouffe-Dozier was average that year. Maybe you could dream of the lineup getting better as Santana-Vargas-Arcia-Hicks matured and Sano-Buxton-Rosario were ready to come up--but then all the more reason to sell high on some veteran assets in preparation for when that day might come in 2017-18.

Of course they never did commit to a full rebuild/youth movement. They acted like giving extensions to Perkins and Hughes, and signing a few more mid-market free agent pitchers, was key to their future. And here we are.

Jay has moved back to the bullpen. Stewart continues to post pedestrian peripherals. The likelihood that either will be a significant contributor to the rotation is approaching zero.

 

That leaves Buxton (an immense disappointment thus far), Gordon (something of a bright spot this season), and Kiriloff (injured).

 

Are we really arguing that those are good results? Because they look pretty disappointing to me. Four consecutive top six picks and the Twins haven't gotten league average starter performance out of any of them yet, with two of them looking as if that's incredibly unlikely at this point in their careers.

So you ignore the other picks made? Those are draft picks also.

Seriously, it feels like you're trolling me right now. I'm just going to copy and paste the second paragraph from two posts ago:

 

"I'm not even saying the Twins have drafted badly, as they've acquired some nice pieces further down the draft board but their first round picks have been mostly underwhelming, which is a problem when you're picking at the top of the draft on a regular basis."

exactly