Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

  • Falvey, Levine Well-Suited To Solve Roster Riddles

    Tom Froemming

    By Tom Froemming

    Among the challenges that puzzled the 2016 Twins was putting the optimal defensive lineup on the field. Derek Falvey and company likely will be facing similar challenges next season. Is there any reason to be confident those issues will be resolved in 2017? Based on how we've seen the Cleveland Indians lineup evolve the past few seasons, I think so.

    The Twins ranked 12th in baseball in home runs, 13th in OPS, scored the 16th most runs. So while there's always room for improvement, hitting is far from the team's biggest concern. The defense, on the other hand, desperately needs to improve after the Twins ranked 29th in Defensive Runs Above Average. Improving the team may not require a complete overhaul, but rather just shifting a few pieces.

    Image courtesy of Ken Blaze, USA Today

    Twins Video

    But Twins fans know all too well that can be a dangerous game to play. Miguel Sano to the outfield was a disaster. Luckily, Falvey knows how dangerous that can be, as well.

    Falvey's first-hand experience with Carlos Santana should be particularly valuable in concern to trying to resolve some of the Twins' issues. For the first four years of his career, Santana was primarily a catcher. Then Cleveland asked him to do some strange things in 2014, having him learn third base in spring training while still catching sparingly. Santana got off to a terrible start and suffered a concussion in June. That led Cleveland to use Santana strictly as a 1B/DH from there forward.

    It also took a few seasons for Cleveland to find defensive homes for Jose Ramirez and Lonnie Chisenhall. Both players have filled unexpected needs this season. Had Juan Uribe panned out at third base and Michael Brantley been healthy who knows what would have happened with Ramirez and Chisenhall. But even when those two appeared to just be spare parts, Cleveland wisely held on to both of them.

    It was reported by La Velle E. Neal III this week Texas Assistant General Manager Thad Levine was expected to be the Twins next GM. Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News confirmed that report. While nothing will be made official until after the World Series, there hasn't been a shred of news from either team denying those reports.

    The Rangers also have an encouraging recent track record of finding creative ways to put together a lineup. They took a big gamble on Ian Desmond last offseason, converting him from shortstop to outfield, and were rewarded with a solid season. They also had to solve the puzzle of how to use Jurickson Profar. He ended up playing 10 or more games at each of 3B, 2B, 1B, LF and SS.

    When you win your division, like Cleveland and Texas did, all those moves look really smart and inventive. One could argue that each of those decisions were made with the same intention as most of the Twins' tinkering. But the difference in the results is undeniable.

    Of course, Falvey and Levine aren't going to try to do the exact same things they did with their previous organizations. They're going to be flexible based on the team's personnel. But how might those lessons learned be applied to the Twins?

    In the case of Santana, Cleveland opted to put their best hitter in the best possible position to succeed, regardless of other positional needs. Then they filled holes with secondary players like Ramirez and Chisenhall. What might that look like on the Twins? Putting Miguel Sano at DH full-time and letting the other chips fall where they may. That may make Kennys Vargas and Byungho Park appear to be redundant, but you never know.

    Desmond was a case of the Rangers eyeing a player who they believed could be a difference maker, but they didn't have an obvious defensive position to plug him into. What might that look like on the Twins?

    Well, we're not sure if Jorge Polanco can be a big league shortstop, but his bat looks legit. If Brian Dozier sticks around and Falvey/Levine don't trust Polanco at short everyday, they may have to get creative to keep his bat in the lineup. Could Polanco be a Plan B in left field if Eddie Rosario can't improve? Seems as plausible as Ian Desmond signing as a center fielder a year ago at this time: Crazy.

    That's just me spit-balling a few ideas that could be considered. Without knowing how the roster will shake out it's tough to even speculate what kinds of changes may be bandied about. But with new evaluators coming in, new ideas will surely be presented and I'm sure no stone will be left unturned.

    After so many years of the Twins having such a predictable approach under Terry Ryan, it's anyone's guess the direction the new front office may take. It should be a fascinating offseason.

    Follow Tom Froemming on Twitter: TFTwins

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Community Blogs

    • How many games will the Minnesota Twins win in 2023?
    • Gopher Preview (Week 3)

    Forum Topics

    • PVTEST
    • Hey, look here
    • This is an exceptionally long title to test how various points look on a phone and smaller devices

    Twins Top Prospects

    Jose Rodriguez

    GCL Twins - Rookie, OF
    Jose Rodriguez was the Twins Daily short-season minor-league hitter of the year. He is at the Dominican facilities for spring training now but will likely join Extended Spring Training in Fort Myers.
    View All Top Prospects
    The Ultimate Minnesota Twins Gift Ideas Shopping Guide

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/3/2016 at 1:59 AM, Major Leauge Ready said:

    You don't understand the definition of a sunk cost and neither do a number of people here who keep using it incorrectly.  If there is still hope of a return it's not a sunk cost. 

     

    Help me out here.....you can have hope of a return, and still have a sunk cost. A sunk cost is money already spent, that cannot be returned or recovered. But, you could still sell that crappy piece of technology you bought, even if just for parts. The concept, in terms of what it really means for decision making isn't really about that....

     

    If people are using "sunk cost" when they should use "prospective cost" or another term.....well, not everyone here is an economics major. But, they are using the concept fairly well. They are saying "just because we are paying Mauer does not mean we should play Mauer". That is so dang close to sunk cost fallacy arguments, in terms of how a business should make rational decisions, that to argue otherwise is pretty darn pedantic. 

     

    We all know what people are saying when they use that phrase in this context, to argue they aren't using the actual right phrase is not fair to them, their argument, or their intelligence. IMO.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ericchri

    ericchri 92

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/3/2016 at 12:17 AM, Mr. Brooks said:

    The money is already spent. Nobody is asking to spend someone else's money. It's already spent.
     

    Actually, you are asking to spend someone else's money, if indirectly. 

     

    Perkins and Hughes for instance are getting paid no matter what, so the outlay on them is the same regardless of whether they actually play. But by arguing to just chuck them aside we then have to bring in somebody else who now gets paid (even a couple rookie minimums is over a million dollars in additional wages). It might be the best thing to do, especially as relates to building a winning team which has indirect benefits in other financial matters, but it is still spending additional money that doesn't technically have to be spent.

     

    I'm in favor of doing so, btw, assuming it looks like neither can contribute to the level we need, so I'm not trying to argue against, but people need to acknowledge that a sunk cost doesn't necessitate spending more money just because the sunk cost cannot be recovered. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it is not the "necessary" thing to do.

     

    I'm sure most people already acknowledge most of my post without it being stated, but it does get back to the issue of "someone else's money" or arguments about "how much profit is enough" or the like which as a fan and not the owner are really easy to decide. I'd rather the owner make 2 million dollars in profit and build a winning team than make 20 million dollars in profit and field a losing team, but I don't get to decide how he runs his business, I just get to complain about it on the internet.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drivlikejehu

    drivlikejehu 2,201

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/3/2016 at 5:37 PM, ericchri said:

    I'm in favor of doing so, btw, assuming it looks like neither can contribute to the level we need, so I'm not trying to argue against, but people need to acknowledge that a sunk cost doesn't necessitate spending more money just because the sunk cost cannot be recovered. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it is not the "necessary" thing to do.

     

    I'm sure most people already acknowledge most of my post without it being stated, but it does get back to the issue of "someone else's money" or arguments about "how much profit is enough" or the like which as a fan and not the owner are really easy to decide. I'd rather the owner make 2 million dollars in profit and build a winning team than make 20 million dollars in profit and field a losing team, but I don't get to decide how he runs his business, I just get to complain about it on the internet.

     

    Businesses need customers. The Twins do benefit from some MLB-wide earnings but they certainly rely heavily on ticket sales, radio & TV revenue, etc. due to Twins fans specifically. So you individually, and Twins fans collectively, are inseparable from the business of Twins baseball. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/3/2016 at 5:37 PM, ericchri said:

    Actually, you are asking to spend someone else's money, if indirectly. 

     

    Perkins and Hughes for instance are getting paid no matter what, so the outlay on them is the same regardless of whether they actually play. But by arguing to just chuck them aside we then have to bring in somebody else who now gets paid (even a couple rookie minimums is over a million dollars in additional wages). It might be the best thing to do, especially as relates to building a winning team which has indirect benefits in other financial matters, but it is still spending additional money that doesn't technically have to be spent.

     

    I'm in favor of doing so, btw, assuming it looks like neither can contribute to the level we need, so I'm not trying to argue against, but people need to acknowledge that a sunk cost doesn't necessitate spending more money just because the sunk cost cannot be recovered. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it is not the "necessary" thing to do.

     

    I'm sure most people already acknowledge most of my post without it being stated, but it does get back to the issue of "someone else's money" or arguments about "how much profit is enough" or the like which as a fan and not the owner are really easy to decide. I'd rather the owner make 2 million dollars in profit and build a winning team than make 20 million dollars in profit and field a losing team, but I don't get to decide how he runs his business, I just get to complain about it on the internet.

     

    You realize a rookie costs 500K, right?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mr. Brooks

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

      On 11/3/2016 at 5:37 PM, ericchri said:

    Actually, you are asking to spend someone else's money, if indirectly.

     

    Perkins and Hughes for instance are getting paid no matter what, so the outlay on them is the same regardless of whether they actually play. But by arguing to just chuck them aside we then have to bring in somebody else who now gets paid (even a couple rookie minimums is over a million dollars in additional wages). It might be the best thing to do, especially as relates to building a winning team which has indirect benefits in other financial matters, but it is still spending additional money that doesn't technically have to be spent.

     

    I'm in favor of doing so, btw, assuming it looks like neither can contribute to the level we need, so I'm not trying to argue against, but people need to acknowledge that a sunk cost doesn't necessitate spending more money just because the sunk cost cannot be recovered. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it is not the "necessary" thing to do.

     

    I'm sure most people already acknowledge most of my post without it being stated, but it does get back to the issue of "someone else's money" or arguments about "how much profit is enough" or the like which as a fan and not the owner are really easy to decide. I'd rather the owner make 2 million dollars in profit and build a winning team than make 20 million dollars in profit and field a losing team, but I don't get to decide how he runs his business, I just get to complain about it on the internet.

    Is there a reason you cut out the part where I went on to disclaim that you'd have to spend the $500k league minimum replace them?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Major League Ready

    Major League Ready 5,943

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/3/2016 at 2:18 PM, Mike Sixel said:

    Help me out here.....you can have hope of a return, and still have a sunk cost. A sunk cost is money already spent, that cannot be returned or recovered. But, you could still sell that crappy piece of technology you bought, even if just for parts. The concept, in terms of what it really means for decision making isn't really about that....

     

    If people are using "sunk cost" when they should use "prospective cost" or another term.....well, not everyone here is an economics major. But, they are using the concept fairly well. They are saying "just because we are paying Mauer does not mean we should play Mauer". That is so dang close to sunk cost fallacy arguments, in terms of how a business should make rational decisions, that to argue otherwise is pretty darn pedantic. 

     

    We all know what people are saying when they use that phrase in this context, to argue they aren't using the actual right phrase is not fair to them, their argument, or their intelligence. IMO.

    Mauer is an interesting example.  You may recall I have said it might be time to let him go if he did not bounce back last year.    However, I don’t think his cost is sunk.  I say I don’t think it’s sunk because I would guess someone would give him a 2 year contract if he were a free agent.  He was only a 1 war player last year.  Would anyone care to guess what Mauer would get?  Could he get 2/13?

     

    This discussion started with players I think it much harder to determine if they will ever have value.  Mauer seems to simply be in decline.  Hughes was quite good before his velocity feel off.  I don’t like his odds but there is still substantial potential if he comes back from this surgery.  The scenario is about the same as Perkins.  IMO, the definition of sunk is very different for a fan and the people responsible for P&L or the person who’s money is being spent.,  Many fans have great difficulty accepting MLB is a business.  At least their comments often suggest the put very little value in someone else’s 10s of millions. 

     

    BTW … If Mauer would bring 2/13, $13 million is not sunk.  While we might like for ownership to flush that $13M in value, its not quite so easy to just give up on a player when it’s your $13M or if you are the guy responsible for P&L it’s not so easy either.  This is one of those things that are much easier to understand or appreciate if you have been in that position. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mr. Brooks

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

      On 11/4/2016 at 4:33 PM, Major Leauge Ready said:

    Mauer is an interesting example. You may recall I have said it might be time to let him go if he did not bounce back last year. However, I don’t think his cost is sunk. I say I don’t think it’s sunk because I would guess someone would give him a 2 year contract if he were a free agent. He was only a 1 war player last year. Would anyone care to guess what Mauer would get? Could he get 2/13?

     

    This discussion started with players I think it much harder to determine if they will ever have value. Mauer seems to simply be in decline. Hughes was quite good before his velocity feel off. I don’t like his odds but there is still substantial potential if he comes back from this surgery. The scenario is about the same as Perkins. IMO, the definition of sunk is very different for a fan and the people responsible for P&L or the person who’s money is being spent., Many fans have great difficulty accepting MLB is a business. At least their comments often suggest the put very little value in someone else’s 10s of millions.

     

    BTW … If Mauer would bring 2/13, $13 million is not sunk. While we might like for ownership to flush that $13M in value, its not quite so easy to just give up on a player when it’s your $13M or if you are the guy responsible for P&L it’s not so easy either. This is one of those things that are much easier to understand or appreciate if you have been in that position.

    It's a bit more nuanced than your last paragraph.

    There are a limited number of roster spots. You have to take into account the production could get by giving someone else that roster spot.

    If Mauer can give you 1 WAR, but a guy making the league minimum can give you 1.5 or more WAR from that roster spot, then to me it's a better use of resources cut Mauer and give that spot to the guy making the league minimum.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    jimmer

    jimmer 9,961

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

      On 11/4/2016 at 5:08 PM, Mr. Brooks said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than your last paragraph.

    There are a limited number of roster spots. You have to take into account the production could get by giving someone else that roster spot.

    If Mauer can give you 1 WAR, but a guy making the league minimum can give you 1.5 or more WAR from that roster spot, then to me it's a better use of resources cut Mauer and give that spot to the guy making the league minimum.

    especially when you take into account 1/2 WAR is worth 3.5-4M, yeah.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drivlikejehu

    drivlikejehu 2,201

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/4/2016 at 4:33 PM, Major Leauge Ready said:

    BTW … If Mauer would bring 2/13, $13 million is not sunk.  While we might like for ownership to flush that $13M in value, its not quite so easy to just give up on a player when it’s your $13M or if you are the guy responsible for P&L it’s not so easy either.  This is one of those things that are much easier to understand or appreciate if you have been in that position. 

     

    You keep saying this but it isn't accurate. Mauer's WAR $ value is an abstract concept that has zero connection to the Twins' payroll costs (and, by extension, P&L). The "value" of Mauer's production is an on-field baseball quantity that is very loosely related to the overall business of the team.

     

    The business of the team is best served by winning. So winning more by letting Mauer go is an obviously correct move, if possible, because the Twins win more by having a greater overall level of on-field production. Whether Mauer is "worth" $10 million, $15 million, or some other amount is completely meaningless from a business standpoint.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    jimmer

    jimmer 9,961

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

      On 11/4/2016 at 6:07 PM, drivlikejehu said:

    You keep saying this but it isn't accurate. Mauer's WAR $ value is an abstract concept that has zero connection to the Twins' payroll costs (and, by extension, P&L). The "value" of Mauer's production is an on-field baseball quantity that is very loosely related to the overall business of the team.

     

    The business of the team is best served by winning. So winning more by letting Mauer go is an obviously correct move, if possible, because the Twins win more by having a greater overall level of on-field production. Whether Mauer is "worth" $10 million, $15 million, or some other amount is completely meaningless from a business standpoint.

    assuming we have a better option for Mauer and whoever replaces him actually makes our team better. Neither of which seems to be the case at present.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drivlikejehu

    drivlikejehu 2,201

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 11/4/2016 at 6:15 PM, jimmer said:

    assuming we have a better option for Mauer and whoever replaces him actually makes our team better. Neither of which seems to be the case at present.

     

    Well right, though a rebuilding team may value improved production in future years if that is a benefit of playing someone else instead of Mauer in the present.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    jimmer

    jimmer 9,961

  • Verified Member

    • Posted (edited)

     

      On 11/4/2016 at 8:13 PM, drivlikejehu said:

    Well right, though a rebuilding team may value improved production in future years if that is a benefit of playing someone else instead of Mauer in the present.

    I believe if we had a guy who was a top 1B prospect, it would be an easier decision.  26 year old Vargas isn't that guy.  30 year old Park isn't that guy (at least he won't be that guy whenever we might be contenders).  If we had a talent like Rizzo being blocked by Mauer, he wouldn't be blocked by Mauer ;-)

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    TheLeviathan

    TheLeviathan 17,473

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    I don't think we need to have Rizzo to justify reducing Mauer's playing time.

     

    And it's going to be hard to see what kind of replacement we have until they can actually play.  Mauer's not going back to what he was and what he is isn't worth holding on to any more.  Time to see if we can catch some lightening.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    jimmer

    jimmer 9,961

  • Verified Member

    • Posted (edited)

     

      On 11/5/2016 at 12:00 AM, TheLeviathan said:

    I don't think we need to have Rizzo to justify reducing Mauer's playing time.

     

    And it's going to be hard to see what kind of replacement we have until they can actually play.  Mauer's not going back to what he was and what he is isn't worth holding on to any more.  Time to see if we can catch some lightening.

    Yeah, it was an exaggeration to prove a point.  Who is our highest prospect at the 1B position? That's the issue when the TEAM has to decide whether or not to make a move.  Having a real quality prospect knocking on the door would make the move easy for the team, but that's not the case so their decision is not an easy one right now no matter how many people say it is.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

      On 11/4/2016 at 4:33 PM, Major Leauge Ready said:

    Mauer is an interesting example. You may recall I have said it might be time to let him go if he did not bounce back last year. However, I don’t think his cost is sunk. I say I don’t think it’s sunk because I would guess someone would give him a 2 year contract if he were a free agent. He was only a 1 war player last year. Would anyone care to guess what Mauer would get? Could he get 2/13?

     

    This discussion started with players I think it much harder to determine if they will ever have value. Mauer seems to simply be in decline. Hughes was quite good before his velocity feel off. I don’t like his odds but there is still substantial potential if he comes back from this surgery. The scenario is about the same as Perkins. IMO, the definition of sunk is very different for a fan and the people responsible for P&L or the person who’s money is being spent., Many fans have great difficulty accepting MLB is a business. At least their comments often suggest the put very little value in someone else’s 10s of millions.

     

    BTW … If Mauer would bring 2/13, $13 million is not sunk. While we might like for ownership to flush that $13M in value, its not quite so easy to just give up on a player when it’s your $13M or if you are the guy responsible for P&L it’s not so easy either. This is one of those things that are much easier to understand or appreciate if you have been in that position.

    I would just like to say....this is a very polite reply. Thanks.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×

×
×
  • Create New...