Twins Select RHP Tyler Kinley In Rule 5 Draft (Lose Burdi to Phillies, Bard to Angels)

WOW. Flavine moves continue to unimpress. To take Kinley at the expense of either Burdi or Bard was totally stupid. Add in the risk that was taken in not protecting others for the opportunity to pick a guy that will be back with his drafted organization by April. A much better choice would have been Albert Suarez who was taken after Kinley. Suarez is older, throws in the mid 90s and has been misused/underused by the Giants. He would have surely stuck as a long reliever.spot starter. BTW.. and now they sign Rodney???? Between Rodney and Pressly, Molitor is sure to have a heart attack when using late inning relievers in 2018!!

Hey.... Kohl Stewart is safe and still in the org!

Still Crushing!

  On 12/14/2017 at 10:05 PM, Twinfan & Dad said:

Burdi annoited to All Star status. Oh wait he has to pitch above AA and be healthy first. Four years and AA. On track if healthy but he isnt. When rolling the dice on 95mph to 100mph fastballs and staying healthy good luck. In todays game there seems to be more and more arms that can create that velocity. I guess Falvey just decided to take a different direction to 100mph. IN MANAGEMENT I TRUST!

Agreed, I've just gotten tired of waiting for Burdi and it seems like his career is going to be plagued by injuries. He's kinda going the route of Alex Meyer - has great stuff, can strike people out at a high clip, but can't get healthy. The front office gave up on both though they did acquire something for Meyer.

I don't like the shift from Burdi and Kinley, though. Kinley will be 27 and struggled against AA batters.

Kinley might be able to contribute something this season.

Burdi won't.

Bard...eh, whatever.

This is all cosmetic...as long as Kinley doesn't clog things up for too long.

The thing that worries me about drafting Kinley is the roster spot. Burning a roster spot on a guy with a very low probability of contributing next season tells me the front office didn't see a better option for the spot. That's unfortunate because the gap between the Twins and teams like the Yankees and Angels has grown substantially and Minnesota needs to be adding guys who can improve the team.  

Pittsburgh picked up Burdi for international cap money. If it was money they were not going to spend they got Burdi for nothing.  Burdi would cost them something . A spot on the DL means he gets paid the major league minimum. A half million for nothing might be more than the tight Pirates want to do if it looks like Burdi will be a long period for recovering rather than a short one. that may play into their decision process  However, if they send him back, they pocket some money.  They get a look at a prospect for free.

  On 12/15/2017 at 1:37 AM, twins_89 said:

The thing that worries me about drafting Kinley is the roster spot. Burning a roster spot on a guy with a very low probability of contributing next season tells me the front office didn't see a better option for the spot. That's unfortunate because the gap between the Twins and teams like the Yankees and Angels has grown substantially and Minnesota needs to be adding guys who can improve the team.  

The Twins could likely trade almost any unranked low level prospect for Kinley in the spring to be able to send him down.

  On 12/14/2017 at 7:23 PM, KirbyDome89 said:

The Twins are bringing in the same types of players they're exposing to the Rule V. If it's "pointless," to consider what they're giving up then isn't it "pointless," to participate in the Rule V altogether?   

 

I'm not a fan of losing Burdi, especially considering what they brought back, but I do think the Rule V can be used effectively. For that to be the case the player(s) you select should project better than what you've given up. I'm not certain that's the case here. 

You completely missed the point.

It isn't pointless to participate in Rule V. It is pointless for Internet GMs to act like losing Burdi/Bard or a 25 man roster spot are awful moves. I think we (the Internet GMs) can form somewhat valid opinions on MLB players that we have actually seen play and have comparable stats for but we really don't have any idea on the real potential of Burdi/Bard/Kinley/Haley/Reed/Melotakis/Chargois/etc... It is okay to have an opinion but to act like some BIG MISTAKE has been made is laughable. 

Also participating in Rule V and poor roster management (keeping Rule V guys too long) are two completely different issues. 

  On 12/15/2017 at 2:32 AM, kab21 said:

You completely missed the point.

It isn't pointless to participate in Rule V. It is pointless for Internet GMs to act like losing Burdi/Bard or a 25 man roster spot are awful moves. I think we (the Internet GMs) can form somewhat valid opinions on MLB players that we have actually seen play and have comparable stats for but we really don't have any idea on the real potential of Burdi/Bard/Kinley/Haley/Reed/Melotakis/Chargois/etc... It is okay to have an opinion but to act like some BIG MISTAKE has been made is laughable. 

Also participating in Rule V and poor roster management (keeping Rule V guys too long) are two completely different issues. 

So after watching the Haley debacle last season the pushback against the decision to force another Rule V pick onto the 25 man is an invalid? You don't have to be a GM to see that the risk/uncertainty they lost was less than the risk/uncertainty the brought in. Add to that the loss of a roster spot and yeah, it isn't difficult to see why the move isn't particularly popular right now. There are plenty of minor league statistics available for all 3 players and some have even been posted in this thread. What's laughable is the argument from authority that seems to be thrown around in some of these threads.  

Drafting a player in the Rule V burns a 25 man spot. When that player has no business being on a MLB roster it's poor roster management. 

Im actually kind of glad that we lost these two guys. For once we have the talent in the minors worthy of being taken. When was the last time we lost a player in the rule 5 draft?

Also no one mentions Shane Mack as one of our all time best rule 5 heists anymore. But him, Johan Santana, Scott Diamond, and Pressly are why we continue to partipate in the rule 5 draft. It only takes one player acquisition to justify nunerous selections. Out of curiousity hiw many worthless picks are worth Pressly in terms of dollars and lost opportunities?

  On 12/15/2017 at 5:44 AM, KirbyDome89 said:

So after watching the Haley debacle last season the pushback against the decision to force another Rule V pick onto the 25 man is an invalid? You don't have to be a GM to see that the risk/uncertainty they lost was less than the risk/uncertainty the brought in. Add to that the loss of a roster spot and yeah, it isn't difficult to see why the move isn't particularly popular right now. There are plenty of minor league statistics available for all 3 players and some have even been posted in this thread. What's laughable is the argument from authority that seems to be thrown around in some of these threads.  

 

Drafting a player in the Rule V burns a 25 man spot. When that player has no business being on a MLB roster it's poor roster management. 

Your complaint is about roster management and has nothing to do with Rule V other than your 1 example. The Twins should be better at cutting players loose regardless if they are Rule V picks or not.

Actually i remember the time we signed RA Dickey to a minor league contract and Seattle rule 5d him a week later. But who else have we lost?

  On 12/15/2017 at 6:11 AM, kab21 said:

Your complaint is about roster management and has nothing to do with Rule V other than your 1 example. The Twins should be better at cutting players loose regardless if they are Rule V picks or not.

It has everything to do with the Rule V draft. Those players selected have to stay on the 25 man roster. The draft IS roster management. 

You read my post that said the Rule V draft could be used effectively right? Clogging the 25th spot with a pitcher who has limited minor league success and no options is hardly practical. 

That you drafted a rule 5 player only means that you took up a spot on your 40 man roster until sometime in spring training. Nothing more. The team gets a look at a player that a few in the organization have seen and think there is a higher ceiling than shown. They have spring training to find out. You can dump the guy back on the other system. If the other team wants the money more than the player, you can send the player down. This guy came from Miami. They probably are more than happy he was taken. It pays down the debt. Kinley will have to be able to be a serviceable pitcher at the major league level or he will be a minor league pitcher.

  On 12/15/2017 at 3:05 PM, Baseball Bat said:

Just joining in on this now and haven't read any of the comments. People are probably over this by now. For some reason I'm really worked up and baffled by how the Twins handled the entire Rule 5 Draft. 

 

First off, the Twins had a consensus Top 5 pick in the draft in Nick Burdi. I am extremely high on Burdi and think he is an 8th or 9th inning guy once he gets his health straightened out. So I will admit my bias upfront. They very easily could have protected him and then moved him to the 60 day DL once the season started until July or so. It really wouldn't be a burden to carry Burdi on 40 man at all. I think there are 4 or 5 guys I would remove from the 40 man at the expense of keeping Burdi.

 

So I assumed when the Twins did not protect someone who everyone knew would be a top 3 to 5 pick in the draft, that the Twins had no intentions of drafting someone with pick 20 right, and wanted ultimate roster flexibility to add to? 

 

WRONG.

 

They drafted Tyler Kinley, a guy who was left off the MARLINS 40 man roster and will be 27 by the time the season starts without ANY Minor League success above High A. But heck he can throw 100 and strike guys out so lets waste a 40 man spot on this guy and not Nick Burdi who BTW has a strong track record of Minor League Success through AA, is 2 years younger, and also throws 100. 

 

On top of that, you now have to worry about hiding a guy on the 25 man roster throughout the season which is an awful strategy for a team that plans to contend. If they just would have kept Burdi, they could just had him on the DL, add someone to the 40 man in April, and then have Burdi pitch in Triple A when he returns. They wouldn't be required to keep him on the Major League Roster at all. But now Burdi is all but gone. He will be insanely easy to stash. The Pirates will have no problem navigating around keeping him after his Tommy John Surgery. 

 

April through June: 60 Day DL

July & August: 25 Man Roster

September: Rosters expand and it is easy to keep him on it.

 

That will satisfy Burdi's 90 day requirements while spending half the season on the DL. 

 

In summary, The Twins gained a Pat Light Jr., a player worse than Burdi, and lost roster flexibility because of it. I know I'm too worked up over this but I just don't get it. I really hope I am proved wrong. But I think Burdi will end up being a stud, and the Twins will return Kinley after a month and a half of wasting a roster spot trying to hide him. 

 

Falvey and Levine have to know something about Burdi that we do not. 

 

End of my incoherent rant

Yeah I think the FO miscalculated on the Rule V draft.  I think they might have outsmarted themselves.  Given what happened last year they haven't built my trust in handling the Rule V draft.  I would much rather have Bard on the 40 man than Kinley on the 25 man.  I guess I need a professional to explain the logic to me for that move.  All I can think of is that they didn't think another team would take Bard but they were wrong.

I have to believe the medicals on Burdi are not good. He always had a high effort delivery and a lot of scouts felt injury's were inevitable.  The Braves seemed to feel the same way as they nixed the trade based on the medicals.  So Burdi's future does appear to be in doubt.

I know we have a lot of pitchers on the 40 man and lots of young relievers in the pipeline so in the end this move probably doesn't matter much but it also doesn't give me confidence the wonder boys are making good decisions either.

  On 12/15/2017 at 1:18 PM, Deduno Abides said:

You’re assuming Kinley will make the team without proving he deserves it. You should hold your comment until then.

If they have such little faith in him making the team the decision not to protect Burdi or Bard looks even worse.

Rather than attributing success for moves unmade maybe it's you who should hold your comment and allow the rest to remark about what has actually been done to this point. 

  On 12/15/2017 at 1:37 AM, twins_89 said:

The thing that worries me about drafting Kinley is the roster spot. Burning a roster spot on a guy with a very low probability of contributing next season tells me the front office didn't see a better option for the spot. That's unfortunate because the gap between the Twins and teams like the Yankees and Angels has grown substantially and Minnesota needs to be adding guys who can improve the team.  

If he doesn't outright earn a spot out of spring training he'll get returned.  

Assuming they sign and/or trade for a couple of front end starters there is zero chance they try and 'stash" him on the roster.

  On 12/15/2017 at 6:35 PM, Obsvr said:

If he doesn't outright earn a spot out of spring training he'll get returned.  

 

Assuming they sign and/or trade for a couple of front end starters there is zero chance they try and 'stash" him on the roster.

I'm not too concerned about them trying to stash him, I think the chances he's still here on opening day are minimal. The issue I have is that Minnesota had 4 open roster spots and now 2 of them have been used on players unlikely to help this season (Kinley and Pineda). With one open roster spot left, the Twins still need a starter and could also use a backup catcher, reliever, and bench bat. Clearly there are guys who can be removed from the 40 man roster, but is Kinley better than Boshers or Enns?

  On 12/15/2017 at 5:57 PM, KirbyDome89 said:

If they have such little faith in him making the team the decision not to protect Burdi or Bard looks even worse.

 

Rather than attributing success for moves unmade maybe it's you who should hold your comment and allow the rest to remark about what has actually been done to this point. 

Burdi was selected #3. Kinley was, I think, the 13th of 15 prospects selected (many teams passed, some on more than half the selected prospects). While it's not unreasonable to think the Twins should have protected Burdi (I think they should have), it's also not unreasonable to think their selection of Kinley is a worthwhile experiment. First of all, nothing says Molitor and Falvey have to make to same mistake with Kinley that many of us think they made with Haley. Maybe they learned from that experience. They'll probably have a shorter leash with Kinley anyway, for the simple reason that they have more and better candidates in 2018 than they did going into spring training in 2017. Secondly, we don't know what we're talking about when we draw conclusions about a guy like Kinley based on a few minor league stats. It may end up meaning nothing, but Fred Guerrero's reports from the Dominican Winter League might also hint at some positive development that give the organization reason to think Kinley is capable of more.