bird

While this is pretty much accurate and a good thought in theory, I'd offer three points: 1. We had a NEED for every one of these prospects unless we found a better prospective or real alternative. Each became a surplus over the course of 2019. Not before. Dobnak, Thorpe, Smeltzer, Graterol, and Poppen all supplanted Kohl Stewart and the injured Gonsalves over the course of 2019. Romero and the injured Jay got passed up by Stashak, Littell, Alcala, and any number of others. Luis Arraez came along and made the oft-injured Gordon redundant. The 2019 off-season will be the first in a long time when we have a surplus of quality prospects. Prospects who have decent trade value. Palacios, who was maybe fifth on the SS depth chart when he fetched Odorizzi, is an exception, and I suppose Huascar Ynoa as one of a boatload of similarly-prized pitching prospects and who ultimately resulted in Littell, might be another. But now, according to Fangraphs, we have 17 starting pitching prospects with a FV of 40 or higher, which is what Teng and Berroa both have and why even if Sam Dyson wasn't injured it was an overpay. But at least those prospects were surplus. 2. Most every talent evaluator probably projected the value of all five of those prospects to increase. Many believe Gordon's trade value is still low compared to what it will be. Even Gonsalves and Romero stand a chance to be more valuable as trade pieces in the future than they have been in the past. The thing is, even high-profile prospects come with warts that have to be addressed, right? So when a team finally decides a prospect has washed out, everyone in the industry knows it too. Had we traded any one of the minor leaguers who contributed this year for MLB players, it's highly doubtful that any player acquired would have contributed more than what we got out of guys like Littell or Stashak. Finds like Odorizzi are pretty rare. 3. Trading any of these prospects, or all three of the first-rounders, for that matter, would probably not have brought back a return sufficient enough to move the needle, even with Dozier and Mauer still good (not great). In 2019, moving players who fit into this category makes more sense because the team may only need a couple of final pieces. So the equivalents, maybe guys like Canterino and Wallner and, well, Gordon, are more likely to be useful trade pieces if the goal is more wins and being more competitive in the postseason. That's what the tough luck Sam Dyson trade was supposed to be.

No question. Fans from every team in baseball say this about their team's first round misses. Many fans say the miss is an indication of their team's ineptitude. It doesn't matter to some if their team's picks the year before and after were great, they're STILL stupid. Two of Houston's big misses, Appel and Aiken, could easily have hurt a lot. Instead, they got the reprieve of picking 2nd a year later and nabbed Bregman when stupid Arizona passed on him and gave Houston a generational talent. Pretty nice bit of luck. So in the year we had to settle for Jay at #6 (a risk that backfired), Arizona was stupid enough to pass on Bregman, who so far has generated 4 times more WAR than any other player drafted in 2015. Houston is simply smarter than the rest, right? But then they picked Kyle Tucker and his -0.1 WAR at #5, one slot before we picked Jay. Reports say the Twins liked Tucker a lot. Regardless, both the Astro's and the Twins have been criticized by some of their fans because both teams were so stupid that they passed on Beneintendo and his 8.7 second-best WAR one slot later. Stupid stupid stupid. Appel? They eventually packaged him up with 4 (four!) other players for Ken Giles, who gave them 1.7 WAR during his 18 month stay, but helped them win a game or two they otherwise would not have won at a very crucial time. But hey, we all wish the Twins would make these kinds of deadline trades... Houston's track record isn't as perfect as it gets portrayed, just sayin'. But they ARE the new Cardinals.

Good idea, they should try a deadline trade like that. Probably wouldn't cost more than, say, Diaz, Berroa, and Teng.

I don't have a personal view of Lewis, and I've caught some of the criticism (KLAW saying he better lose the leg kick and the hitch and can't stick at short). But I also saw him praised as the most impressive prospect in Arizona where he's been spectacular. At 3B and 2B. But Lordy, if your fears are founded that will be problematic.

While I appreciate your analysis and respect it, I respectfully question the quality of the conclusions one might draw from a comparison of the arithmetic being held out as proof of some gap in competence. I suggest that the two organizations have similar capacity to make quality decisions and that the arithmetic is telling an incomplete and false story. Let's take the first year you cite, 2011. This was a draft year that all the pundits described at the time as shallow and pretty much front-end loaded. That's exactly what happened. The Astros deserve much credit (there's always luck involved too, good and bad) for getting it right with Springer at 1(11). He's no Gerritt Cole 1(1), but hey, great job Houston. The Twins picked Levi Michael at 1(30). As expected, the pickings got slim in the minds of the pundits several picks earlier, and none of the next 9 picks after Levi panned out either. In fact, 25 of the 30 picks starting with Levi at #30 through pick #60 were essentially duds as well. That's an 85% fail rate. The fail rate of the first 30 picks? Roughly 40%. I'm just not convinced that Houston would have had the foresight to, for example, hijack Colorado's pick of Trevor Story at #45 instead of being another one of the 5 of 6 teams who have to call the second half of the 2011 draft a bust. The point: to use that 25 point difference in WAR between Springer and Levi is grossly misleading if you're using it conclude much if anything about comparative competence. Taking it a step further, if Houston was so much more competent, someone needs to explain what they did with their next pick, Adrain Houser at 2(69). He ultimately has generated 1.8 WAR none for the Astros, because he was shipped off to the Brewers with 3 other guys whose WAR benefited another team and not Houston: Josh Hader (6.6 WAR), Brett Phillips (2.6 WAR), and Domingo Santana (4.2 WAR). That's 15.2 WAR sent packing. The two guys they got back delivered 0.9 WAR for Houston. Mike Fiers and Carlos Gomez. Their third success story from that draft, Nick Tropeano, 5(160), generated 1.0 for another team, as did the Twins one success story, Derek Rodriguez 6(208). I realize people might roll their eyes and call this an excuse rather than an explanation. So be it. As for the IFA comparison, it defies all reasonable analysis to use a single extreme outlier as Altuve to conclude anything. The Twins can't (yet) match that total, but no reasonable examination of the capabilities in the IFA marketplace would conclude that the Twins are anything but at the least an equal to Houston here, despite the unfortunate setbacks and delays attributable to Sano. I agree 100% with your last paragraph. While it's unreasonable to expect any team to somehow luck out with a Bregman or a Trout, the Twins won't match the Astros in 26-man talent without hitting big with guys like Lewis, Buxton, and Kirilloff the way Houston hit it big with Correa and Springer. And yeah, I've been saying they need to take advantage of the fact that they now have value and surplus from which to trade, and an ability to jack up payroll to $150M or more.

"Not highly rated" equates to a 1st and 2nd round draft pick, both pitching prospects. What would have been an equivalent offer from the Twins? Enlow and Thorpe? It's easy to criticize them for "not beating" the price. Just sayin'. Maybe the Twins liked Stroman, just not as much as the price? Again, we all want them to get deals done. Lots of our peers were pretty meh when it came to Stroman. And Enlow. And Thorpe. Confusing.

I don't recall the kinds of objections you claim were made. But will you concede that Jazz Chisholm compares more closely to Wander Javier or Kaoni Cavacao than to Royce Lewis? Will you concede that an argument can be made that Jazz Chisholm was a hefty price to pay for Zac Gallen? Possibly justifiable, possibly not? We don't know if Falvey would have pulled the trigger on a trade of either of our more comparable guys or not. One of those guys was restricted, the other injured, but that just illustrates how silly it is to bring up a single transaction like this and allow the inference to be that the Diamondbacks pulled the trigger on it and the Twins did not in these very simplistic terms. Similar to the notion that the Twins just "passed on Paxton" as if he was an item on a card table at an estate auction.

I don't entirely agree with either assertion. I'll concede your earlier argument that the difference in trade behavior can be chalked up to motivation, or what you called determination. But no, not really to superior prospect or talent evaluation, especially with regard to position players. (They may have a slight edge with respect to pitcher-fixing at this moment in time which gives them more confidence or hubris. They've had one or two of the observational technologies in place, I think, for a year longer, and one or two more success stories). I chalk Alvarez, Verlander, Cole, Greinke, and maybe others to being opportunistic. With having opportunism embedded in your philosophy and in your strategy. That's what I think might set Houston apart. They understand leverage. Desperation. They smell blood in the water. So, to your point, the teams thought they were getting enough for Verlander and Cole? Blood in the water. Kudos to Houston. Learn from this, Derek. Yes, Chief. You are biased about prospects, as am I on the opposite spectrum perhaps. But I will suggest that the team is NOT wildly overvaluing its own prospects. You might be conflating Ryan's historic risk-aversive reticence to trade his hard-scouted prospects with Falvey's behavior, which I don't see as the same thing at all. Ryan was sitting in a bunker. Falvey is sitting in a deer stand. I blame Seth for wildly overvaluing prospects and handing out the cups of koolaid. (Kidding, Seth, relax!) PM me privately and let's have you part with some of your net worth regarding that belief of yours that Lewis's value is gonna crater.

Don't hold your breath. The Houston trading record over the past few years is something no other team has come even close to matching. We can envy it. We can hope, even expect that directionally speaking we see this behavior. I think we already have, but unfortunately, it was a regrettable move. You may think the Astro's would have somehow avoided this, and you may also think giving up Teng, Berroa, and Diaz for Dyson doesn't qualify. I do. Those are three good prospects. So you're right. It isn't always that easy. I mean, why did the Dodgers take a stupid pill and give away Yordan Alvarez to Luhnow for nothing? Maybe Luhnow and his group somehow know exactly when someone is about to take a stupid pill?

I get that thought, Van, but a couple of things come to mind. The first is that a prospect who is 13th or 20th on Seth's or KLAW's prospect list is most likely in a different slot internally. Tampa thought Palacios was a top 20 guy and maybe the Twins thought he wasn't one of their top 40? We've heard snippets of opinions about Arraez from insiders that would make you wonder if some didn't hold the view that Seth and gang was grossly underrating him. I truly doubt Arraez was ever thought of less highly than Palacios by the Twin's own talent evaluators, and Palacios was not a throw in. The second is that, while nothing is certain, uber elite prospects like Lewis and even Kirilloff are simply in a different class. We can point to so any examples of how, a majority of the time, these guys pan out and become superstar anchors of a franchise. We know so much less about exactly how high a guy's ceiling is than they do. This isn't an appeal to authority. It's simply an acknowledgment that the Lindors, Moncada's, and Bett's out there usually do become studs. There's a good reason to covet and hoard your truly elite prospects, a group you can almost always count on one hand with fingers left over. You can go back and look at any draft class, identify the small number of truly elite prospects, usually numbering from 1 to maybe 4 or 5, and see how few times one of them busted, injuries excepted. I just can't find fault with a FO that decides it has to improve the MLB roster another way than to part with Tatis, Jr., Eloy Jiminez, Gleyber Torrez, Yoan Moncada, Royce Lewis. Note that these are all position players, because who in their right mind would EVER let an Appel or an Aiken slip from their grasp?

But the thing is, Houston did not have to give up "a lot" to get a Verlander or a Cole. None of the prospects they gave up was anywhere near as good as Lewis or Kirrilloff. They hung on to their versions of those guys. Guys like Derek Fisher and Kyle Tucker.

Patrick, I think the facts you've cited illustrate that the GM has had very little at all to do with talent evaluation and even signing players. The Twins have five dozen people involved in various aspects of scouting, evaluation, and development. Many of the scouting personnel are holdovers from Ryan and even before. The amounts IFA agents agreed to on behalf of guys like Polanco were negotiated by scouts and then presented to GM's. I can guarantee you that Billy Smith couldn't tell a baseball talent from a street vendor and had no relationship established with agents for Polanco, Sano, and Kepler. He pretty much picked up a pen and signed contracts. He was one of a handful of participants who presented the case to sign Sano to Carl the Curmudgeon, and Jim Pohlad was one of them. Billy Smith deserves credit, along with Andy MacPhail, Jim Pohlad, and others, for convincing Carl to let them spend to build the presence and the facilities in the DR. Of the 250 players on postseason rosters, only one of them came out of the independent leagues: Dobnak. Like it or not, this independent league scouting is a legacy of Ryan. It could be that Luhnow turned over the amateur and pro scouting ranks in such a draconian way as to allow us to make a much greater distinction between pre-Luhnow days and now. That's not the case in Minnesota. When it comes to the Rule 4 draft, I agree with you that the two teams are on a "similar path". I'd suggest that they have comparable capability regarding amateur scouting and all that supports it. The Twins probably have an edge when it comes to the IFA market. While the league has diminished that edge via the bonus pool system, it's still a relationship-driven game and the Twins have as strong a presence as anybody, as evidenced by the fact that no other team in the postseason came close to having as many home-grown IFA players as the Twins.

Correction: Yordan Alvarez was acquired via trade from the Dodgers for former 1st rounder Josh Friggin' Fields, an Astro's Kohl Stewart-like draft dud. He was subsequently released by the Dodgers, Brewers, and Rangers. You need to have some historical context to understand why the Astros have only 15 prospects with a 45 FV and the Twins have 28 of them, but it starts with the unassailable fact that, as Houston was trying to add a "final piece" or two coming off of another 100 win season, the 78-win Twins were still scrambling to build up prospect capital AND MLB talent. Falvey was busy accumulating prospect talent, which we began to see (Smeltzer and Alcala for example). The Astros were ready to USE prospect capital. They smartly traded away good but not great surplus prospects like Alcala, Celestino, Bukauskas, and Beer. Oh, and Josh Friggin' Field. The Twins have plenty of good prospects as a result of those favorable draft postions, Mike. I don't know what you'd expect! Royce Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach...6 prospects among the Top 100? In fact, they've been exceptional at building prospect value. They have 17 starting pitching prospects that Fangraphs says are 40FV guys or better. The White Sox, with similar or better draft order? They have 7 of them. The Twins don't have just a few more high-quality prospects than Houston. Again: Houston has 2 guys at 50FV, the Twins 13. Houston has 15 guys at 45 FV or better, the Twins 28. So now do you get the point? They ARE emulating Houston, and may actually be BETTER at things in a couple of ways. They've simply been at different stages. Until this off-season. We'll see, but I personally believe they have zero qualms about wise decisions to trade from their impressive pipeline. I hope they DO emulate Houston and retain Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, Graterol, and Duran, talent they NEED. Or to pull the trigger on the right "expensive" FA opportunity. Or to trade a surplus player from the 26-man. Because finally, they're in decent shape in all three ways.

I guess Greinke's agent doesn't know his celebrities.

I get this. Not an excuse here, but a possible explanation related to the FO's perception of timing, which we of course don't have to agree with (although it's nice when people grant an understanding of a different perspective). At least they were rather clear in saying earlier that they were trying to pry the window open whereas now they say they can feel a breeze. We all hope this leads to greater determination, right? Okay, maybe this IS an excuse, Chief, but I can't help imagining a presentation by Greinke's agent: "Okay, which direction do you want me to go? The Astros, who are clear favorites to win the whole shebang this year, have room for at least two guys like you ad infinitum, and will host you in a no state tax state, or the Twins, who may have to sneak in the back door as a wild card, barely have room for one ace budget-wise, and will tax the darn heck out of you. Who do you wanna locker next door to, Verlander and his photo of Kate Bush, or Gibby and his big Desiderata poster?"

Fun fact: Houston has two prospects to which MLB Pipeline gives an overall value of 50 or more. The Twins have 13 of these prospects today.

We've talked past each other, Mike. My fault, I apologize for that. Since not even Houston can replicate Houston's past success, let's focus on the author's real question. That question is whether the Twins can emulate the things that allowed Houston to become the gold standard du jour. Houston began its journey from the depths to the pinnacle by doing two things. One, they got new and better leadership. Two, they took advantage of their draft order. I argue that Houston had some luck, in that area, but they executed, and that's what matters. You probably disagree, but I believe our new leadership and our talent evaluators are as good. Houston's technology advantage has dwindled. Other teams including and maybe especially the Twins, have emulated the Astros. I'd be skeptical of any argument that the Twins are taking a back seat to the Astros or anyone else regarding the use of technology, data, coaching, development, and talent evaluation. In fact, I'd be more inclined to think they've been early adopters in a few areas now. I don't know anything about Houston's philosophical underpinnings so I wouldn't make a comparison. That said, I think we're seeing some really great signs from our own organization with respect to the treatment and handling of players at every level. The impressive facilities in the DR and in Ft. Myers are symbolic, and Baldelli seems to run a very happy clubhouse. This organization seems to be really vibrant and healthy. In my opinion, Houston's success with trades is unique because they executed beautifully, not because, as you seem to believe, they are willing to trade "top prospects" while the Twins are not. Not one (Colin Moran may be an exception, I'm not sure) of the top prospects Houston has traded for the likes of Verlander, Cole. Greinke, Alvarez, Gurriel, Pressly, Marisnak, or anyone else, was ranked among Houston's top 6 prospects at the time of the trades. So you can't make an argument that the Astros have done something that a reasonable person would say the Twins would avoid. Houston did not trade top 6 prospects like Kyle Tucker or Derek Fisher to fetch Greinke, for example. Bukauskas is a lesser prospect than Duran. Seth Beer is a lesser prospect than Larnach. I suggested the Twins can, and probably will emulate Houston's trading behavior, now that they have the quality and quantity. My hope is that they do the same thing Houston has done and trade from surplus of really good prospects like Javier, Rooker, Gordon, Baddoo, and others. All Houston or Minnesota can do is emulate what Houston has done in the past. Neither team can replicate it. Houston gets to reap the rewards of its past and recent success and good fortune. The Twins closed the gap considerably in 2019, but there's still a big gap when it comes to the 26-man roster. Let's hope that the Twins are eventually the "new Houston" and Houston or Chicago isn't. Let's hope that some day soon Houston feels a need to examine a couple of things Falvey is doing and emulate it.

Who has suggested never trading top prospects, Mike? The facts are there for you to see with respect to the trades. I've made an effort to help you examine those facts. When you use vague terms like "great players" and "actual good or great prospects" instead of doing a deeper dive, you're suggesting that you may be more interested in your point of view than you are in much else. The Cubs? I don't know, Mike. Maybe you're right, and the singular reason they win the world series is because they trade actual good or great prospects for great players in return.

Houston is the gold standard, we know that. Let's define "highly regarded" though. Verlander (who wasn't coming to Minneapolis) cost them Cameron, Perez, and Rogers. Our equivalents might be Baddoo, Duran, and Jeffers, maybe less, and not more. Pittsburgh unloaded Cole for Moran, Musgrove, Martin, and Feliz. Our equivalents might be Blankenhorn, Dobnak, Wade, and Stashak, not much more. Altuve was a transforming IFA signing. He's on the books for $20M per season for the next few years. Sure beats paying $22M to Joe Mauer, right? If the Twins have a player worthy of $20M, Falvey will sign them. No one's the next Houston. Houston is probably not the next Houston.

I believe you're describing Houston's trade history inaccurately, Mike. They traded smartly, from prospect surplus, but they did not trade anyone like Royce Lewis, Alex Kirilloff, and Brusdar Graterol. To their credit, they HAVE made a handful of trades maybe even more brilliant than the Palacios for Odorizzi trade. You mention the Yankees. Why not mention the Cubs? They dealt a good prospect to the Yankees for a good player. Gleyber Torrez might end up being a league MVP and an absolute stud for a decade. Why not mention the White Sox? We might hate facing their lineup as early as next year when good prospects surface: Kopech, Moncada, Giolito, Jiminez...

I think THIS is exactly correct too. Certainly, every team is going to pony up for the observation technology that has transformed the skill development landscape: Trackman, Rapsodo, Blast, etc. With that, teams will eventually follow suit by employing field and development staff more capable of making this new information comprehensible for the athletes. The Twins may now be ahead of the game already on this front, but we know this is an unsustainable advantage. I like that this group is clearly initiating changes related to unmeasurables. The comments we heard throughout the season gave us plenty of evidence that "culture" and "chemistry" were important to players and management alike. Houston has not missed on draft choices, to their credit, but it should be acknowledged that there was a bit of serendipity involved too, when Bregman, Correa, and Springer were pretty much there for the taking. I don't think they are any better than the Twins and many other clubs at this aspect of the job, nor are they way ahead of peers when it comes to IFA or FA. They've executed well in free agency with pickups like Chirinos, Brantley and Reddick. Falvey and his team have executed on the same level IMO. Where Houston has separated itself from all other teams is in the execution of trades. Verlander, Cole, Alverez, Pressly, and Gurriel to name a few. It's important to note that Houston has not traded away prospects that fit in the category of Royce Lewis and Kirilloff to acquire these pieces, as some seem to think. The price for Verlander was Daz Cameron, a fading first rounder who was in the second half of BA's Top 100, as was Franklin Perez, an IFA pitcher ranked at about #75 or so, and a third round catcher who really can't catch. Our equivalents might be Rortvedt, Duran, and Baddoo. So kudos to Houston for being proactive and active traders and for executing beautifully, but now that the Twins have the prospect quality and quantity from which to trade (ranked about ten slots above Houston now BTW), they should be able to close the gap here. They can't match Houston's revenues, and while this limits them to an extent, it can be overcome with the help of avoiding mistakes and with some of the same serendipity that Houston has enjoyed.

Not as a fallback move, but as the secondary acquisition after a FA signing of, say, Wheeler, MadBum, or Ryu. Bring back both Odorizzi and Pineda too. This gives you a full rotation likely to give you #2/3 type of performance. Mostly #3, admittedly. Pull Gray out of Coors or Musgrove out of Pittsburgh and see what you can do with them. Trade from excess (Rooker, Gordon, Javier, Baddoo, Miranda, Severino, Celestino, even Rosario perhaps?). Keep your stud prospects, Lewis, Kirilloff, Graterol, Larnach, Duran, Balazovic.

So true, Harmon. I think we often forget about how much performance volatility players have year to year, especially pitchers. And even when things go mostly to plan, like they did for the Dodgers for example, performance is unpredictable in the postseason. All a FO can do is build enough depth and have enough dry powder (budget room) to go with a Plan B and even a Plan C like our favorite team the Yankees have done.

Here are some fun facts that should make Garver's emergence seem even more remarkable: 49 catchers had plate appearances in 2019 who were drafted in an earlier round than Garver was. Only one of those players could possibly say he had a better season. JT Realmuto posted a 4.4 WAR compared to Garver's 4.0 WAR in b-ref, and he had about 200 more AB's. Garver's 156 OPS+ was decidedly better than Realmuto's 108 OPS+. Oh, and Garver didn't cost $5.9M, Sixto Sanchez, Will Stewart, Jorge Alfaro, and IFA slot money. 49 catchers, 16 first rounders and 19 2nd or 3rd rounders. But every one of them an earlier pick. 18 catchers were selected ahead of Garver in his 2013 draft class, 6 of them in the first 3 rounds. Garver was the 260th player selected in the draft that year.

It's hard to find players who were on the 25-man during the year who did NOT improve statistically in 2019 over 2018. If MLB gave out a reward for the most improved field staff and development staff, the Twins would win it.