You are mistaken about my assertion here.
You are mistaken about my assertion here.
This is not what Houston, Miami and Pittsburgh do. They overhaul the whole operation and stock the 25 man mostly with players younger than 30-years-old, usually much younger. I'm not casting judgment on which method is best, I am arguing against the notion that the Twins are "rebuilding" the same way that every other club does it.
Your point was never to compare them against other teams, you said their own good assessments are "far, far" more prevalent than their poor ones. Which is also utter rubbish. In order to achieve 300 losses in three years it would take bad luck unseen since the Donner Party to achieve that kind of futility while operating brilliantly as an organization.
How are you not doing precisely the opposite and how is that any better?Quote:
And that people look under every stone for an excuse to be critical and are so stingy with their praise.
There is no more story to write about Worley. He was acquired and made the opening day starter. He failed miserably and was released for nothing. IT was a failure. There really can't be any debate about that.Quote:
The Worley trade is perfectly defensible, Levi. Worley may or may not end up being a "mistake",
The Revere trade may still be great for the Twins but even if it wasn't I stand by the move at the time. It's possible to support the move and still criticize the results. So far the results are an absolute failure and some encouragement we hope to see soon, but May's success won't change the story on Worley. So yes, it is 100% unassailable that Worley was a failure for the Twins.
The very fact you're taking issue with that should be something you reflect on.
Moderator's note: this is getting overly personal and is too much bickering and not enough constructive discussion.
Any comparison between the Yankees and Twins in terms of free agent strategy, especially before 2012, is borderline ridiculous. The Twins didn't even play the free agent game until recently. Willingham, Nolasco, Hughes, and now the rental on Morales really signal a sea change in management/ownership, even if we still aren't signing guys to $100+ million deals (which, let's face it, the majority of them end up being bad deals anyway).
But I don't see those moves as "rebuilding". You have so many guys in jobs they have had for so long, I just instantly assume that people like Gardy, Ryan, etc. don't want the the bottom to completely fall out, so they add a veteran piece here or there to appease the fanbase and to keep it from being a completely rebuilt roster.
And I have to catch myself because whereas in hockey or basketball that would be a terrible strategy that would get you stuck with draft picks in the teens, the MLB draft is so much more unpredictable (and until recently, was dictated as much by signability as it was by talent) that tanking doesn't really do anything for you. Sure, you can end up a Byron Buxton because your team was bad, but you could also just sign Miguel Sano or a Cuban player with no impact from the draft whatsoever. And that Buxton pick could just as easily have been Mark Appel, which isn't looking that great right now.
If you wish to allege that the Twins master plan was to put the most horrendous Starting Staff possible on the field to absolutely tank the Twins in 2013- for the third year in a row, causing a massive fall-off in attendance, which in turn, forced the owner for the first time to go public and call the current product an "embarrassment"- all in order to draft Nick Gordon at pick #5 (I don't see how Kohl Stewart comes into play here, whatsover), well then, I guess Terry Ryan must be considered to have engineered quite a trade. I wonder if Terry is scouting as we speak to see if there any other players we can trade for in order to insure future 96-loss-season tanking opportunities?
Who said anything about "blaming it all" on Worley? What "tone" are referring to? We are judging the Worley situation specifically on its own merits (or in this case, the obvious lack thereof), nothing more is being judged here.Quote:
It does not warrant the tone you set forth to blame it all on the Worley decision.
Vance probably can be a legitimate starting pitcher. It was not going to work here. It just wasn't.
Anyway, the rebuild certainly is in process and the results, so far, are surprising. Who could have imagined this team this close in the division given:
A: The Sano and Buxton injuries.
B: The Hicks struggles and the Pinto demotion
C: The fact that none of the pitching prospects have moved to the big leagues.
D: Joe Mauer batting like a below-average first baseman
E: The injury to Oswaldo Arcia, effectively delaying his contribution
The team is still on track for the arrival of Sano and Buxton in 2015, with a more mature Arcia, Pinto, and Hicks. Mauer's struggles still cannot be indefinite. Brian Dozier is the real deal. Eddie Rosario will be up in September. Danny Santana is somehow doing this well. Eduardo Escobar has emerged. Phil Hughes and Kyle Gibson appear to be real pitchers at the top of a rotation. This rotation will soon become better with an improved Nolasco, and the arrival of Alex Meyer and Trevor May. Meanwhile, the Twins *could* be trading partners with a number of teams with regard to Willingham, Morales, Fien, and Duensing.
Personally I would be surprised to see Worley work out well for the Pirates long term. This feels a bit like Deja Vu with Liriano. Worley was touted as at tops a number 3 pitcher when we got him and he performed like a AAA pitcher when we started him. The Twins gave him ample time to prove himself and we all hoped to see the best of Worley this year in spring training. After all the prep and hype in the off season he didn't look any better than the year before. Worley seems like a number 5 at best and we have plenty of those already. I would argue we have guys waiting with higher upside than VW.
The train-wreck story that is Vance Worley will live in infamy but the Twins will survive it.
My point: More time is required to complete the assessment of the Revere trade.
That's all the further I will wade into this debate.
The trade may have been worthwhile (I think so), and Worley, even if damaged goods to some extent, was a worthwhile gamble. But it's hard to dispute that the Twins erred in counting on him as much as they did (he should have been a 4-5 and not 1-2) and failed to get any kind of decent results/value out of him.
Escobar could be argued as the primary product of 2014 success from the rebuild, and the Twins were practically forced at gunpoint into making him a starter. Is the then-28 year old rookie, Chris Colabello, signed in 2012, considered a part of the rebuild?
The Twins average age for pitchers this year has gone up to 29.8. Put into perspective, this is the oldest the Twins team pitchers have been since 1988, the year after the World Series win- at age 30.0. And the average age has gone up, instead of down in each year in the rebuild:
2014: Average age of 29.8
2013: Average age of 28.3
2012: Average age of 27.8
This year's Twins team batters are actually older than in the veteran-laden year of 2011- 28.1 vs 27.6.
fWAR leaderboard for 2014
WAR Total 5.6
How many of these FAs are intended to be part of the rebuild that leads to a perenially successful team? Nolasco, and maybe Hughes if the Twins are intent on winning in 2015-16.
Pre-rebuld prospects and veterans
WAR total: 2.5
It's arguable that all of the prospects would have been called up, rebuild or not. Kubel and Bartlett's "contributions" to the rebuild speak for themselves.
Rebuild-specific trades for prospects
Escobar WAR total 1.7
Here's the one guy that has directly come about from the rebuild- and again his WAR result has happened outside of the Twins expectations for him.