The recent signing of former Minnesota Twins infielder Nick Punto by the St. Louis Cardinals provided another reminder of the similarities between the two teams. They are both Midwest-located, good fundamental-playing, middle-market, well-run organizations that are typically Central Division contenders in their respective leagues.
I came across a news item that reminded me of one current difference, however. An article about the Triple-A Rochester Red Wings’ annual shareholders meeting held last weekend highlighted a dreadful 2010 season for both the Twins Triple-A and Double-A clubs. The two limped home with 49-95 and 44-98 records, respectively.
I do not profess to be an expert on the Twins organization nor want to pass judgment about their player development processes, but those records seem to indicate a shortage of talent and/or a lack of depth that inhibited them from fielding competitive teams at the upper levels of their system.
Still, coming into 2010, Baseball America had ranked the Twins seventh among the 30 MLB organizations. Apparently, their top talent is lower in the system and/or concentrated in a handful of individuals. In the new 2011 rankings that were recently introduced, Minnesota slipped a bit but still remains in BA’s top half, at number 14.
The Red Wings article points out how the Twins specifically targeted minor league free agents this winter, bringing 17 new players into the top ranks of their system in preparation for the 2011 season. The clear intention is to put a more competitive product on the field in Rochester and Double-A New Britain via an influx of minor league veterans.
St. Louis is a study in contrast.
Despite the Cardinals system having been ranked substantially lower than the Twins – 29th by BA one year ago and 24th this year – St. Louis’ top two minor league clubs not only posted winning records last season, but they also made the playoffs. While Minnesota’s top two clubs posted an aggregate .325 winning mark, Memphis and Springfield finished the 2010 regular season at a combined .549.
The Cardinals did it predominately with players they originally scouted and signed. Over the last five years, the organization has added fewer and fewer minor league free agents. Their current count for 2011 is just eight external signees, many to help shore up a depth exposure in the middle infield. Further, it seems a virtual certainty that at least two of the additions, Jim Edmonds and Miguel Batista, will never don a Memphis uniform.
Of course, it is important to distinguish between Triple-A and Double-A team won-loss records and an assessment of the level of top prospects across an entire minor league system. The former is more of a measure of quantity while the latter focuses on the quality of a relative few.
Still, all things considered, shouldn’t the Cardinals’ often-maligned player development function receive some credit for playing consistently good ball with rosters primarily filled with home-grown players?
Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
It’s hard to get a handle on what winning minor league records mean to the organization particularly when the rosters aren’t loaded with A type prospects. Somebody in the Cards organization did comment this year that our minor leaguers were being taught to focus on winning rather than padding their stats. The implication is that our guys may actually be better prospects than their numbers indicate and that they will arrive in the majors playing fundamentally good baseball.
That’s hard to prove but it could be argued that that’s why some relatively unheralded rookies like Freese, Jay and Garcia helped keep the Cards in the race last year. Another group of guys came up for shorter stints and didn’t embarrass themselves either.
Welcome, easy. Thanks for commenting.
I agree this isn’t a black-and-white situation. Winning records are always secondary to player development, but having both is even better.
Thanks for the welcome. It would be an interesting research project to see if there is any correlation between farm systems’ winning percentage over a few years and subsequent success of the parent teams.
I agree that there can be no downside to winning on the farm and maybe there’s some upside.
Another variation on that theme would be to look at major league results of those organizations with top-ranked farm systems x number of years later.
Then compare the two. Did overall farm depth (as measured by W-L record) have a greater impact on MLB teams later than did top prospect ranking, or vice-versa?
The problem I see is that a number of subjective decisions would have to made to assemble this. My experience tells me that the more gray area that exists, the greater chance those who don’t like the results will attack the methodology.
you have to do some sort of multi-variate analysis to include (at a minimum) payroll. In this day and age, you can buy your way out of farm system dearth.
Yes. The reality is that too many other factors affect W-L.
Yeah I realized when I wrote the suggestion that there were many other factors to consider and also that the project was certainly way beyond my skills or attention span. Wouldn’t it be somewhat telling though to simply ignore all of those other factors and see, over a period of time and including all teams if there was or was not correlation? I suppose one could also divide the teams into big, middle and low spenders and make comparisons within those categories or just measure each team against itself over time. Aargh. I’ll stop now.
Agree.
There is such a thing as becoming good at playing minor league baseball……… favorable opportunities above to encourage……….. plenty of career “stuckee’s” …….and a favorable traveling environment…………… Historically the Twins have been low budget……… high investment prospects were anticipated on the big league club to manage payroll…… ready or not.
That changed after the old man died and they got the stadium with a 100 million dollar payroll instead of 70………… Their minor league system will catch up.
This would be a good topic for Jumbo………… come on out big guy…………
Hmm…it seems to me that 100 million dollar payroll was spent mostly on players the Twins developed or players they traded for. The Twins still don’t venture too much out into the market, and when they do they don’t get crazy with it.. Their focus has been on keeping what they have.
They are designed to always have an influx from their minor leagues. They will continue to do that-and keep some and trade some. They have a loyal large enough fan base and the son is not the father in regards to spending money, so that has changed. They’ve also seemed to be more active in the Latin market.
Yes of course………… Keeping the assets creates a backup in drafting and developing…..maximizing investments means “Free agents”……….they are now a big league team……… for years they had a fixed payroll that had to make do, just short of body part exchanges………… but their minor league playing environment is still meant to weed out “future less” ball players………ours to sustain their signing illusions.
Look at what Chris Duncan, Rick Ankiel, and now Skip Schumaker have done to the minor system.
And now Tony’s last stand…………..Post Pujols ……Holiday/Wainwright Cardinals will be wanting for some sticks come 2012…….
Of course if we sign Pujols, Carpenter probably wont even be here in 2012
Chris has to survive this year, physically……..I believe we are signing some players that are likely to respond to his leadership and intensity, giving him a little traction……..if he and Waino have to throw the deuce as much as last year…..neither will finish the season.
Agree w/maker that the Twins have been spending on their own talent – that they developed.
I have long envied the Twins minor league system
I’m sure our system winning comes from an over reliance on statistics which is just an illusion to mask the lack of talent.
Any idea how many minor FA’s the Twins had last year?
I’m sure the guy from BBHQ would say it is our depth that causes the winning but that it is the lack of star power that has us ranked lower.
I too have long envied the Twins minor league system. They truly have a system in place, an integrated one, from bottom to top.
You know, Gardenhire started many years ago as a minor league manager with them, managed his way up through the minor levels, was promoted to third base coach-where he stayed for 11 years working under Tom Kelly, then he got the managing job when Kelly retired. Kelly and Gardenhire had a huge part in the “Twins Way” of doing things. They both were key in devising and implementing it.
They pretty much promote from within, and make sure there are no obstacles in the way of their premium prospects-because they do intend to use them.
I don’t know if their minor league teams have winning records, but I have a feeling that the push for all of their players is on development first, everything else second. That approach is conducive to winning in the long run, and that’s what they are in it for.
Some time ago I think we had a discussion about the effect of a focus on drafting college players rather than high school. It was postulated that drafting more college players gave the system greater proven ability but perhaps less chance of finding and developing impact big leaguers. This also related to the degree of reliance on sabr meathods in drafting, since that tends to focus on older players who have accumulated some stats to analyze.
I’m not sure the evidence shows we draft that many more college players than other teams. If I remember correctly, we are about average. Have no idea where the Twins stand in that area.
IIRC, the Cards drafted more college players for a few years but have increased the number of high schoolers lately.
Yes. My counts the last six years, starting with 2010 are 11, 7, 9, 8, 12 and 14.
High schoolers are cheaper………….. they still paid 5 million for JM out of high school….Cudyer was another big investment……… the moved people right out of there way all the way up. Moreau came out of Canada…..farm boy……. Santana was a rule 5 speculation……sat the bench the whole year….. turned out okay……..left because the old man was still alive……….
The Twins have been solid at signing pitchers and raising them to ML starters: Blackburn, Baker, Garza, Slowey.
Not flashy………but solid starters all………. but they had some damn run support…….it changes everything for a young pitcher…………it cuts down on the amount of time that they’re forced to labor against time spent in aggressive and challenging combat………. Cardinal pitchers were used up by AP’s pre-deadline shenanigans by years end…………..
Free agent starting pitchers are costly (Westbrook, Lohse). Its valuable to develop amateurs into starting pitchers. The Twins have been somewhat more successful than the Birds (Haren, Garcia, and Anthony Reyes).
I noticed the roster matrix has not only NRIs but also early minor league camp invitees. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the latter listed anywhere in past years. Is it something the team hasn’t released in the past, or has no-one asked? Anyway, it’s good info but I’m not sure what is to be made of who is on the list and who isn’t.
Also, any new info on the thinking as to where Shelby and Zach will be assigned?
The early minor league camp is new, but last year they had an early pitching camp as I recall. I don’t know of you subscribe, bb, but in the John Vuch interview I posted two weeks ago, I asked him about the significance of that group being singled out. There also may be fewer players in camp overall.
I haven’t changed my personal thinking. Palm Beach is the safe choice with Springfield being a stretch. Because PB is better for pitchers and the Texas League is more hitter-friendly, I would assess Cox’ chances slightly better. Miller has more pro experience, but Cox is older and is on an MLB contract, as you likely already know.