Twins fire Dougie Baseball

[KirbyDome89]

 

Nearly all of whom let go had longer Twins tenures and none of whom have seen this sentiment raised in their threads.

 

Just saying.

So Doug is the most recognizable of the bunch?

 

In no way does that invalidate anything I've said....

[KirbyDome89]

 

Again, I don't understand why DM deserves better than a call from his direct supervisor. Steil has confidence from the FO to make hiring and firing decisions in the minor leagues. They don't need to micromanage every process. 

DM's tenure, or any other person's tenure with the team who gets let go, shouldn't make a difference. 

You believe that Falvey played no part in the decision other than to say "ok?"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And on top of that, we don't know how this decision was made ... both to not renew DM's contract and how to tell him. I'm sure Falvey had a say. I'm sure he weighed all the opinions and evaluations and had a part in the discussion ... to what extent is unknown; he could have simply 'signed off' on the decision or could have had a deciding vote to non-tenure the contract. But who did he rely on most for information as to how and what DM was going about his job? Probably from Steil, I would think. And who did Steil get his information from? What criteria was he using for his evaluations and who had input into that? Who else would provide that information? Maybe other MiL coordinators? I'm not sure the hierarchy, but Falvey received his information most likely from Steil, and there was something there that wasn't falling into place. So, in the end a decision was made. Did Steil agree with the decision? Did he think it wrong? Was he the one recommending it? How much discussion was there, if there was any? We don't know and I'm not sure how detailed an answer one is entitled to. And whether or not one thinks Falvey should have made the phone call, maybe he should have, or perhaps the one to best do it is the one who has worked with DM the most, the one who had the best relationship with him, the one who was his boss. I don't know ... but I don't think this was classless in how it was handled one iota. Maybe not the right decision for some or in the end, but I don't think it was wrong or classless, either. And if Falvey had been the one to deliver the news, maybe DM would have called out Pohlad for not delivering the news? Again, don't know. And don't care, at this point. This kind of thing isn't easy to do and isn't easy to take. And second guessing doesn't make it better, either.

Never mind that it could have been as simple as Steil saying "I want to be the one to let him know".

 

Absent any real information outside of a pissed off ex-employee, I struggle to care much about any of this.

[Steve Lein]

Well, something like this would have framed it a lot better at the start:

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/heyman-mientkiewicz-plans-to-learn-from-sudden-twins-firing/

[gunnarthor]

 

Again, I don't understand why DM deserves better than a call from his direct supervisor. 

Because he's not just a simple class A manager. The FO should have known what he meant to this fan base. It was tone deaf and suggests that the new FO doesn't understand the Twins history or fans.  

 

I don't know how old you are but it's really important to remember how much good will the Pohlads destroyed in the 90s. They went from WS to pretty good in 92 to playing "we can't compete in this market" and trading all their players, letting their young genius GM leave and ****ing fans over completely. It was a lost decade. And then the same ****ty owner wanted to contract the team and take a payout from MLB!

 

And a young group of ball players restored that goodwill. That's why fans of a certain age adore Dougie and AJ and Hunter even though they never won a WS. That's why Myjah at TT still talks about Jacque Jones. The FO should have known how important he was to the team.

[Vanimal46]

 

You believe that Falvey played no part in the decision other than to say "ok?"

 

I assume upper management got together to review who stays, who goes, etc. Falvey and Levine would be in the room and concur on the decision to let Doug go. The rest of the story went through chain of command. Steil was Doug's immediate supervisor, and gave him the call. 

I would expect it's the same process as the corporate world.... If I were fired today, the CEO probably signed off on it, and I would expect my direct supervisor to bring me into his office saying today is your last day. I certainly wouldn't expect the CEO to deliver the news himself, even if I've been here for 3 years. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I assume upper management got together to review who stays, who goes, etc. Falvey and Levine would be in the room and concur on the decision to let Doug go. The rest of the story went through chain of command. Steil was Doug's immediate supervisor, and gave him the call. 

I would expect it's the same process as the corporate world.... If I were fired today, the CEO probably signed off on it, and I would expect my direct supervisor to bring me into his office saying today is your last day. I certainly wouldn't expect the CEO to deliver the news himself, even if I've been here for 3 years. 

Then I guess we'll disagree on who ultimately made the decision to part ways. Falvey is setting the guidelines for running minor league teams as he should. He made the decision to move Doug down a level last winter. I can't see any way in which the decision to let him go was coming mostly from Steil and Falvey simply gave the nod. Call it old school, but if you're going to pass the sentence on a guy who had been in the organization for as long as Doug had, you should swing the sword. Not calling irked me; I understand the "chain of command," everybody is falling back on but businesses have a choice regarding how to handle those situations. I had a much larger issue with the lack of an explanation. IMO it doesn't get much more disrespectful to a former employee to tell them "don't come back, and you don't need to know why." 

[drjim]

[drjim]

I think the front office is wise to let Dougie blow off steam, not get into a war or words, and quietly correct the record. They had no *good* way to do this.

[biggentleben]

 

He was told his contract would not be renewed. Not fired, dismissed or anything nefarious. If he was told days, weeks or months before the contract was over it really does not matter.  In baseball  employment there is no way he falls into a protected class. With free will employment in both Minnesota and Florida there really does not have to be a reason.

 

I'm not by any means saying they had any reason to tell him anything. I'm just talking about who makes the call. That point would still have to follow set protocols if he was under contract. 

[biggentleben]

 

So Doug is the most recognizable of the bunch?

 

In no way does that invalidate anything I've said....

 

You're fighting for the guy with the least tenure the hardest. So, if he wasn't famous, would you even know? Would you care?

 

I think it sheds a light on some of the discussion...I'm quite certain none of the scouts let go were going to have a 16-page thread about their dismissal.

[biggentleben]

 

Then I guess we'll disagree on who ultimately made the decision to part ways. Falvey is setting the guidelines for running minor league teams as he should. He made the decision to move Doug down a level last winter. I can't see any way in which the decision to let him go was coming mostly from Steil and Falvey simply gave the nod. Call it old school, but if you're going to pass the sentence on a guy who had been in the organization for as long as Doug had, you should swing the sword. Not calling irked me; I understand the "chain of command," everybody is falling back on but businesses have a choice regarding how to handle those situations. I had a much larger issue with the lack of an explanation. IMO it doesn't get much more disrespectful to a former employee to tell them "don't come back, and you don't need to know why." 

 

Um, you do realize the move to Fort Myers was on Doug's request, do you not?

[Paul Pleiss]

Ring ring, ring ring,

Doug: Hello?

Bill: Yeah, hi, is this Doug Baseball?

Doug: Yeah.

Bill: We're having a sale at the fire store.

Doug: What?

Bill: Yeah, we're having a sale at the fire store, you're on sale.

Doug: I don't understand what...

Bill: YOU'RE FIRED DOUG!

Doug: What was that about a sale at the store?

Bill: FIRED. CANNED. YOU. ARE. OUT. GONE. GOODBYE.

Doug: Did you say you have canned foods?

Bill: Jesus, Doug. We're letting you go.

Doug: Where? Summer league?

Bill: No. You've been released.

Doug: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUdge.

[biggentleben]

 

Ring ring, ring ring,

Doug: Hello?

Bill: Yeah, hi, is this Doug Baseball?

Doug: Yeah.

Bill: We're having a sale at the fire store.

Doug: What?

Bill: Yeah, we're having a sale at the fire store, you're on sale.

Doug: I don't understand what...

Bill: YOU'RE FIRED DOUG!

Doug: What was that about a sale at the store?

Bill: FIRED. CANNED. YOU. ARE. OUT. GONE. GOODBYE.

Doug: Did you say you have canned foods?

Bill: Jesus, Doug. We're letting you go.

Doug: Where? Summer league?

Bill: No. You've been released.

Doug: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUdge.

 

Why can I not like this twice?? LOL

[nicksaviking]

Because he's not just a simple class A manager. The FO should have known what he meant to this fan base. It was tone deaf and suggests that the new FO doesn't understand the Twins history or fans.

Not catering or placating the fan base gets two thumbs up from this guy.

 

Win them over again with WS trophies, not sentimentality and "glory days" tie-ins is how I vote.

[biggentleben]

 

Not catering or placating the fan base gets two thumbs up from this guy.

Win them over again with WS trophies, not sentimentality and "glory days" tie-ins is how I vote.

 

[jimmer]

 

Not catering or placating the fan base gets two thumbs up from this guy.

Win them over again with WS trophies, not sentimentality and "glory days" tie-ins is how I vote.

This, all day long.  I love Doug M, but this is spot on.

 

But I am a big fan of that one hot dog vendor that roams the TF bleachers doing a show when serving up hot dogs to the fans. If he got fired by anyone but one of the FO guys, I'd get pissed! :-)

[drjim]

Not catering or placating the fan base gets two thumbs up from this guy.

 

Win them over again with WS trophies, not sentimentality and "glory days" tie-ins is how I vote.

Strikes me as a false choice.

[gunnarthor]

 

Not catering or placating the fan base gets two thumbs up from this guy.

Win them over again with WS trophies, not sentimentality and "glory days" tie-ins is how I vote.

Sure, when they win something, fan bases forgive everything. But they haven't won anything yet and their big in-season decision was to waive the white flag at the deadline, pissing off fans and players. We're a long way from them being able to ignore the fan base.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You're fighting for the guy with the least tenure the hardest. So, if he wasn't famous, would you even know? Would you care?

 

I think it sheds a light on some of the discussion...I'm quite certain none of the scouts let go were going to have a 16-page thread about their dismissal.

 

Um, you do realize this is a straw man and doesn't address any of the sentiment in my posts, do you not?

[PseudoSABR]

Maybe it's just me, but I would preferred to be fired by a person whom I had an actual relationship with, not some figure head whom I've maybe spoke once or twice.  

 

Unfortunately, I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread: those who are cynical of the new regime will find fault in the decision not to inform Dougie M. personally; those who grant the new regime some leeway see appropriate behavior.  One of the nice things about a message board is we have a record of everyone's stances--it's no surprise who has an ax to grind. 

 

That Dougie M. went to the media so quickly and egregiously speaks to his liability and potential for insubordination.   I understand that he was upset, but as professional, he should realize that he's auditioning for his next job in the same moment as he's criticizing his former employer.  I imagine Heyman's article/quotes arise from such a realization.  

 

Frankly, it's not hard for me to imagine that Dougie M. would stray often from protocol and run with his own take on things.  That's just unacceptable, whatever his supposed success.  (Let's face it, many of the position players have had to make significant adjustments to succeed at the ML level; in spite of how much they may like him, his job is not to win games but to develop players.) 

 

One more thing, how much did he mean to the organization.  He really wasn't that great of player (two whole years at over .800 OPS , and wasn't that long tenured--his personality, and his willingness to bring the spotlight to his family (or their willingness to seek it) always seem self-serving and allowed for the narrative that he was this all-time player deserving of special treatment.  

[h2oface]

 

That Dougie M. went to the media so quickly and egregiously speaks to his liability and potential for insubordination.   I understand that he was upset, but as professional, he should realize that he's auditioning for his next job in the same moment as he's criticizing his former employer.  I imagine Heyman's article/quotes arise from such a realization.  

 

 

That sounds like an errant supposition to me. If a journalist calls you and you agree to talk to him, is that one going to the media..... or the media coming to you? I believe there is a big difference.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

That sounds like an errant supposition to me. If a journalist calls you and you agree to talk to him, is that one going to the media..... or the media coming to you? I believe there is a big difference.

Fair.  'Went' to the media, was the wrong verb.  That Doug M. revealed how he felt with such disregard to his past employer's reputation and his own prospects of future employment nonetheless shows significant liability, no?  The point is even had Doug M. had significant grievance, he played his hand poorly (though clearly he gained some traction with some Twins fans). 

 

 

[old nurse]

 

That sounds like an errant supposition to me. If a journalist calls you and you agree to talk to him, is that one going to the media..... or the media coming to you? I believe there is a big difference.

There really is not much difference someone going to the media to talk, somebody answering the phone when the media comes calling and talks at length. In both cases when the focus is on issues, grievances and the like it is both ways  is the same result,. A one perspective story with an ax to grind is the same regardless of who initiates it. When the media calls you, you can always say no.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I assume upper management got together to review who stays, who goes, etc. Falvey and Levine would be in the room and concur on the decision to let Doug go. The rest of the story went through chain of command. Steil was Doug's immediate supervisor, and gave him the call. 

I would expect it's the same process as the corporate world.... If I were fired today, the CEO probably signed off on it, and I would expect my direct supervisor to bring me into his office saying today is your last day. I certainly wouldn't expect the CEO to deliver the news himself, even if I've been here for 3 years. 

 

I think that depends on where you are in the chain more than anything. I work for a company of 100k employees and that many contractors. If I got fired today, the CEO would not be signing off on it, that I could pretty much guarantee. If he CEO is involved in any capacity at all, that means that someone did something wrong.

 

I know the Twins are smaller, but there is a line there. Exactly where it is, who knows. I suspect in this case the mandate is to build the organization that they want to build, and if Doug didn't fit that... then goodbye.

[spinowner]

 

That sounds like an errant supposition to me. If a journalist calls you and you agree to talk to him, is that one going to the media..... or the media coming to you? I believe there is a big difference.

Once you agree to talk it doesn't matter.

[h2oface]

It is only a one sided story if one side refuses to talk, or "comment", when the same media calls them, and tells them they are writing a story that includes them, and asks if they would like to be included, and give their side. The party that doesn't want to talk, usually has the most to hide, and usually would look the worst if they do weigh in. It happens on 60 minutes all the time, for example. I guess in this world we live in, telling the truth as they understand it, and expressing ones feelings, becomes unprofessional to those touting their corporate experience and customs, and professional means covering up, hiding the facts, and being generally holier than thou and condescending. Some respect that, especially those that are a product of that box. Cultured in the box, living in the box, and defending the box, and hiding the truth. Rampant supposition and judgement then abounds. They had every right to do what they did. They did it, and they aren't telling. And some like that. I get it.

[h2oface]

 

Once you agree to talk it doesn't matter.

 

It matters to me. Initiation always matters to me.

[old nurse]

 

It is only a one sided story if one side refuses to talk, or "comment", when the same media calls them, and tells them they are writing a story that includes them, and asks if they would like to be included, and give their side. The party that doesn't want to talk, usually has the most to hide, and usually would look the worst if they do weigh in. It happens on 60 minutes all the time, for example. I guess in this world we live in, telling the truth as they understand it, and expressing ones feelings, becomes unprofessional to those touting their corporate experience and customs, and professional means covering up, hiding the facts, and being generally holier than thou and condescending. Some respect that, especially those that are a product of that box. Cultured in the box, living in the box, and defending the box, and hiding the truth. Rampant supposition and judgement then abounds. They had every right to do what they did. They did it, and they aren't telling. And some like that. I get it.

One side may indeed have a lot to hide. They hide the negative side of the employee that they did not renew the contract of. They are doing him a favor.  There is no reason for the FO to torch him. They chose not to renew a contract, That is all the more information that there needs to be

[old nurse]

 

I'm not by any means saying they had any reason to tell him anything. I'm just talking about who makes the call. That point would still have to follow set protocols if he was under contract. 

I would doubt that there would be an HR rule that states you can't tell someone there contract is being renewed. I doubt there would be a rule that states the contractor's immediate supervisor  can't tell the controctor their contract is going to be renewed.