Does the Front Office owe us an explanation?

[ewen21]

 

They are literally paid to lie and deceive for a living.

 

If he is missing the point then use other words to explain this premise

[Tom Froemming]

Sorry if somebody already went here and I missed it, but what about ownership?

 

It's entirely possible that Derek Falvey and Co. are simply carrying out the game plan as built by ownership to the best of their abilities. Now I'm not saying ownership is saying go sign Matt Belisle or anything specific like that, but they may have instructed the front office to do what it can to keep winning as many games as possible and they may also have been urged to consult with Molitor when it comes to roster composition decisions.

 

Since some of the moves made don't make a lot of sense from a purely baseball operations/big picture baseball standpoint, I imagine that ownership influence has got to have something to do with it. This ownership group has always been averse to selling/tanking/rebuilds. 

 

So, let me take a stab at providing potential answers to your original questions through that lens ...

 

1.) Buxton situation playing through broken toe. (For that matter, not giving him any time in Rochester after long DL stint)

We felt pressure to get Byron back on the big club because it felt like we were losing ground in the division and he gives us the best chance to win ballgames.

 

2.) Belisle

He's a player who Paul Molitor trusts. He adds value by being a leader, but is also a dependable person day-in and day-out. We have some talent in Triple A, but none of those pitchers has proven to be dependable. We're so far back in the division right now that we can't afford to lose games on experiments. We know what we're getting with Belisle.

 

3.) Use of relievers (see Magill, Belisle, etc.)

Paul has leaned heavily on the top guys in the bullpen because he'd rather "dance with the one that brought you" so to speak. If we're going to lose, we'd rather it be because an established player faltered rather than throwing a guy into a new situation and expecting him to succeed. Magill provides depth and versatility, but we feel he's best serving as multi-inning insurance in the event one of our starters has a short outing. 

 

4.) Wilson love

Bobby is a guy the pitching staff loves to throw to and Mitch Garver is still getting a feel for the big leagues. We want to put our starting pitchers in the best position to succeed. Much like with Belisle, we know what we're getting with Wilson.

 

Long story short, I believe ownership's desire is for the Twins to try to win as many games as they can, regardless of future development/implications. So that's the task at hand for the front office. 

 

Should that be the goal right now? I don't think so. Will that still be the goal a couple weeks from now? Probably not. I suspect sooner or later ownership will be ready to flip the switch and accept the fact this is a rebuilding year. For the time being, I think they're just holding out hope that Cleveland has a collapse.

[Squirrel]

What we need is the Twins Baseball Mike Wallace equivalent. Good honest investigative reporting. 

 

Tonight on 60 minutes (Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick) The Minnesota Twins recently signed 38 year old relief pitcher Matt Belisle to a major league contract... just one day after being released by their division rival the Cleveland Indians. Despite having one of the lowest operating budgets in the world they were able to Guarentee 600 thousand dollars to a relief pitcher that will be used a couple of times a week for approximately 3 months. We spoke with the President of Baseball Operations about the reason why. 

 

(Cut to Video: Derek Falvey looking up to sky with tears streaming down his face) We thought we got rid of him in October. You know... you come into this job with a plan and never in your wildest dreams can imagine the volume of things that you don't see coming. We thought we got rid of him in October! (Bangs Fist on Table).  

 

I'm Mike Wallace

I'm Morley Safer

I'm Anderson Cooper

I'm Ed Bradley

These Stories and More tonight on 60 Minutes (Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick)

I know someone who works for 60 Minutes and when I showed him this he said that’s not a story they would do.

[Blackjack]

 

 

 

Long story short, I believe ownership's desire is for the Twins to try to win as many games as they can, regardless of future development/implications. So that's the task at hand for the front office. 

 

 

 

I think you are correct.  The cash cow called Target Field only works if there are fanny's in the seats.  A losing team dims fan interest and keeps them away from Target Field, meaning less $10 beers and $8 hot dogs sold. 

[Doomtints]

Some perspective...

 

Yes it's been a rough year.

 

But it's not nearly as bad as most of the Terry Ryan II years, even with the Sano, Buxton, Polanco, Dozier, Morrison debacles. No one traded the entire outfield. No one gave long contracts to useless pitchers. No one signed a bunch of has-been hitters. The plans of this front office didn't work out this year, but they didn't doom the team to another five years of ****e with terrible moves.

[Squirrel]

I think you nailed it. The FO made some good moves but when both Sano and Buxton regressed, the season started sucking. Plus losing your best starting pitcher - Santana, AND your starting shortstop AND your starting catcher. The FO couldn't do anything about that.

 

Going forward is where the FO can prove themselves, knowing that Sano and Buxton can't be counted on and that the best prospects are years away from Target Field. Its going to be interesting.

This is where I’m at. The explanation I’m owed is two-fold:

 

1. Having the FO acknowledge what didn’t work and trying to move forward through the actions of trades, signings and off season moves.

 

2. Managing my own expectations through acknowledging this is just a game. I can roll with the punches when **** happens because I have absolutely no control over it. Same with the angst/anger over what is or isn’t done along the way the way I want it to. I mean, am I really going to pout and not watch the Twins anymore because they don’t trade for Realmuto and don’t sign Machado and don’t re-sign Escobar? Well, okay, maybe a little, but I’ll get over it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree with those who say this isn't the front office's fault. Sure, maybe they misread the evaluations on some guys - but overall I think getting Odorizzi, Lynn, Morrison, Rodney, Duke, and Addison Reed looked REALLY GOOD in March.

 

Problem is that these were supposed to be "accent pieces". The drapes in your living room. The parsley on your steak & mashed potatoes. None of these signings were going to be huge difference makers, they were all meant to support what was thought to be an established core.

 

Sano and Buxton were that offensive core, and they've completely collapsed. The Twins basically spent every day since 2014 planning to build their current team around those 2 key offensive players. Buxton can't hit, and aside from a couple hot months over the span of 2 different seasons, has never been able to hit. Sano CAN hit, but his philosophy is messed up and needed to be completely broken down and put back together from scratch.

 

It's not the FO's fault that Sano, and particularly Buxton, can't play baseball. Maybe they should have known that, but I don't think anyone foresaw the possibility of Byron Buxton not being a major leaguer.

 

six of 25 players can't be "accents".....that;s 25% of your roster.

 

This "there were injuries" thing is what happens to every team. I've posted it before, but the Twins are median for WAR lost to injury this year....and plenty of teams that lost more WAR than them are in the playoffs......

 

As for Buxton and Sano, mostly agree. BUT, neither has been close to healthy/consistent in their careers. 

[Mike Sixel]

Who is Matt Belisle leading? Name the young pitchers on the roster that need a leader at this point? There are, what, two or three with less than two year's experience? 

 

If this was actually a young team, I'd get people's point on this topic. But, it's not. Oh, and ESan is about to return.....he's 35. 

[Squirrel]

I appreciate your point, but I am not of this mindset.  I would prefer it if they were less evasive and more transparent and honest about things than what you suggest here.  I think fans in general would be more appreciative of a more honest and forthright presentation.  As a wise man once said....

I don’t disagree with wanting truth and transparency and I don’t disagree with the feeling that we are owed that level of honesty. But I also think there is a limit to how much of that they can give publicly and I don’t think we are owed specific explanations into each move and/or player. I also think that if they did give us truth and honesty to that degree, there would still be a large portion of fans who would still feel that the FO is lying to them because they aren’t being told what they already think the truth is.

[Mike Sixel]

I agree with others, there is a limit to the transparency, and they owe us nothing. Just as we owe them nothing.

[USAFChief]

 

I know someone who works for 60 Minutes and when I showed him this he said that’s not a story they would do.

Well of course not.

 

For one thing, Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley and Morley Safer are all dead.

[ewen21]

 

I don’t disagree with wanting truth and transparency and I don’t disagree with the feeling that we are owed that level of honesty. But I also think there is a limit to how much of that they can give publicly and I don’t think we are owed specific explanations into each move and/or player. I also think that if they did give us truth and honesty to that degree, there would still be a large portion of fans who would still feel that the FO is lying to them because they aren’t being told what they already think the truth is.

To be perfectly honest, I do not require an explanation until much later on in the season.  I was very satisfied with what they did with respect to roster moves.  My main issues are Molitor, the culture and player development.

 

And I don't expect them to speak as if they are on trial, but I am profoundly disappointed with how boring this team is and the backward steps Buxton, Sano, Kepler and (yes) Polanco took this year.  How Sano and Buxton can be this lost is staggering to me.  I am also thoroughly exasperated by these callups.  There is no competition whatsoever in the high minors.  Players don't even need to play well to be call up and that is a HUGE problem.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think patience is to be warranted with Kepler. Last year, he was pretty good against righties. This year, he's hitting lefties. Probably another season or two before he really puts it together.

I'm not advocating they give up on him by any means. I do think it's important to realize he's still a flawed hitter. When you pair that with Buxton's inability to stay on the field, the need for a 4th OFer capable of holding down starter innings intensifies. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Sorry if somebody already went here and I missed it, but what about ownership?

 

It's entirely possible that Derek Falvey and Co. are simply carrying out the game plan as built by ownership to the best of their abilities. Now I'm not saying ownership is saying go sign Matt Belisle or anything specific like that, but they may have instructed the front office to do what it can to keep winning as many games as possible and they may also have been urged to consult with Molitor when it comes to roster composition decisions.

 

Since some of the moves made don't make a lot of sense from a purely baseball operations/big picture baseball standpoint, I imagine that ownership influence has got to have something to do with it. This ownership group has always been averse to selling/tanking/rebuilds. 

 

So, let me take a stab at providing potential answers to your original questions through that lens ...

 

1.) Buxton situation playing through broken toe. (For that matter, not giving him any time in Rochester after long DL stint)

We felt pressure to get Byron back on the big club because it felt like we were losing ground in the division and he gives us the best chance to win ballgames.

 

2.) Belisle

He's a player who Paul Molitor trusts. He adds value by being a leader, but is also a dependable person day-in and day-out. We have some talent in Triple A, but none of those pitchers has proven to be dependable. We're so far back in the division right now that we can't afford to lose games on experiments. We know what we're getting with Belisle.

 

3.) Use of relievers (see Magill, Belisle, etc.)

Paul has leaned heavily on the top guys in the bullpen because he'd rather "dance with the one that brought you" so to speak. If we're going to lose, we'd rather it be because an established player faltered rather than throwing a guy into a new situation and expecting him to succeed. Magill provides depth and versatility, but we feel he's best serving as multi-inning insurance in the event one of our starters has a short outing. 

 

4.) Wilson love

Bobby is a guy the pitching staff loves to throw to and Mitch Garver is still getting a feel for the big leagues. We want to put our starting pitchers in the best position to succeed. Much like with Belisle, we know what we're getting with Wilson.

 

Long story short, I believe ownership's desire is for the Twins to try to win as many games as they can, regardless of future development/implications. So that's the task at hand for the front office. 

 

Should that be the goal right now? I don't think so. Will that still be the goal a couple weeks from now? Probably not. I suspect sooner or later ownership will be ready to flip the switch and accept the fact this is a rebuilding year. For the time being, I think they're just holding out hope that Cleveland has a collapse.

I get the devil's advocate angle here, but don't the Pohlads have a reputation as a fairly hands off ownership group? Apart from keeping Molitor for the season after the FO shakeup, the only time their name is really mentioned is in regard to payroll/budget. 

[mngopherguy]

 

To the East Coast?

 

Um, no.

[mlhouse]

1.    Its true that managers manage and will play the players they want to play and ptich the pitchers they want to pitch.  _{It is also true that managers have a say in the roster they have.  But, in the end, if you don't want Bobby WIlson catching or Matt Belisle pitching, don't put them on the roster.}

 

_{2.   While 90+% of Twins fans will disagree, last season was a disaster for the Twins.  I get that the Twins fell into a one game on the road playoff appearance and that was exciting, but it carried a cost. But that came at a cost of getting a rebuilding year done that will put the team in contention going forward.  Getting to 85 wins on 35+ year old players who will not be here 2 years from now just puts more time in trying to configure a future Twins team that can really compete.  The proof is in the pudding as the questions we have this year cannot be answered but many of them should have been answered last year.}

 

_{3.  The steps forward are pretty clear.} 

 

_{a.  I like Mollie, but he needs to go and the Twins need to find the best possible manager that is willing to develop the young players properly, have the patience to stick with them and lose, all to get the team set up for success in the future.}  

 

_{b.  THe young players need to get extended chance at the big leagues and work through their problems at that level.  What value does it serve to send Romero, as an example, back to AAA.  He has dominated there and continues to dominate.  What he needs ot work on is at the MLB level.  We need to give these kids a chance to make the mistakes, and lose games, at the highest level.   A whole slew of players need to be given this chance rather than settle on players like Wilson, Belisle, and Taylor Motter.}  

 

_{c.   This will also mean expediting some of the younger players up to levels that this and hte previous FO deemed "risky".  But, their approach has been a disaster as even our best prospects come up to the majors unprepared.  Sano, Buxton, Berrios, Romero are just examples of guys that have struggled when they reach the majors despite a conservative approach to brining them up to the majors.}  

 

 

[Tom Froemming]

 

I get the devil's advocate angle here, but don't the Pohlads have a reputation as a fairly hands off ownership group? Apart from keeping Molitor for the season after the FO shakeup, the only time their name is really mentioned is in regard to payroll/budget. 

Exactly. We don't know because nobody, fans included, really talks that much about ownership's influence on the team. Sure, somebody will call them cheap every now and then, but beyond that it's nada.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this thread could just as easily be titled "Does Twins ownership owe us an explanation?"

[LaBombo]

 

Fair point, and my intent was certainly not to be dismissive. I like how you put this, and it is fair to ask the Belisle question weekly (I'm surprised it''s still going on), but I don't see the need to bring it up every single time. 

 

I also think this time of year... team is now pretty much completely out of contending (after almost letting ourselves get a little bit excited before the All Star break), it is fair and almost necessary to ask certain questions with more frequency.  That said, the more often a question is asked, the less value there is in the response (potentially, if the person being asked realizes, the answer is pretty much the same as it was yesterday). 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and your post is a good thumbnail sketch of an important difference between the pastime of following a team and the job of covering a team. 

 

And maybe this point has been covered already in this thread, but I'll apologize if it has and raise it anyway. For me, at least, it's not that a Matt Belisle or a Bobby Wilson is ruining the Twins' season, it's just that the presence of players like them makes it difficult to understand just what it is that the Twins' front office is trying to accomplish at this point.

 

As Joker reminded us in The Dark Knight, "Nobody panics when there's a plan, even when the plan is horrifying". I'd prefer a non-horrifying plan for the Twins, and they should have the resources to come up with one.

 

But as long as the Twins retain guys like Belisle who can't really help them either contend or rebuild, it's likely that many heads will continue to be scratched, and much consternation will continue to be voiced.

[Riverbrian]

 

I know someone who works for 60 Minutes and when I showed him this he said that’s not a story they would do.

 

Tell your friend that the content they choose will ultimately determine ratings and therefore revenue. 

 

If 60 Minutes would rather do in depth reports on Seaweed Farming, Alma the Child Mozart Prodigy, A convicted felon who became a law professor, Truckers smuggling human cargo across the border in reefer units that they forget to turn on and the role of congress in the Opioid Crisis, that is their decision.

 

If they would rather cover stuff like that instead of covering the Matt Belisle Crisis in depth so we can find out what happened. Tell your friend that I can't forecast them lasting another 50 years.    

[Riverbrian]

 

Well of course not.

 

For one thing, Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley and Morley Safer are all dead.

 

That explains why Mike Wallace isn't all over this Belisle thing with his camera crew. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Exactly. We don't know because nobody, fans included, really talks that much about ownership's influence on the team. Sure, somebody will call them cheap every now and then, but beyond that it's nada.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this thread could just as easily be titled "Does Twins ownership owe us an explanation?"

True, and theoretically they're signing off on every decision made so responsibility ultimately lies with them. They could be pulling more strings than we're led to believe, and perhaps that's the way they want it to be. I didn't mean to sound like I'm absolving ownership of anything, they're the only constant over the last 7ish years of "system failure." 

 

I just meant that I have a hard time pinning the Belisle roster spot & Wilson love affair on ownership demands. I buy that the Pohlads want to wait until the last possible minute to throw up the white flag. You're spot on calling out their reluctance to commit to a rebuild/tank. That unwillingness coupled with numerous half measure moves has likely cost the team some time in terms of a competitive window. The deadline last season was a microcosm of that conservative/flawed approach. 

 

That said, I still had hope that the FO could do better than Belisle if the idea was to keep a sinking ship afloat. Who knows, maybe they're between a rock and hard place with meeting ownership demands to win now while protecting future assets and setting themselves up to build the organization as they envisioned it.  

[Riverbrian]

 

Exactly. We don't know because nobody, fans included, really talks that much about ownership's influence on the team. Sure, somebody will call them cheap every now and then, but beyond that it's nada.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this thread could just as easily be titled "Does Twins ownership owe us an explanation?"

 

While I don't advocate a direct grilling of the Front Office. 

 

I'm certainly in favor of going full guns on the ownership. 

[KGB]

 

True, and theoretically they're signing off on every decision made so responsibility ultimately lies with them. They could be pulling more strings than we're led to believe, and perhaps that's the way they want it to be. I didn't mean to sound like I'm absolving ownership of anything, they're the only constant over the last 7ish years of "system failure." 

 

I just meant that I have a hard time pinning the Belisle roster spot & Wilson love affair on ownership demands. I buy that the Pohlads want to wait until the last possible minute to throw up the white flag. You're spot on calling out their reluctance to commit to a rebuild/tank. That unwillingness coupled with numerous half measure moves has likely cost the team some time in terms of a competitive window. The deadline last season was a microcosm of that conservative/flawed approach. 

 

That said, I still had hope that the FO could do better than Belisle if the idea was to keep a sinking ship afloat. Who knows, maybe they're between a rock and hard place with meeting ownership demands to win now while protecting future asseOts and setting themselves up to build the organization as they envisioned it.

The main question to ownership would be why did you hire this front office? After a playoff birth, ownership and the FO should have expected to try and improve the team.  If ownership biggest mistake is not wanting to tank the season, I give them credit for trying to win.  If we want them to tank the season, it doesn't make any sense to pay high salary players, then ownership would get blame for that also.

 

Ownership approved the highest payroll in team history, blaming them for how the front office spent the money is like blaming the FO for in game decision by Molitor.

 

 

 

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I get the devil's advocate angle here, but don't the Pohlads have a reputation as a fairly hands off ownership group? Apart from keeping Molitor for the season after the FO shakeup, the only time their name is really mentioned is in regard to payroll/budget.

Pohlads also have a reputation for being extraordinarily cheap.

 

During the previous offseason JP told the candidates for VP Ops that they had to keep Molitor.

 

Last offseason the Pohlads spent 135 mil, which is median-ish for payroll. Way more than ever spent previously.

 

Point is, things change, and maybe this isn’t as much of a change as Terry Ryan would have led us to believe.

 

I like Tom’s creativity. It’s true that we really have no idea how any of the inner workings tick.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The main question to ownership would be why did you hire this front office? After a playoff birth, ownership and the FO should have expected to try and improve the team.  If ownership biggest mistake is not wanting to tank the season, I give them credit for trying to win.  If we want them to tank the season, it doesn't make any sense to pay high salary players, then ownership would get blame for that also.

 

Ownership approved the highest payroll in team history, blaming them for how the front office spent the money is like blaming the FO for in game decision by Molitor.

They did try to improve the team though. We can disagree about their aim in terms of the caliber of players targeted, and the areas addressed, but there's no doubt the group surrounding the core this season should've been better than last year. 

 

I'm not sure I'm following your point about ownership being blamed for high salary players. This team won't be competing for/in the playoffs this season, so while I'm not endorsing ownership selling and pocketing cash, I am endorsing the team trying to get what they can for players on short term deals, even if the return is a handful of lottery tickets. IMO we've reached a point where wasting innings on guys like Wilson, Belisle, ect. are doing more harm than good (assuming any good was done by using them to begin with.)

 

That last part about team history is important. It's already been pointed out but the Twins are still middle of the pack in terms of MLB payroll, and they're very unlikely to be even that high next season. Ownership brought this FO in. Regardless of whether the results are positive or negative I'm not sure how they don't share responsibility for the outcome. 

[Rosterman]

No.

 

The team looked like a chance to take the divsiion after a lukewarm season getting in the wild card, of all things. Yet the front office DID NOT see a need to spend millions on longterm deals. Yes, they kicked tires. Showed they might be oplayers.

 

In he end, they did make quite a few signings which should've been better than they turned out. Three bullpen arms, a designated hitter, a starter. They traded for another rotation arm.

 

There is a solid core of players who, hopefully, were developing: Sano, Buston, Rosario, Kepler, Polance.

 

Okay. Sanatana starts he season on the dl and goes long. 

 

Pretty much ALL the free agents tanked, so to speak. Maybe Rodney didn't. But he has made the game exciting, and you can't save chances you don't have to save games.

 

Developing players took a BIG step back except for Berrios and Rosario. I mean, Polanco gets suspend!

 

The front office didn't see 2018 happening. The other front office wants to sell tickets, so you must improve the team. They did so, giving up one of many shortstop prospects.

 

But their plan to emerge in 2019 at the earliest and 2020 or 2021 are still on the....wave! Trust that they have a plan, of a team without Mauer, and maybe headed by someone other than Molitor.

[h2oface]

 

I think you nailed it. The FO made some good moves but when both Sano and Buxton regressed, the season started sucking. Plus losing your best starting pitcher - Santana, AND your starting shortstop AND your starting catcher.  The FO couldn't do anything about that.

 

Going forward is where the FO can prove themselves, knowing that Sano and Buxton can't be counted on and that the best prospects are years away from Target Field.  Its going to be interesting.

 

The proof is in the results. It is NOT a good move if the players don't perform, even if you thought it would be. It was a horrible guess. The performance of Odorizzi and Lynn and Morrison is horrible, regardless of who else is on the team. Absolutely horrible. Even if Sano and Buxton and Polanco and Santana were on the team through the trios ineptitude, they would still be horrible. Their performance stands on its own. The FO chose wrong. No if, ands , or buts about it. There is also no excuse for Wilson to be on this team. That stands on its own, too. 

[h2oface]

 

Have you actually seen Gonsalves pitch in person? If so, how often or are you just presuming to have a better understanding of his readiness to pitch at the ML level as compared to the professionals assigned to monitor and coach him everyday by looking at his stats?

 

There was a similar presumption here with Berrios. Some went so far as to say he would be as good as any starter we had. Obviously, he was not quite ready.

 

Even if he were ready, I would hope the FO would continue to run Lynn out there. A few good starts in a row and Lynn could fetch a decent prospect based on pretty darn good career numbers.

 

At least Berrios was given an opportunity, eh? Then you really know. And who is to say that his progression would not have been the same if he wasn't returned to AAA? You can't. It is an unknown.

 

Professionals. Hmmm. I understand that the choices they have made have produced results that don't show great acumen for making the right choices. Have you seen Rochester's roster? Mostly pretty depressing, and they have a hard time winning games.

 

You never ever know, unless you actually give the young man an opportunity. The rest is all talk. 

 

Yep, we need to trade Lynn for more prospects that stay in the minors until they are 28 and released, or let go so they can be on a contender's roster, like the Dodgers and the Cubs, and then there is Rodriquez for the Giants! So much for professional pitching talent identification - we can't find room for them but can find room for the likes of Belisle, who Cleveland, with a failing pen, didn't even want.

 

And this just in from Tom's minor league daily summary.....

"Top prospect Stephen Gonsalves took the mound for the Red Wings looking to improve even further on his six-start stretch where he had lowered his ERA from 5.89 all the way down to 3.34. He delivered his best of that bunch on Tuesday, tossing seven scoreless innings. He allowed just five hits, struck out four, and most importantly in that timeframe, issued zero walks. He gave up a leadoff triple in the fifth, but his defense caught that runner at home on the next batter. Gonsalves then finished by retiring the final eight hitters he faced. Of his 98 pitches, 68 went for strikes (69%) and he improved to 7-3 on the year in Triple-A."

 

The big league team sure could have used a little of that. And we really could have used Dereck Rodriquez this year. Or maybe on the Twins, he wasn't ready yet.

 

Put me down on the list that would like an explanation. 

[beckmt]

You may well put a lot of this under the win some lose some category.  Unless one of the released or lost players turns into being a star, it seems to be a zero sum game.  (of course the one I fear most of doing this Burdi is out for the year).  The refief pitchers they have kept, do not have the command at Rochester to be here and trusted on a regular basis.  Expect this will change in the next month, but will wait to see.  Just do not expect much more than lottery tickets, given that this is a buyer's market.                                                           

[ewen21]

 

 

 

_{b.  THe young players need to get extended chance at the big leagues and work through their problems at that level.  What value does it serve to send Romero, as an example, back to AAA.  He has dominated there and continues to dominate.  What he needs ot work on is at the MLB level.  We need to give these kids a chance to make the mistakes, and lose games, at the highest level.   A whole slew of players need to be given this chance rather than settle on players like Wilson, Belisle, and Taylor Motter.}  

 

 

There has to be a standard.  For example, if Byron Buxton can't hit his weight then how long do you simply stick him out there to "learn at the major league level"??  We are supposed to allow players to be really bad for entire seasons with no concern for demotion?  If that is what you are saying I don't agree with it.  That isn't a sound development plan.  I think we have been doing that already because there is zero competition in the high minors.  There are very few options due to a horrendous lack of depth in Rochester and this is a big issue I have with Falvey and Levine.