Please fire the entire coaching staff, except Pete Maki!!

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Buxton and Sano were two of the top prospects in baseball. They've probably each underperformed to some extent while Kepler (maybe?) and Polanco have provided more than expected. Rosario kinda was what everybody thought he'd be. It was a really nice, young position group to inherit, obviously, because most of the success this FO has had is tied directly to that group. 

No doubt the pitching was an issue, I mean that's specifically why Falvey was brought over from Cleveland. I'd add Rogers to your list and even though May was rough to start he was also a big part of that 2019 pen. 

Yes, they were. But so were JP Crawford, Orlando Arcia, Yoan Moncada, Joey Gallo, Brendan Rogers, Lewis Brinson, Nomar Mazara, and Austin Meadows. Those guys were all in the top 20 overall global prospects on MLB.com going into the 2016 season. They've had varying degrees of success in the majors. That's why I said they weren't devoid of talent, but you can't expect to hit on all those players.

It was a nice group of young players, but the expectation shouldn't have been that they all hit their peaks by any means. We can also get into how much credit this FO deserves for finishing their development. There's a lot of grey area, and semantics in here. Do we count Kepler and Polanco as "talent" in the system if they weren't actually seen as that talented? If this FO got more out of them than expected do we give them credit, or knock them for the guys already being there? I wouldn't add Rogers or May to the list of "talent" in the system outside of them already having been in it. Rogers didn't take off until the new staff taught him his slider. As you note, May didn't take off until the new regime got there either. If we're going to "blame them" for not getting Pressly to the heights Houston has (not saying you do, just in general) then we should give them credit for being the ones to help pull out better performance from these guys.

Not an easy thing to really make too hard of statements on. I agree they had some clay to mold, but it certainly wasn't a sizeable group of massive talent. They didn't have nothing, but they weren't taking over a juggernaut. Do I think they've maximized the situation? Absolutely not.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Yeah I just don't think it does, at least not one series. Even the current version of the Twins is capable of beating a WC team in a 3 game series; look at what they did in Toronto. That doesn't change who or what this team has been. 

I don't think they have to play markedly better. Honestly. There's nothing about Cleveland that makes me think they're capable of putting together even 4 weeks of solidly above average baseball. Chicago, Detroit, and KC aren't threats. The Twins can ride the .500 rollercoaster all the way to a division title. 

The .500 roller coaster has been on a down slope for quite a while. That's more of what I was talking about. They got off to a very nice start, but have been playing at a well below .500 mark for some time now. So when I say "play markedly better" I'm referring to their stretch since May 1 when they've gone 19-25. Or, as Gleeman just tweeted a couple hours ago, their last 162 games they're 73-89. But I agree that sticking around .500 gives them a shot at the division.

[KirbyDome89]

40 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, they were. But so were JP Crawford, Orlando Arcia, Yoan Moncada, Joey Gallo, Brendan Rogers, Lewis Brinson, Nomar Mazara, and Austin Meadows. Those guys were all in the top 20 overall global prospects on MLB.com going into the 2016 season. They've had varying degrees of success in the majors. That's why I said they weren't devoid of talent, but you can't expect to hit on all those players.

It was a nice group of young players, but the expectation shouldn't have been that they all hit their peaks by any means. We can also get into how much credit this FO deserves for finishing their development. There's a lot of grey area, and semantics in here. Do we count Kepler and Polanco as "talent" in the system if they weren't actually seen as that talented? If this FO got more out of them than expected do we give them credit, or knock them for the guys already being there? I wouldn't add Rogers or May to the list of "talent" in the system outside of them already having been in it. Rogers didn't take off until the new staff taught him his slider. As you note, May didn't take off until the new regime got there either. If we're going to "blame them" for not getting Pressly to the heights Houston has (not saying you do, just in general) then we should give them credit for being the ones to help pull out better performance from these guys.

Not an easy thing to really make too hard of statements on. I agree they had some clay to mold, but it certainly wasn't a sizeable group of massive talent. They didn't have nothing, but they weren't taking over a juggernaut. Do I think they've maximized the situation? Absolutely not.

I'm speaking more about what materialized rather than what was expected. Zero interest in parsing out credit or blame. Failing to maximize or capitalize is the camp I'm in as well.