Rocco to Return

[Linus]

Dan Hayes is reporting that Rocco is returning for next year. Anybody have a thought on this?

[ashbury]

*crickets*  😀

[Aggies7]

Probably too cheap to pay two managers at once. 
 

We always hear about why Rocco should be fired. And then people get defensive. But I never hear why he should not be fired. What’s he done? The high water mark is a playoff series win in a best of 3 in the expanded playoffs. Other than that, he’s now had. 2 second half collapses in 3 years.

[Gagnerules]

That means I won’t be.

So tired of the ineptitude of this organization from top to bottom.

For all of the Rocco supporters you get what you wanted. you will get to watch more pathetic uninspired play in 2025.

 

[Irishman]

14 minutes ago, Linus said:

Dan Hayes is reporting that Rocco is returning for next year. Anybody have a thought on this?

i am done with Baldelli.   I will not buy tickets next year.

[Mike Sixel]

I guess the FO is coming back then?

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Mike Sixel said:

I guess the FO is coming back then?

Most likely, yes.  You wouldn't confirm that to the media is you were replacing his bosses I'd think.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

Most likely, yes.  You wouldn't confirm that to the media is you were replacing his bosses I'd think.

That was my thought.

[USAFChief]

More proof this organization doesn't prioritize winning.

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Probably too cheap to pay two managers at once. 
 

We always hear about why Rocco should be fired. And then people get defensive. But I never hear why he should not be fired. What’s he done? The high water mark is a playoff series win in a best of 3 in the expanded playoffs. Other than that, he’s now had. 2 second half collapses in 3 years.

It depends on how you feel about the role of the manager.  I'm in the camp that thinks (especially in the modern game) that managers have little impact on the in-game decision making and overall philosophies.  They inact organizational philosophies consistently instead.  So if you have a problem with the way things are decided, then your issue is less with the manager and more with the FO. 

Where the manager does have an impact is in the clubhouse.  And to that end...all of his players (current and former) rave about him.  So he seems to be doing that part, but I don't know enough.  Maybe he's not.

I'd like to see him institute more in terms of working on pregame routines and fundamentals.  But if we're being honest, those are things that should be worked on before they show up in the big league clubhouse.

All told, I'm good with either decision here.  If this FO stays and had replaced Rocco, the replacement would just make the same decisions IMO.  If they keep him, ditto.  I don't see much changing from an in-game strategy perspective until the people at the top change.

[Irishman]

5 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

More proof this organization doesn't prioritize winning.

This ownership doesn't prioritize winning, too.   

[ashbury]

9 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Most likely, yes.  You wouldn't confirm that to the media is you were replacing his bosses I'd think.

FalVine stuck with Molitor for two full years, when all the vibes were that they wanted their own guy.  If Rocco has another year on his contract, it could be that he is a "ground rule" for whoever might come in new in (say) Levine's spot.  I doubt that it would be a deal-breaker for some ambitious young FO person being brought in from outside for a promotion.

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, ashbury said:

FalVine stuck with Molitor for two full years, when all the vibes were that they wanted their own guy.  If Rocco has another year on his contract, it could be that he is a "ground rule" for whoever might come in new in (say) Levine's spot.  I doubt that it would be a deal-breaker for some ambitious young FO person being brought in from outside for a promotion.

That's fair.  Certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if that was how it worked out.

[Linus]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

That's fair.  Certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if that was how it worked out.

Yea this almost certainly means the FO is coming back. 

[ashbury]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

That's fair.  Certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if that was how it worked out.

I'm probably reading more into Gleeman's omission of Levine as being safe in his remarks about the FO.  It's possible that Gleeman sees Fal-Vine as joined at the hip, and perhaps there is even a "if he goes, I go" ultimatum in place that we don't even know about.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/09/latest-on-twins-offseason-plans.html

[NYCTK]

17 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

More proof this organization doesn't prioritize winning.

Loser organization, constantly shooting for 86 wins and hoping it's good enough. 

[Aggies7]

21 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It depends on how you feel about the role of the manager.  I'm in the camp that thinks (especially in the modern game) that managers have little impact on the in-game decision making and overall philosophies.  They inact organizational philosophies consistently instead.  So if you have a problem with the way things are decided, then your issue is less with the manager and more with the FO. 

Where the manager does have an impact is in the clubhouse.  And to that end...all of his players (current and former) rave about him.  So he seems to be doing that part, but I don't know enough.  Maybe he's not.

I'd like to see him institute more in terms of working on pregame routines and fundamentals.  But if we're being honest, those are things that should be worked on before they show up in the big league clubhouse.

All told, I'm good with either decision here.  If this FO stays and had replaced Rocco, the replacement would just make the same decisions IMO.  If they keep him, ditto.  I don't see much changing from an in-game strategy perspective until the people at the top change.

How much can the players like him if they quit over the last month and change? Or what good does it do if they like the guy and packed it in? I mean it certainly seems like they did, not really able to quantify that but to my eyes it seemed that way. Some of the commentary about some guys not taking the time for extra work while the wheels were falling off…guys talking about being tired. I don’t know. Usually guys play hard for a coach/manager if they really like him. Or do they just like him because he’s passive and not mean? Sometimes, guys on bad teams rave about their coaches because they get away with poor effort/play

[Richie the Rally Goat]

9 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I'm probably reading more into Gleeman's omission of Levine as being safe in his remarks about the FO.  It's possible that Gleeman sees Fal-Vine as joined at the hip, and perhaps there is even a "if he goes, I go" ultimatum in place that we don't even know about.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/09/latest-on-twins-offseason-plans.html

Glossed over in the synopsis, Dave St Peter stays. While not surprising, the TV deal and announcement of dropping payroll are horrendous business outcomes/decisions

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

How much can the players like him if they quit over the last month and change? I mean it certainly seems like they did, not really able to quantify that but to my eyes it seemed that way. Some of the commentary about some guys not taking the time for extra work while the wheels were falling off…guys talking about being tired. I don’t know. Usually guys play hard for a coach/manager if they really like him. Or do they just like him because he’s passive and not mean? Sometimes, guys on bad teams rave about their coaches..

Well, there is room to interpret what this "quit" is about.  We have Correa and Ober both on the record scoffing at the notion it has anything to do with Baldelli.  What you're describing is hard to argue both for or against, wouldn't you agree?  

I understand what you're seeing and you may well be right that this is what happened, but we're too far removed from the psyches of the players, no?

[ashbury]

4 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Glossed over in the synopsis, Dave St Peter stays. While not surprising, the TV deal and announcement of dropping payroll are horrendous business outcomes/decisions

DSP actually has a seat on the board.  I presume there is some small-minority shareholder position attached to that, though I don't remember seeing it mentioned.  He's a Twins lifer and has been duly rewarded but I can't help the cliche of thinking he maybe has incriminating photos in a locked safe somewhere that accounts for his status. 

https://www.mlb.com/twins/team/front-office

[Aggies7]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

Well, there is room to interpret what this "quit" is about.  We have Correa and Ober both on the record scoffing at the notion it has anything to do with Baldelli.  What you're describing is hard to argue both for or against, wouldn't you agree?  

I understand what you're seeing and you may well be right that this is what happened, but we're too far removed from the psyches of the players, no?

Well firstly I reject the notion that managers matter very little. Sure, he’s not buying the ingredients but is he not cooking the meal? Lineup construction, pitcher management. Day to day clubhouse management. 2 late season collapses in 3 seasons is a bit of a red flag. Kind of calls into question that the clubhouse is one big happy family.

Again though, none of this is a shining endorsement of the job he did. I need something more concrete. 

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

Clown show organization.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

2 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Well firstly I reject the notion that managers matter very little. Sure, he’s not buying the ingredients but is he not cooking the meal? Lineup construction, pitcher management. Day to day clubhouse management. 2 late season collapses in 3 seasons is a bit of a red flag. Kind of calls into question that the clubhouse is one big happy family.

Again though, none of this is a shining endorsement of the job he did. I need something more concrete. 

The rationale of the Rocco supporters would mean that MLB managers are never deservedly fired.

A legitimate question is if this month of September doesn't warrant a change, what does?

2021 did. 2022 did. 2024 did. 

This isn't Rocco's first rodeo with epic collapses down the stretch. 

[Aggies7]

2 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

The rationale of the Rocco supporters would mean that MLB managers are never deservedly fired.

A legitimate question is if this month of September doesn't warrant a change, what does?

2021 did. 2022 did. 2024 did. 

This isn't Rocco's first rodeo with epic collapses down the stretch. 

It’s crazy to me to say that managers matter little. If that’s the case, why don’t the GMs fill our lineup cards or go to the mound to make a pitching change? Or why not just have a guy relaying whatever the stats say to do?

Sounds to me like the only fans who say that managers matter little are those fans whose teams aren’t very good. Did any rangers fans say that they could have won the World Series with someone other than Bruce Bochy?

[TheLeviathan]

8 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Well firstly I reject the notion that managers matter very little. Sure, he’s not buying the ingredients but is he not cooking the meal? Lineup construction, pitcher management. Day to day clubhouse management. 2 late season collapses in 3 seasons is a bit of a red flag. Kind of calls into question that the clubhouse is one big happy family.

Again though, none of this is a shining endorsement of the job he did. I need something more concrete. 

I think lineup and pitcher management is organizationally driven.

I can't give you a shining endorsement or raging objection to an MLB manager in 2024.  I truly don't think they matter in the analytical era.  I think all the focus and consternation on that front is misguided.  

Fans often like to pretend they have all the answers to how the cake is baked.  Most of the time we're just reacting with emotions because we're on the outside looking in.

[CRF]

Falvey confirmed before the game today that Baldelli's job is safe. I will have no further comment. 

[killebrewlover]

I guess I just don't get the Twins organization.  Or maybe just the business of MLB in general.  In what other business or organization (other than perhaps politics?) do you hire a person, give them all the tools they need to succeed, watch them regress in their performance over a six year period of employment, and then give them a vote of confidence to return for their seventh year??!!

Good for Mr. Baldelli for pulling the wool over the heads of the Twins ownership/GM.  You fooled 'em bud!  I will now devote the 2025 season to routing for anybody, ANYBODY else, in MLB other than the Twins.  My fervent hope is that they do a nose dive into last place and we can end this charade for good.  I'm sorry folks might think this is harsh.  But I place my support in teams and organizations that make every effort to do the right thing to be successful.  Results, bad or good, are the proof as to whether those efforts are worthwhile or not.  In this case, they've obviously fallen flat.  It's my opinion that a change is needed at the source.  Maybe it even starts with the GM.  I don't know.  What I do know is that Mr B. has had 6 chances to get to the big dance (I consider the WS the big dance, not a Divisional title).  He's failed 6 times. A shame we have to live thru this for one...more...year... before something gets done.

[ashbury]

49 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Well firstly I reject the notion that managers matter very little.

45 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

The rationale of the Rocco supporters

Managers obviously matter.  If they hired me, the Twins' fortunes would plummet.  Maybe plummet less if they hired you.

The difference among the 30 people who actually hold that title, though, may not be as much as you imagine.  There's the source of the disconnect in my view.

It's why the notion of "Rocco supporters" seems like a strawman to me, at least as regards most posters not on the Fire Rocco bandwagon.  It's not that we don't care, it's that we don't share the opinion it's highly important.

Let me ask you this.  Here's an article that lists "somebody's" guess about prevailing MLB manager salaries and Rocco's name is missing.  Craig Counsell set a record last year with a 5-year $40M contract, sourced elsewhere as well.  Pedro Grifol ranked second, and he lost his job during this LOL-worthy ChiSox campaign.  I can't find anything elsewhere either Rocco's salary, which may account for his absence from the list, but I assume it might be relatively high among managers, rather than lower than the $1M mark in this top-20 list, on the grounds of the Twins general reticence on topics like these.

Teams with aspirations for winning are, by contrast, willing to commit to contracts greater than $200M for players they think may make a difference.  The Cubs are the first team, apparently, to be willing to commit even 20% of that for a manager.

I'm taking a stab at guessing Rocco made good money, about as much in 2024 as Carlos Santana, a thoroughly average major leaguer at this stage of his playing career.

Why would you suppose that is?  The people rudely labeled as "Rocco supporters" seem to have an implicit view of the answer to that.

[Linus]

29 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I think lineup and pitcher management is organizationally driven.

I can't give you a shining endorsement or raging objection to an MLB manager in 2024.  I truly don't think they matter in the analytical era.  I think all the focus and consternation on that front is misguided.  

Fans often like to pretend they have all the answers to how the cake is baked.  Most of the time we're just reacting with emotions because we're on the outside looking in.

I think this is pretty accurate. I’ve read that the analytics department creates a report for each game that includes things like optimal lineups pitcher and hitter tendencies and on and on. How much Rocco has to follow that I obviously have no idea. The one thing I feel pretty certain about is the managers job in baseball has changed a lot. As I have stated I would prefer a manager whose teams play clean baseball but I don’t even know how much of that is on Rocco. Regarding the question asked above of citing a reason that Rocco should stay - I don’t have one. 

[Aggies7]

8 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Managers obviously matter.  If they hired me, the Twins' fortunes would plummet.  Maybe plummet less if they hired you.

The difference among the 30 people who actually hold that title, though, may not be as much as you imagine.  There's the source of the disconnect in my view.

It's why the notion of "Rocco supporters" seems like a strawman to me, at least as regards most posters not on the Fire Rocco bandwagon.  It's not that we don't care, it's that we don't share the opinion it's highly important.

Let me ask you this.  Here's an article that lists "somebody's" guess about prevailing MLB manager salaries and Rocco's name is missing.  Craig Counsell set a record last year with a 5-year $40M contract, sourced elsewhere as well.  I can't find anything stating Rocco's salary, which may account for his absence from the list, but I assume it might be relatively high among managers, rather than lower than the $1M mark in this top-20 list, on the grounds of the Twins general reticence on topics like these.

Teams with aspirations for winning are, by contrast, willing to commit to contracts greater than $200M for players they think may make a difference.  The Cubs are the first team, apparently, to be willing to commit even 20% of that for a manager.

I'm taking a stab at guessing Rocco made about as much in 2024 as Carlos Santana, a thoroughly average major leaguer at this stage of his playing career.

Why would you suppose that is?  The people rudely labeled as "Rocco supporters" seem to have an implicit view of the answer to that.

So if managers don’t matter very much, why the vehement defense of the guy? If they matter little, let’s try someone else. Maybe someone else can tie up the loose ends that even his most ardent supporters have to admit exist. If they matter very little then whoever we put in there couldn’t be that much worse, right?

I mean what have they accomplished with him that we can’t move on to someone else? A best of 3 series win against a mediocre team with all the games at home? It only seems like that was amazing because of our terrible playoff history. That wouldn’t create a ripple with most serious franchises.