Rocco to Return

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

23 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

Neither do I. People realize that a MLB manager isn't going to starve in the streets after a firing, right? I mean, this is an elite position. The pay is good, and there are always chances to coach at other levels. Rocco would survive.

And so would the Twins. There are probably about a hundred people in the country who would be immediately qualified. Some of them might be the tonic this team needs to take things to the next level. Few could do too much worse.

Rocco hit the lottery when he was born with elite athletic talent.

Then he hit the lottery again when he made the major leagues with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays as a center fielder. (a lot of work went has to go into that one, to Rocco's credit)

Then Rocco hit the lottery for a third time as a major league manager. 

Anybody affiliated with MLB in that capacity like Rocco, Falvey, St. Peter, has already hit the lottery. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Suggesting it won’t matter IS defending him. It’s not his fault they underperformed and collapsed then. It couldn’t be because his impact is minimal.

Why are you taking it so personally if people are angry he’s being kept on? Why does it bother you? Who really cares?

I don’t care that much other than it creeps into too many conversations and drags down commentary in general.

Being apathetic is NOT the same as support. Come on now. I might have fired Baldelli after this season but I’m also unsure whether it will impact much, if anything, given the front office is unlikely to significantly change. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

6 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I swear to god it feels like I'm being gaslit every time this guy is even mentioned on this website. Holy christ.

Well, right. If Josh Donaldson was hired to manage the Twins or be Baseball Operations VP, and this same collapse happened under Donaldson year after year, we wouldn't blame Donaldson. Donaldson is just being Donaldson.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Well, right. If Josh Donaldson was hired to manage the Twins or be Baseball Operations VP, and this same collapse happened under Donaldson year after year, we wouldn't blame Donaldson. Donaldson is just being Donaldson.

[C-Gangster]

3 hours ago, Irishman said:

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

So you're not going to support the team we love just because they're a chance of them losing. I'm sorry are you a sports fan. Theyres always a chance of them losing the maneger is only a small part of this.

[Squirrel]

27 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Suggesting it won’t matter IS defending him. It’s not his fault they underperformed and collapsed then. It couldn’t be because his impact is minimal.

Why are you taking it so personally if people are angry he’s being kept on? Why does it bother you? Who really cares?

If you are angry about it, I would surmise then it’s you taking it just as personally. I think what Brock is trying to say that anytime anyone brings up the manager for discussion, those that want him gone belittle and shout down anyone’s opinions on the matter that don’t match those who are angry and want him gone. We have five Rocco threads on this one page alone … and of those, there were more that were merged into those to try and create a more central discussion. But it never is a discussion when one side thinks the other is wrong and how dare they. And you just stated this is how it is … if we don’t agree with you exactly we are now defending that which you abho, so it’s you, Hosken, Chief and others who simply cannot have a nuanced discussion with varying levels of disagreement unless it’s all or nothing. Right. And that statement encapsulates why we can never have a discussion on the manager because you and others think anything but good riddance is defending him. Yet Brock is taking this personally and you aren’t? Got it. I’ve stated many time I don’t think the manager is the main problem, and if not Rocco, it would be someone else just like him, carrying forth what the FO wants. In today’s game, I really don’t believe the manager has that much effect on the outcome. Sure, a few games here or there, but enough the make a huge difference? No, I don’t think so. I’ve also said I don’t really know the answer either. I’ve also said I wouldn’t be surprised either way if he stayed or was let go, and I won’t shed a tear or gnash my teeth either way, either. It’s a game. Just a game. One I hope they win, one I’m disappointed they lose, but it’s still just a game and life is out there yet to live. Yet I’m mocked for having such an opinion and my baseball acumen questioned as others are as well. Others who bring a lot of nuance to the conversation, nope,you tune it out, don’t listen, shout it down as defending. And you do so to those who are really quite studied and on their game about things. This one aspect of it, that gets brought up over and over, and shouted about in every game thread we have, is tired and old and one I just don’t think makes one bit of difference.

[Aggies7]

29 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

If you are angry about it, I would surmise then it’s you taking it just as personally. I think what Brock is trying to say that anytime anyone brings up the manager for discussion, those that want him gone belittle and shout down anyone’s opinions on the matter that don’t match those who are angry and want him gone. We have five Rocco threads on this one page alone … and of those, there were more that were merged into those to try and create a more central discussion. But it never is a discussion when one side thinks the other is wrong and how dare they. And you just stated this is how it is … if we don’t agree with you exactly we are now defending that which you abho, so it’s you, Hosken, Chief and others who simply cannot have a nuanced discussion with varying levels of disagreement unless it’s all or nothing. Right. And that statement encapsulates why we can never have a discussion on the manager because you and others think anything but good riddance is defending him. Yet Brock is taking this personally and you aren’t? Got it. I’ve stated many time I don’t think the manager is the main problem, and if not Rocco, it would be someone else just like him, carrying forth what the FO wants. In today’s game, I really don’t believe the manager has that much effect on the outcome. Sure, a few games here or there, but enough the make a huge difference? No, I don’t think so. I’ve also said I don’t really know the answer either. I’ve also said I wouldn’t be surprised either way if he stayed or was let go, and I won’t shed a tear or gnash my teeth either way, either. It’s a game. Just a game. One I hope they win, one I’m disappointed they lose, but it’s still just a game and life is out there yet to live. Yet I’m mocked for having such an opinion and my baseball acumen questioned as others are as well. Others who bring a lot of nuance to the conversation, nope,you tune it out, don’t listen, shout it down as defending. And you do so to those who are really quite studied and on their game about things. This one aspect of it, that gets brought up over and over, and shouted about in every game thread we have, is tired and old and one I just don’t think makes one bit of difference.

Looks like I hit a nerve 😂
 

No one is questioning your baseball acumen

It’s crazy that people are unhappy. You’d think the team had just completed the worst collapse in it’s history or something!

“And you do so to those who are really quite studied and on their game about things. ”

🙄

sorry I’ll study harder so I can question certain posters. 

[TheLeviathan]

7 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

Suggesting it won’t matter IS defending him. It’s not his fault they underperformed and collapsed then. It couldn’t be because his impact is minimal.

Why are you taking it so personally if people are angry he’s being kept on? Why does it bother you? Who really cares?

Let's try something.  I'll pretend to be a Ravens fan.  You continue to be a Vikings fan.

I say: "I HATE when the Steelers win.  I hope they lose hard against the Bengals today!"

You say "Honestly, from where I sit.....I don't really care who wins that game.  I'm not sure it matters"

I say "Raging Steelers fan huh!?!  My god, how can you defend and root for that team?  They are the WORST!  How can you say it doesn't matter!!  RARAGHATHGHAH"  

You say "What the hell just happened?"

TD in a nutshell lately with the Ravens fan playing the part of Rocco-Hate-Cult.  And it's your argument right now.  

I think the difference between Rocco Baldelli and Bud Black and Oli Marmol and Brian Snitker is like.... a game?  maybe two?.... in the standings.  I'm far more interested in the organizational values and philosophies.  Why does that stance make me a defender?  I'm just indifferent.  Is there no room for that?

My issue with the criticism isn't your conclusion.  It's the manner in which your criticism happens.  Much like you, the Vikings fan above, would be left bewildered by the exchange above...I'm bewildered by your argument.  Now (carrying my analogy) imagine you post a thread saying: "Gee....I wonder who is going to win the Chargers and Chiefs game?" and the response is a barrage of 50 Ravens fans taking over the topic with such nuanced takes as: "BLARGHHHHHHH.....Steelers!!!!!  I hope you lose and all you loser defenders lose too!    RARAGAGAG!!!"

TD. For like the last three months.

[Squirrel]

8 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Looks like I hit a nerve 😂
 

No one is questioning your baseball acumen

It’s crazy that people are unhappy. You’d think the team had just completed the worst collapse in it’s history or something!

“And you do so to those who are really quite studied and on their game about things. ”

🙄

sorry I’ll study harder so I can question certain posters. 

Nope, no nerve was hit. I’m saying that you and others question, disrespectfully, others who don’t agree with you hook, line and sinker. You said … if we don’t agree with you we are defending Rocco. Just pointing out how these threads go.

[Aggies7]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Let's try something.  I'll pretend to be a Ravens fan.  You continue to be a Vikings fan.

I say: "I HATE when the Steelers win.  I hope they lose hard against the Bengals today!"

You say "Honestly, from where I sit.I don't really care who wins that game.  I'm not sure it matters"

I say "Raging Steelers fan huh!?!  My god, how can you defend and root for that team?  They are the WORST!  How can you say it doesn't matter!!  RARAGHATHGHAH"  

You say "What the hell just happened?"

TD in a nutshell lately with the Ravens fan playing the part of Foaming-At-the-Mouth-Rocco-Hate-Cult.  And it's your argument right now.  

I think the difference between Rocco Baldelli and Bud Black and Oli Marmol and Brian Snitker is like.... a game?  maybe two?.... in the standings.  I'm far more interested in the organizational values and philosophies.  Why does that stance make me a defender?  I'm just indifferent.  Is there no room for that?

It’s not just this thread. Read all of them on the topic, I’ve read several today.

Actually it’s been a months long thing on here where a certain group of posters do not enjoy the Rocco stuff (“drags down the commentary”) as Brock said. What? This is a message board. 

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Aggies7 said:

It’s not just this thread. Read all of them on the topic, I’ve read several today.

Actually it’s been a months long thing on here where a certain group of posters do not enjoy the Rocco stuff (“drags down the commentary”) as Brock said. What? This is a message board. 

At some point, if it hampers discussion and it's all anyone talks about.....it's going to irritate people.  As Squirrel pointed out, they've literally had to condense Rocco gripe threads because of sheer volume.

A message board should have interesting discussions.  I would suggest the word "interesting" gets clobbered if it's always the same.  I could post a thread about how poorly maintained the trees in CF are and the first response would be "BLARG!  Rocco!!".  

But you can at least see why your insinuation of indifference = defender is unfair....right?

[Aggies7]

38 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Nope, no nerve was hit. I’m saying that you and others question, disrespectfully, others who don’t agree with you hook, line and sinker. You said … if we don’t agree with you we are defending Rocco. Just pointing out how these threads go.

 

[Aggies7]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

At some point, if it hampers discussion and it's all anyone talks about.....it's going to irritate people.  As Squirrel pointed out, they've literally had to condense Rocco gripe threads because of sheer volume.

A message board should have interesting discussions.  I would suggest the word "interesting" gets clobbered if it's always the same.  I could post a thread about how poorly maintained the trees in CF are and the first response would be "BLARG!  Rocco!!".  

But you can at least see why your insinuation of indifference = defender is unfair....right?

When is a better time to discuss the manager returning or being fired than the end of the season?

Sure you can be indifferent and not be a defender. And you made your argument that you are not defending him.

But, there are some whose intentions are different. I saw chief (the poster not the team) get absolutely clobbered by a couple fellow posters for his opinion on another thread just earlier today. It looked more personal than balls and strikes to me. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s right near the top of the page if you want to read it.

Today was an end to a rough time for fans. Some people are understandably unhappy. Sheesh can’t we even have a week to complain?

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

When is a better time to discuss the manager returning or being fired than the end of the season?

Sure you can be indifferent and not be a defender. And you made your argument that you are not defending him.

But, there are some whose intentions are different. I saw chief (the poster not the team) get absolutely clobbered by a couple fellow posters for his opinion on another thread earlier today. It looked more personal than balls and strikes to me. That’s what I’m talking about.

I mean, it hasn't just been this week.  It's been months of it.  Burnout, man.  People want a chance to read something else other than repetitive complaints.

But you claimed there are defenders.  Who is championing Rocco?  And I'll help you out....no one is!  It's this weird need for the Rocco Hate Cult to think they're fighting some valiant battle for the hearts and minds of Twins fans.

All anyone wants is to talk about the trees without Rocco being part of it.  Just...just let me have the trees man.  I want to talk Rocco-free about the trees! (To stick way too long with a joke analogy)

[Aggies7]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

I mean, it hasn't just been this week.  It's been months of it.  Burnout, man.  People want a chance to read something else other than repetitive complaints.

But you claimed there are defenders.  Who is championing Rocco?  And I'll help you out....no one is!  It's this weird need for the Rocco Hate Cult to think they're fighting some valiant battle for the hearts and minds of Twins fans.

All anyone wants is to talk about the trees without Rocco being part of it.  (To stick way too long with a joke analogy)

Ok well those things will happen when the team has it’s worst collapse in history, right? Like if the twins had kept up their pace and maybe got the 4th seed or overtook Cleveland, and everyone was whining about Rocco, I’d understand it. You play as bad the twins did yeah there’s going to be some repetitive topics. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Aggies7 said:

Ok well those things will happen when the team has it’s worst collapse in history, right? Like if the twins had kept up their pace and maybe got the 4th seed or overtook Cleveland, and everyone was whining about Rocco, I’d understand it. You play as bad the twins did yeah there’s going to be some repetitive topics. 

Except it was literally happening when they had the 2nd best record in the AL too.  And as Squirrell pointed out, when people wanted to just shift the subject elsewhere (if nothing else to keep things from being monotonous) they got attacked as defenders (as you did here) and their posts attacked repeatedly with strawman attacks (like the Ravens example above).  

Perhaps a better level of discourse could happen that includes, but isn't limited to, criticism of Rocco?  I'll be here for it next season.  Hopefully it's possible.

[Aggies7]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Except it was literally happening when they had the 2nd best record in the AL too.  And as Squirrell pointed out, when people wanted to just shift the subject elsewhere (if nothing else to keep things from being monotonous) they got attacked as defenders (as you did here) and their posts attacked repeatedly with strawman attacks (like the Ravens example above).  

Perhaps a better level of discourse could happen that includes, but isn't limited to, criticism of Rocco?  I'll be here for it next season.  Hopefully it's possible.

Let me ask, what content that you’d like to see is not being covered or lost here because everyone is posting about the manager?

It’s odd to me that people who don’t want to hear about Rocco as much would post in a thread about…:Rocco?

[Gagnerules]

2 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

I’m not saying you, I’m speaking about the people who seem personally offended with criticism of him.

I for the life of me cant figure out why so many people defend Rocco. I guess they are fine with inept play and terrible decisions.

[TheLeviathan]

11 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Let me ask, what content that you’d like to see is not being covered or lost here because everyone is posting about the manager?

It’s odd to me that people who don’t want to hear about Rocco as much would post in a thread about…:Rocco?

I think there should be more conversation on this forum about what has gone wrong with Royce.  Julien.  Lee.  The bullpen.  Those things need not have Rocco's name in them at all.

Or maybe articles on how we get Lee, Matthews, Festa, etc. more ready for next year.  Or the developmental failures for defensive readiness from young players.  The lack of any footspeed in this organization.  

I just don't think everything has to come down to any one thing  We could compartmentalize a bit.  

[Gagnerules]

The Twins are officially the worst run organization in Minnesota and that says a lot.

[Gagnerules]

Also can we all admit the players quit on Rocco. If you dont think they quit then we have not been watching the same team.

when the players quit on the manager you have to fire them.

[Aggies7]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I think there should be more conversation on this forum about what has gone wrong with Royce.  Julien.  Lee.  The bullpen.  Those things need not have Rocco's name in them at all.

Or maybe articles on how we get Lee, Matthews, Festa, etc. more ready for next year.  Or the developmental failures for defensive readiness from young players.  The lack of any footspeed in this organization.  

I just don't think everything has to come down to any one thing  We could compartmentalize a bit.  

Just in the last week, on the main forum page, there are a couple threads on ownership, one on a lack of moves at the deadline, a thread each about Lee and Lewis, one about former twins, even one about Kepler. You’re posting on many of them. And yes, there are more than a couple on Rocco. 
 

I’m just not seeing how this topic in particular draws such a response from some. Topics aren’t going uncovered because people are talking about the manager too much. And besides this is a thread about the manager, you can’t be miffed that people are talking about it here or at this time.

And by the way, everyone’s opinions are valid here. Or at least they should be. One doesn’t have more credibility to post something because they aren’t a negative unhappy fan. Having a positive, calm demeanor does not make one’s opinion more valid or correct. This isn’t directed at you but I see this written from time to time and it bugs me. Little too much gatekeeping goes on here sometimes. 

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Aggies7 said:

Just in the last week, on the main forum page, there are a couple threads on ownership, one on a lack of moves at the deadline, a thread each about Lee and Lewis, one about former twins, even one about Kepler. You’re posting on many of them. And yes, there are more than a couple on Rocco. 
 

I’m just not seeing how this topic in particular draws such a response from some. Topics aren’t being uncovered because people are talking about the manager too much.

And by the way, everyone’s opinions are valid here. Or at least they should be. One doesn’t have more credibility to post something because they aren’t a negative unhappy fan. Having a positive, calm demeanor does not make one’s opinion more valid or correct. This isn’t directed at you but I see this written from time to time and it bugs me. Little too much gatekeeping goes on here sometimes.

If there actually is gatekeeping, it happens so the conversations are engaging and interesting and not redundant griping.  That's how you get and retain new people to discuss the team.

Look, you're demonstrating the issues in this thread.  You haven't engaged in much of any discussion here.  I asked you about how knowledgeable we can be about the psyche of the players and you moved the goalposts. You didn't address my question at all.  You had 6 people thumbs up a complete non-response.  What happened next? I went with it!  Tried to have a discussion!  My ROI? You then branched to a conversation with ash where you claimed there was a "vehement defense" of Rocco.  Then you claimed people are "personally offended by criticism".  Where and who you ask?  Who knows!  You didn't engage in the discussion. Ash then had to ask you 3 times to try and address his point.  You continually moved the goal posts.  

I could go on.  THAT is the problem.  If what you enjoy is standing on a soap box and rage-hating Rocco...twitter seems like a better platform.  You don't want an actual discussion, just people to give you the dopamine rush on those sweet, sweet thumbs up.  I guess I thought a discussion board was for, you know, discussing stuff?

[Aggies7]

9 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

If there actually is gatekeeping, it happens so the conversations are engaging and interesting and not redundant griping.  That's how you get and retain new people to discuss the team.

Look, you're demonstrating the issues in this thread.  You haven't engaged in much of any discussion here.  I asked you about how knowledgeable we can be about the psyche of the players and you moved the goalposts. You didn't address my question at all.  You had 6 people thumbs up a complete non-response.  What happened next? I went with it!  Tried to have a discussion!  My ROI? You then branched to a conversation with ash where you claimed there was a "vehement defense" of Rocco.  Then you claimed people are "personally offended by criticism".  Where and who you ask?  Who knows!  You didn't engage in the discussion. Ash then had to ask you 3 times to try and address his point.  You continually moved the goal posts.  

I could go on.  THAT is the problem.  If what you enjoy is standing on a soap box and rage-hating Rocco...twitter seems like a better platform.  You don't want an actual discussion, just people to give you the dopamine rush on those sweet, sweet thumbs up.  I guess I thought a discussion board was for, you know, discussing stuff?

Here’s you the other day on the Rocco thread that chief posted:

”That's the issue.  The Rocco hate is irrational and omnipresent.

There ARE irrational Rocco haters. There are no irrational Rocco cheerleaders at TD.  The very notion that there are two "crews" is only coming from the crew that wants to pretend through equivocation that they are an equal opposite force rather than a hurtling comet of incessant stupidity hell bent on hitting every thread.

What some people want is the ability to be critical without such an obtuse framework to operate in.  We've been overrun by Sith-like Rocco haters.“

And you’re gonna lecture me about discourse? Have a good night, I’m sorry people don’t like Rocco. You’ll live.

[Aggies7]

9 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

If there actually is gatekeeping, it happens so the conversations are engaging and interesting and not redundant griping.  That's how you get and retain new people to discuss the team.

Look, you're demonstrating the issues in this thread.  You haven't engaged in much of any discussion here.  I asked you about how knowledgeable we can be about the psyche of the players and you moved the goalposts. You didn't address my question at all.  You had 6 people thumbs up a complete non-response.  What happened next? I went with it!  Tried to have a discussion!  My ROI? You then branched to a conversation with ash where you claimed there was a "vehement defense" of Rocco.  Then you claimed people are "personally offended by criticism".  Where and who you ask?  Who knows!  You didn't engage in the discussion. Ash then had to ask you 3 times to try and address his point.  You continually moved the goal posts.  

I could go on.  THAT is the problem.  If what you enjoy is standing on a soap box and rage-hating Rocco...twitter seems like a better platform.  You don't want an actual discussion, just people to give you the dopamine rush on those sweet, sweet thumbs up.  I guess I thought a discussion board was for, you know, discussing stuff?

Oh and by the way, I did respond to ashbury. Players get paid more than managers, not because managers aren’t valuable, but because stars make money for their teams. Nobody buys a ticket to watch the manager. He never responded so did he move the goal posts? Can you offer a rebuttal?

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Aggies7 said:

Here’s you the other day on the Rocco thread that chief posted:

”That's the issue.  The Rocco hate is irrational and omnipresent.

There ARE irrational Rocco haters. There are no irrational Rocco cheerleaders at TD.  The very notion that there are two "crews" is only coming from the crew that wants to pretend through equivocation that they are an equal opposite force rather than a hurtling comet of incessant stupidity hell bent on hitting every thread.

What some people want is the ability to be critical without such an obtuse framework to operate in.  We've been overrun by Sith-like Rocco haters.“

And you’re gonna lecture me about discourse? Have a good night, I’m sorry people don’t like Rocco. You’ll live.

Every single word of that is true.  Hopefully you can be part of helping change that by not moving goalposts in the future or making up strawmen "defenders" and people who are "personally offended".

[Aggies7]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

Every single word of that is true.  Hopefully you can be part of helping change that by not moving goalposts in the future or making up strawmen "defenders" and people who are "personally offended".

True in your mind.

And I as I said to you, their collapse over a month a half shows a bit of their psyche in the clubhouse, does it not? Or do strong happy clubhouses blow 7 game leads in a month?

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Aggies7 said:

Oh and by the way, I did respond to ashbury. Players get paid more than managers, not because managers aren’t valuable, but because stars make money for their teams. Nobody buys a ticket to watch the manager. He never responded so did he move the goal posts? Can you offer a rebuttal?

I don't know how to break this to you.....he gave up out of exasperation.  

What kind of ROI will I get on my investment in answering?  It feels fruitless...but here we go: teams don't sign players to make them money.  They sign them to help them win so they make money.  If teams believed managers helped them win to the same tune as a star player, they'd pay them like one.  But no one does.....because no one believes that.

Managers have some value, but they're essentially valued in the same way teams value replacement level players.  The money backs that claim up.

[Dave Borton]

We can also choose to not read the Rocco threads if they become tedious.

I for one am done with them. I believe he did not earn the retention. Ownership/FO believes differently. A big hiccup I believe on the part of the organization that signals indifference to excellence and a commitment to mediocrity. Other issues involved, granted, but a serious misstep.

I will just sit with their decision and put it into my mental hopper. Long winter pending.

[Aggies7]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

I don't know how to break this to you.....he gave up out of exasperation.  

What kind of ROI will I get on my investment in answering?  It feels fruitless...but here we go: teams don't sign players to make them money.  They sign them to help them win so they make money.  If teams believed managers helped them win to the same tune as a star player, they'd pay them like one.  But no one does.....because no one believes that.

Managers have some value, but they're essentially valued in the same way teams value replacement level players.  The money backs that claim up.

“Gave up out of exasperation”. 

good god man