Report: Rocco Baldelli Will Return for 2026, as Twins Exercise Contract Option

[laloesch]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Twins teams under TK were often undermanned.

But they were rarely outplayed. He tried damn hard make sure of that. They threw to the proper base. Knew how to execute cutoff throws. Drop a bunt, and field one. Slow down opponent running games. When and how to gain a base on offense.

Those things, and a million other baseball things mattered. He took steps to ensure them, and didn't easily tolerate it when they didn't happen. 

Those things seem to me a  punchline now. At the least an afterthought. 

Baseball is a game. A team game. There's an art to playing it well, in addition to science. 

I'd like to see a manager who understands and appreciates that.

Baldelli is too loose as a manager.  He likes to let the team more or less run itself and players take the initiative and make decisions but it has to be in a disciplined fashion.  What we’ve seen is that they are not capable of doing that at least from a talent perspective but also discipline perspective and this is where Baldelli falls flat on his face.  I would argue that the team needs a more firm handed manager, somebody like TK or even Gardenhire. Baldelli is just not that kind of manager.  

[laloesch]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Exactly this.  In baseball especially the roster impacts far more than the manager.  I think there is an organizational failure (to which Baldelli shares blame) that doesn't emphasize athleticism, fundamentals, and putting pressure on opponents.

But the truth is....Kelly was given some garbage teams and they played like garbage too.  Nothing Baldelli can do to make Trevor Larnach a 1st to 3rd threat.  Or Royce "Runnin' in Molasses" Lewis.  A baseball manager is the middlest of middle management.  By all means ask to fire him, but it's not the heart of the problem.

Also....World Series are nothing more than sample size victories.  Those are dictated by luck as much as talent.  I know that will cause some people to throw their canes in the air and hobble towards the sky to yell, but it's the truth.

Those “garbage teams” under TK did play like crap but they were disciplined in that play while this team is not and some of that IS a reflection of Baldelli’s management style and how Falvey also wants it managed.  TK had far less talent in many of his years (especially after 1992), than Baldelli has ever had to deal with in his tenure and there’s just no excuse for the poor undisciplined play we’re seeing now from far superior rosters compared to what TK had to work with in the latter half of his time as Twins manager.  I don’t even think that is even debatable to be honest but I was also a fan of the team back in the 80’s and remember much of it.

 I would dare say that TK would have this team turned around and headed in the right direction within a few weeks if he was manager now.  There would almost certainly be some benchings.

[TheLeviathan]

40 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Those “garbage teams” under TK did play like crap but they were disciplined in that play while this team is not and some of that IS a reflection of Baldelli’s management style and how Falvey also wants it managed.  TK had far less talent in many of his years (especially after 1992), than Baldelli has ever had to deal with in his tenure and there’s just no excuse for the poor undisciplined play we’re seeing now from far superior rosters compared to what TK had to work with in the latter half of his time as Twins manager.  I don’t even think that is even debatable to be honest but I was also a fan of the team back in the 80’s and remember much of it.

 I would dare say that TK would have this team turned around and headed in the right direction within a few weeks if he was manager now.  There would almost certainly be some benchings.

It's a hypothetical with no answers.  While I would agree that TK had worse rosters at times, he also had much better rosters at times.  

Either way the point stands: talent wins in baseball.  The organization (including Baldelli) aren't fielding a team with an identity in their talent.

[jkcarew]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's a hypothetical with no answers.  While I would agree that TK had worse rosters at times, he also had much better rosters at times.  

Either way the point stands: talent wins in baseball.  The organization (including Baldelli) aren't fielding a team with an identity in their talent.

Fair points, but TK is the last guy I’d pick for an analogy with Rocco. When TK had bad talent, they lost a ton of games, but they still played with some sense of a standard for doing things fundamentally correct. It was expected and demanded. Didn’t matter if they were 20 games under there would be consequences for poor preparedness and mental lapses. He would also call out the FO when they gave him —it to work with.

[Fezig]

22 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Gleeman has reported it before. Hells bells it came up on the Gleeman & the Geek podcast in the last couple of weeks. 

Ferda I'm only familiar with the podcast in name only. I'd love for someone the get me the transcripts!

[Woof Bronzer]

15 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Also....World Series are nothing more than sample size victories.  Those are dictated by luck as much as talent.  I know that will cause some people to throw their canes in the air and hobble towards the sky to yell, but it's the truth.

Well, if you said it, it must be true!  

Now suddenly all World Series wins are dismissed as luck? What are we even doing anymore?  Dodgers vs Yankees last year was just pure chance?  The fact they had $200m rosters filled with some of the most talented players in the history of the game had nothing to do with it?  Really?

I'll keep saying this til I'm blue in the face: results matter! The point of baseball is to win, not to do good math.

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Well, if you said it, it must be true!  

Now suddenly all World Series wins are dismissed as luck? What are we even doing anymore?  Dodgers vs Yankees last year was just pure chance?  The fact they had $200m rosters filled with some of the most talented players in the history of the game had nothing to do with it?  Really?

I'll keep saying this til I'm blue in the face: results matter! The point of baseball is to win, not to do good math.

Ok, well here's some math:

If the World Series decided the best team/most talented roster in baseball we'd be on a 6-7 year run of the Dodgers winning.  Instead they've won two.  How is it that the best team in baseball can have a 29% win rate in the playoffs if something other than talent isn't involved?

 

Let me give you a recent Twins example to illustrate: Because guys like Kody Clemons can go on a two week heater that they'll never see again.  

Who had major roles in taking down the Dodgers in 2023?  Noted ace Bradon Pfaadt, noted sluggers Gabriel Moreno, Alek Thomas, and Thommy Pham.  2022? Jake Cronenworth, Austin Nolan, Trent Grisham 2021 - I mean, we all remember the heater Eddie Rosario and Jorge Soler went on right? 2019? Anibal Sanchez.  Yup, read that right.  2018? Steve Pearce.  2017? George Springer basically single-handedly.

The point is simple: the 162 games decide the best team.  The World Series is just a small sample size buzzsaw rife with the same problems any small sample is prone to: unsustainable, unpredictable slumps or heaters.  You should put as much stock in playoff results as you would your consideration on giving Kody Clemens a 7 year contract for his production in mid May.  You should be as ready to celebrate the World Series winner as the "best team" as you would be to award the Twins the best team for two random weeks in May. 

Yet somehow so many people just ignore the reality of that small sample because of the myth and legacy of playoffs.  But that's all it is - fanfare masking the small sample chaos.

 

 

[Woof Bronzer]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

You should put as much stock in playoff results as you would your consideration on giving Kody Clemens a 7 year contract for his production in mid May.

So you are saying if the Twins win another World Series, I should not be excited about it because it was a small sample size?  Of all the insane things posted on this site that might take the cake.  

5 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Yet somehow so many people just ignore the reality of that small sample because of the myth and legacy of playoffs.  But that's all it is - fanfare masking the small sample chaos.

No, it's because so many people don't give two sh%&s about sample size.  Most fans watch baseball to be entertained and see their team win.  It's a game, after all, not a math problem.  

[TheLeviathan]

31 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

So you are saying if the Twins win another World Series, I should not be excited about it because it was a small sample size?  Of all the insane things posted on this site that might take the cake.  

No, it's because so many people don't give two sh%&s about sample size.  Most fans watch baseball to be entertained and see their team win.  It's a game, after all, not a math problem.  

I would be excited that they got lucky and won this year's Small Sample Size of Glory.  I just also recognize it for what it is - a gauntlet of luck and skill with the emphasis on luck and good timing.  If a 91 win Twins team upsets a 108 win Dodgers team I'm going to celebrate.  But I'm also sure as hell going to know who the better team was.  

Baseball, of all the major sports, is the one that is least likely to crown the best team at the end of the year.  That's just a fact.  It doesn't have to take away from my enjoyment to not pretend it's a bit silly.  

[jorgenswest]

For those interested in reliving the Molitor firing. Here is some original source material from October 2018

Aaron Gleeman speculated about it on his podcast. He was not a Twins reporter at the time working for Baseball Prospectus. He gives valuable insight in his Athletic role which is most often in the role of columnist not reporter. Dan Hayes does most of the reporting.

The StarTribune if you are a subscriber

Quotes from Falvey at that time

Quote

"This wasn't about our record this year. This is about what we think is best as we continue to grow a young team in the direction toward being a championship contender," said chief baseball officer Derek Falvey. 

“For any team, there’s always challenges with younger players, veteran players, players in between,” Falvey said. “We just feel like from the standpoint of this team moving forward, a change in voice and potential style with some of those younger players could be a benefit for us. … I think Paul is great with a lot of young players. It just felt like the time to make a transition with those young players for the long-term future.”

 

[TopGunn#22]

It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely tone deaf the Twins organization is to public relations.  If there was one thing they could have done to completely throw cold water on any optimism that things could change for the better in 2026 with an ownership change and other big changes coming to the FO and dugout it was this announcement.  

Our only hope, now that they've dropped this Bunker-Busting-Bomb on us fans, is that new ownership WILL happen by Thanksgiving and that new ownership realizes a complete house cleaning is needed to get a new philosophy, outlook and perspective for this franchise.  

[The Great Hambino]

22 minutes ago, TopGunn#22 said:

It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely tone deaf the Twins organization is to public relations.  If there was one thing they could have done to completely throw cold water on any optimism that things could change for the better in 2026 with an ownership change and other big changes coming to the FO and dugout it was this announcement.  

Our only hope, now that they've dropped this Bunker-Busting-Bomb on us fans, is that new ownership WILL happen by Thanksgiving and that new ownership realizes a complete house cleaning is needed to get a new philosophy, outlook and perspective for this franchise.  

My understanding is that this wasn't something they proactively intended to announce.  As far as I can tell, the news got leaked, The Athletic reported it, questioned Falvey about it, and that's what brought about his avant-garde explanation.  

I believe it was also reported that the option was picked up during spring training.  If it was something they wanted to be known, they would've announced it then.

If that's correct, it opens up a whole different set of questions for me.  Why do you have such a leaky ship?  Why would you try to keep this move under wraps from fans if you believed in it? 

I sorta go back and forth on this, but I'm starting to think Falvey is making some of these moves and saying some of these things not entirely of his own volition.  I think he's getting handcuffed by ownership with the sale up in the air.