Gleeman & the Geek, Ep 187: Roster Reactions & Dozier Deal

That was a heated episode.  Hope Bonnes is still alive....

Gleeman is spot on here.

Listening to this episode makes me wonder if John even pays attention to baseball. How can he and still have those takes? I was as frustrated as gleeman.

Gleeman is beyond right about May here. I don't understand how anyone argues based on one stupid start in March . . . it's a very poor idea.

Oh.

It isn't? Basing a decision on one start isn't a very poor idea?

Where I agree more with Aaron is that spring training stats shouldn't come in to play... however, spring training performance should... In other words, it's not about the numbers, it's about the process and some other things that are more visual than the randomness of 40 at bats or 8-12 innings. 

OK, but I know what Jordan Shafer and Shane Robsinson are as MLB players, and I don't know it because of Spring Training.  I know what Mike Pelfrey is, along with Tim Staufer.  I understand Arcia's fielding issues, and Hunter's age.  What is Pelrey going to do that Alex Meyer can't?  What is Tim Staufer going to do that Trevor May can't?  Are you really telling me that Hick's awful hitting is worse than Shafer?  Is Molitor not creative enough to figure a way to get Hicks or Rosario at bats?

I get it with Rosario, Sano, Buxton, and Berrios, but what more does AAA offer Hicks, May, and Meyer other than sub par competition?  Allow them to figure out how to get MLB hitters out from the bullpen and possible spot starts.  Force them to figure out how to get MLB hitters out IN the strike zone.  If they fail, they fail.  It will be due to poor scouting more than anything else, and the team can move on.  Inconsistently great is better than consistently bad every day of the week for me, and our roster is consistently bad right now.  Unless Vargas and Santana pick up where they left off last year, it could get real ugly, real quick.

Where I agree more with Aaron is that spring training stats shouldn't come in to play... however, spring training performance should... In other words, it's not about the numbers, it's about the process and some other things that are more visual than the randomness of 40 at bats or 8-12 innings. 

I totally agree with this in theory--but in practice, I'm not sure I've seen evidence the Twins are good evaluators of process during spring training. Aaron Hicks puts up great numbers in Spring Training 2013 and Spring Training 2014, and the Twins said, "Yup, he's our guy!" Maybe there should have been some process clues that he wasn't ready.

On the flip side, Jason Bartlett puts up a .093/.152/.093 line in Spring Training 2014, and the Twins say, "We liked his process. We're not worried about him." I don't know what they saw in his process that told him that, but it would suggest they need to hire some new evaluators.

If I want to be charitable to the Twins this spring, I say their decision-makers really are convinced they were a good team last year but caught some bad breaks. I'm of the belief that on a bad team, you want to take risks on inconsistent guys who flash greatness, while a good team should fill the margins with reliable mediocrity where there's no risk the bottom will fall out. If the Twins really think they're a contender, maybe that's why they went for reliability.

Of course, I don't think they're a contender, and so I remind myself the roster on May 15 and even July 1 is more important than the roster on Opening Day. If that roster still isn't willing to take chances with young guys who lead with their upside, then I'll be very disappointed. Note: I was very disappointed in 2014.

'If I want to be charitable to the Twins this spring, I say their decision-makers really are convinced they were a good team last year but caught some bad breaks.'

I SERIOUSLY hope they don't actually think that.

'If I want to be charitable to the Twins this spring, I say their decision-makers really are convinced they were a good team last year but caught some bad breaks.'

 

I SERIOUSLY hope they don't actually think that.

Rob Antony: "I think a lot of people look at it and go 'Geez, you won 70 games last year and now you think there's going to be a 12-game improvement? In one year that might be tough.' I think last year we underachieved. I felt we should have won 76/77 games. So to say that we should get over .500 this year, I don't think that's a major thing. I think we ought to be able to improve five, six, seven games over last year. I look at it as what we should have won rather than what we did win. I hope that's not unrealistic. I don't think it is. But I think 2015 should be a year where we're competitive and in the mix and guys take steps forward." --From TwinkieTown, on February 3.

I'm also fairly certain I've heard Mike Berardino say or Tweet as much: The Twins really do believe they were several wins better last year. And I know Terry Ryan said at TwinsFest that if they can get to 85 or 86 wins this year, that could be enough to win the division.

To be clear: This is not an analysis I buy, but the Twins are certainly selling it. And I readily admit selling something's not the same as buying into it yourself. But I've heard it in enough places in enough different contexts to think the Twins might believe it.

Sad

I don't think a person has to be one that 'always chooses to be negative' to clearly see that this team was not good last year. Seems to be an unnecessary jab at people who seem to have issues with a team that has lost 90+ the last four years and can say, 'hey, maybe there's a reason for that.  main reason being, the team isn't that good.'

Shouldn't the negative outweigh the positive when a team is that bad for that long?

I could probably answer each individual question. I do agree with John in his comment that the Twins still believe in Aaron Hicks enough to think he can get better and learn in AAA.

 

May's MLB performance last year didn't scream promotion.Meyer's BB/9 rate and 

tough spring don't scream promotion. Both of them have a chance to be solid in time, but do have things to work on.

 

Guys like Schafer and Robinson are short-term stopgaps allowing those other guys (including Buxton) to continue to develop. 

 

Rosario didn't hit last year. He didn't hit this spring. I don't think anyone should make an argument that he should have made the team. What he did last year was FAR less than what Aaron Hicks did at AA before he got promoted. 

 

What can Pelfrey do that Meyer can't at this point? Throw strikes. 

 

These moves are short-term. They're about the bigger picture. 

I get neither May or Meyer set the world on fire, but throwing strikes is something they can learn at the MLB level rather than get fringe players to chase filthly stuff outside the zone the MLB guys will laugh at.  At some point the Twins are going to have to stop protecting 25 and 26 year old professionals and put them in the deep end.  Why not do so when expectations are low so they can be at full speed and can take the load off the hitter when they move up.

Also, if these guys are good enough to beat out Pelfrey, Stauffer, Shafer, and/or Robinson, they probably shouldn't be sold as the future of the team.  Again, I just don't see any reason Hicks, Meyer, and May aren't learning at the pro level right now other than they just aren't that good.  If that is the case, then the team probably shouldn't be preaching those guys as the future of our staff.

I really hope John was blackout drunk during this episode, otherwise I have no idea how he can defend half of his opinions. Holy cow. Whenever Aaron Gleeman is the voice of reason I get scared.