CharacterGroove

That's an odd critique considering his consensus pre-draft scouting report. I can't imagine much has changed since June regarding his athletic makeup. Just one guy's opinion?

Plummeting ticket sales is actually a good reason to make a move, and particularly if you're complaining about the organization not spending enough money on talent.

The tweet is so absurd that I'm forced to believe Olbermann misunderstood what he was commenting on.

What's the latest on Aiken? Has it been confirmed that he won't be enrolling at UCLA? Wasn't there also a rumor that the Astros would be given some exemption to sign him anyway? That have any legs?

I hope it comes out that Gardenhire did the right thing and resigned. That would be commendable. It should have happened last year. I also wish him the best of luck in the future. He'll get another managerial job if he wants it. He's a good one.

I'm rarely the one coming to Gardenhire's defense, but I find the criticism over his comment (as presented in that tweet) to be quite unfair. In a game where soreness and manageable pain is the norm, it's hardly controversial for a manager to say that he's not interested in hearing every detail. The "certain level" he's referring to is when it's outside the norm, i.e., when it's reached the point of potentially affecting performance. It's on the player to bring this up, and particularly when that player is a veteran. In fact, it's incumbent on the player to raise the issue, and be honest if someone else raises it first. If there's truly any evidence that Gardenhire is ambivalent to his players experiencing pain, or if there's legitimate evidence that he's furthering a "culture" that encourages players to suppress their injuries, then this type of criticism is warranted. But that tweet suggests neither. Indeed, to put the blame anywhere other than on Nolasco on his whole 2014 debacle is absurd.

Existing players in the organization, regardless of level, should rarely dictate who's drafted. I say "rarely" as opposed to "never" only because it's possible two players grade out the same for potential. In such a case it makes sense not to double up on shortstops, for example. It's obvious that we need top-end "arms." Like most teams. The question remains, however, whether drafting X is worth the investment and opportunity cost. Again, most 1st round players don't develop into superior MLB players. If the risk is too high for X's ceiling, then draft Y and get your "arms" somewhere else (e.g., lower rounds, international, trades, free agency). You know I'm making all these abstract points. In the end I don't know yet who I want the Twins to draft.

I agree that's it's far more likely to get a true "ace" in the 1st round. But it's still unlikely that any pitcher taken will turn into an ace at the MLB level. So you can't force it. If 3-4 pitchers grade out with plus plus potential by next June, and they're all taken, you don't delve into the next tier (and forego a plus plus position player) just because "aces" are historically found in the 1st round. Long story short, you have to trust your scouting.

Best player available vs. best pitcher available has never been a debate for me. I've always considered pitchers as "players" in BPA. The issue I highly contest is that the BPA is - or is almost always - a pitcher. Of course great pitching is extremely valuable, and perhaps more so than great hitting/fielding (i.e., in crude terms, I'd rather have great pitching and good hitting/fielding than good pitching and great hitting/fielding). But that's not the issue when drafting. The BPA is that talent who is most likely to be a great player at the MLB level - a very rare feat. Not necessarily the highest ceiling either, because teams have to consider risk. Elite prospects on the DL or in drug rehab aren't much value. That may or may not be a pitcher. And if it's not, well, there's quite a few rounds left to go, not to mention other means of acquiring great pitching.

You infer that markos "BPA" rationale sounds simplistic and then offer the most shallow strategy imaginable. I don't think anybody is debating that BPA is anything but subjective. I hope you're not suggesting that (a) elite hitting and fielding talent does not substantially improve a team's chances of winning in October, or ( that the best pitcher available is automatically elite and without substantial risk. Or, for that matter, that there's a strong correlation between drafting pitchers in the 1st round and winning the World Series. (In my 5 minutes of research, the Giants (2 of last 3 titles) have drafted 4 pitchers and 4 hitters in their last 8 drafts. It looks like they didn't even have a 1st round pick the previous 2.)

I don't disagree with your general point, but I don't think it's a fair reading of his post. The "strategy" would be the budgetary focus of acquiring 5 quality starters as opposed to competing with other teams for a perceived ace via free agency, which in turn may affect the ability to fill out the bottem of the order.

I don't share Brandon's unimpeachable support for Terry Ryan and the "Twins Way," but I don't think you're reading his post fairly. The "innovation," if you can call it that, is the Twins focus on the personnel that exhibit the small-ball qualities, not a desire for the results. Yes, everybody wants hitters that get on base and hit home runs (and pitchers that avoid walks and strike batters out), but with limited resources, you often can't have players that do both. To the larger point, I want the Twins to be flexible in their approach based on changing circumstances; and more to this article, for them to put themselves in a situation where they can control their own destiny through the most thorough player evaluation available.

I agree with you. It also shows a certain shortsightedness to this decision. Next year at this time everybody's revisiting yesterday. It's possible Gardenhire beats the odds, but it'll be ugly if he doesn't get close. (Of course part of the game will be how the advertise expectations. I anticipate a lot of young guys and being told to be patient.)

Whether he's the right right man for the job is an open question. But your "fact" proves nothing to the answer. It only proves that other teams feel he's right for their jobs. Meanwhile the Twins have substantial evidence to suggest he's not the guy to turn the Twins around.

Thanks. I believe Bobby Cuellar was born in Texas, so I'm not sure what he qualifies under or whether he serves the intended purpose - particularly as a 60-year-old bullpen coach at the MLB level. I don't think it's wise to put too much emphasis on the issue, but considering the makeup of baseball talent, it's hard for me to understand why there wouldn't be at least one Latino on every coaching staff in the minors. If the team has considered the void and determined that it's meaningless. Okay. If they'be disregarded the fact that this could be an issue and/or detriment, then it's symptomatic of a larger issue within the organization. Most likely being a hiring policy that seeks to reward candidates rather than tailoring the hire towards the goals of the position.