TheLeviathan

They should be. They royally messed up the development process not once but twice, I think they are trying to right that wrong. We need to let go of all these PAs in the big leagues and consider them what they were: the mistakes of a poor plan. The risk in bringing him up is that if he fails he's a 4th OF and possibly a DFA before September. Keeping him down and making sure he's ready to step in and claim RF/LF or CF until Buxton comes up makes him a legitimate contributor to the future. 4th OF? Meaningless. After thought. I consider that to be a wide gulf in upside and certainly one worthy of considering a high risk. The time to field a competent CF was back in December. Or, hell, two years ago. Those mistakes aren't undone by calling up a non-ready Hicks. Considering they just bypassed him for Rosario tells me that they don't think that his game is ready. Nothing has changed that drastically in the last few days, which reinforces the point many are making here: this is about his approach as a professional. That might include his maturity and his approach at the plate, but we need to stop using 19 box scores to proclaim readiness. Hicks is not at that stage in his career and until the Twins feel like he's ready as a professional, he should stay down there - box scores be damned. If you want to bemoan the crappy CF situation - blame the GM for that. Not on when Hicks gets called up.

That mistake was made in the offseason, no reason to double down on it now.

To your first point - every game presents an opportunity for challenge and adversity. Overcoming that is Hicks' biggest obstacle. Another month of those opportunities gives a chance to see if things have really changed. To your second point - comparing his start this year to the Twins' past asinine decisions to bring him up is sort of unfair. No one denies he has gotten off to a good start. Some of us are just tired of a small sample of productivity being enough for this guy to keep getting the call. If the professional evaluators in the organization think he's turned the corner, I'm on board. 19 boxscores, no matter how good, don't sell me on this particular guy. I've seen enough of that with him. And I damn sure don't decide his future based on anything to do with Schaefer. That's a really poor way to develop players.

Yup, he looks like last year's Mauer again. Could it just be that he's gotten into some awful habits that he can't break free from? That it wasn't really injuries but his approach the whole time? Someone with a better eye for swing analysis should watch the last few weeks, I'd be really curious to see the differences.

Right, it seems kind of odd to say he's ready and he has to be up now so a AAA slump doesn't wreck his confidence. If struggling a bit in AAA is all it takes to shatter him than he really isn't ready.

What, exactly, makes you so sure he is better? Hicks has had two shots and has been as bad as Schaefer has both times while playing some pretty subpar defense to boot. I always targeted June 1st as the time for Hicks unless he forced the issue. His problem is consistency and bringing his A game no matter what else is going on. Can that be shown in a month of AAA? To me, the answer to Hicks' readiness isn't going to be found in the boxscore. It'll be from the coaches reports on his attitude and approach. But let's be clear about things, the last option year is not a reason to jump now. If anything, it's more reason to get it right this time. There is only one chance to salvage Hicks as part of the future, rushing to judgement out of fear of options only adds to that pressure. Also, the fact of Schaefer's age and similar production as reasons for promoting Hicks are a non-factor. Schaefer has zero chance of being a part of the future. Hicks still has a slim chance. This has nothing to do with a comparison of career production and everything to do with Hicks having only one more shot to get it right. I don't find that argument particularly compelling yet, not unless his coaches down there see him as a changed man.

Those teams aren't playing good baseball, but their appearance as "bad teams" comes in part from the beatings the Twins have put on them. I don't think this is a case of beating up on bad teams but more the Twins playing some decent ball and catching some teams at the right time.

Yeah, where does the losing money stuff come from? First I've heard that. I think Grantland is a very, very interesting read. Simmons has lost all humility but people are missing the boat on this a bit. Simmons is one of the few guys fearless enough, with a large enough audience, and the appropriate amount of teeth to his bite to do what is needed: Absolutely trash ESPN and their constant stupidity as often as possible. I look forward to seeing what he's like when the leash comes off.

It's the first week of May and we're watching Mauer use the whole field, Rosario homer on his first pitch, actual platoon usage!, and young players like May, Santana, and Vargas working through struggles and adjusting. Our record may end up sucking, but some things are happening that have needed to happen for awhile. Are there still some nits to pick, absolutely. But hard to complain with 3 out of every 5 days there is a starter part of the long-term plan taking the mound and and 5 or 6 bats that are part of it in the lineup every day.

Nope, but it is yet another example of why I'm sour on WAR. Easily the most misused statistic in baseball.

Hey, remember when people wanted Gibson sent down like 10 days ago? Maybe we should just let things play out a bit.

I don't blame Ford or Dodge for a drunk driver.

When Sano and Buxton are in the every day lineup this sort of scenario seems more plausible to me. You don't have to wait on every prospect, but lets at least let our cornerstones get up before we plan on turning the corner with a deal like this.

I think it's more about his approach than the results. I'd love to see him stick.

A long history of Gardy decisions makes that really hard to swallow, I think that's just where many of us are at.

Withdraw it? Pfft, I'm taking credit for it!

Love it! I hope he's in the lineup tomorrow, will give me another reason to tune in and see how the kid does.

Amazing what you can do when your spray chart doesn't omit an entire section of the field! I vote we have Phil Hughes bashed a bit, we could use him to be the 2014 version....

I agree it is almost always part of the process, that does not mean it leads to any solutions. That's the leap you are making that I find dubious.

This was my experience with cops and corrections officers. Well meaning people (often black - it was Chicago after all) started associating "these blacks" with the general black population as little more than violent and inhuman. And, in many cases, that wasn't that far off from the truth. The problem is those repeated experiences start to alter your perspective on young black men in really harmful ways. You start to lose hope in their basic humanity. It is a very insidious thing that is very difficult to avoid even if you are cognizant of it happening. Again, "Soul of a Black Cop" - the guy has the same thing happen to him. These aren't born racists, it's often their experiences that sour their perspectives. That's a real thing that most people who have never worked in the field would struggle to wrap their head around. And if someone has the courage to say it, they get blasted for being a racist and no amount of anecdotal evidence is going to change some minds about that. But I'm telling you, if you spend 5 our of every 7 days hearing out of the mouth of a young black male that he thinks anyone who isn't part of his gang is worth less than the spit in his mouth - and then see the heinous deeds and the total indifference about them to back it up - it has an effect. And it is cumulative. Black and white cops will tell you that. Black cops will just stop thinking of these young black males as black, but more as animals. It's incredibly sad, but again, a reality of the situation. As Brock has said a few times, this is a systemic failure that has to be attacked from both sides to be fixed. We need to invest in real change in these communities and then we have to have the courage to call those communities to step up to the challenge when the opportunity presents itself. I just really struggle to see a coalition of reasonable people willing to cross political lines to accomplish that very painful, difficult task.

I think your point is too ham-handed. I think violence, rioting, and revolutionary type movements happen as a part of change, but as an actual effector of change they are meaningless. Often worse than that. Lots of violent riots and uprisings happen with nothing coming from it. You want change? You need figureheads and a movement that actually CHANGE MINDS. Otherwise the status quo persists. The powerful are powerful because they're powerful. You don't rattle their cage with the people willing to riot. You rattle their cage when they see the average citizen on board with the movement. These riots didn't accomplish that and nor has this movement generally. That problem is with leadership within the movement. There are no bridge builders on either side, just people wanting to complain loudest about their version of the events.

It's the notion of generalizing, if it's good for the goose it ought to be good for the gander. And neither side indulges that. Generalizing is only ok for one view and not the other, when in truth - it's right in both cases.

If I say "small sample sizes acknowledged" a third time, will that help bury it once and for all? Do I have to lay out the way in which Molitor has flexed his lineup already this year moreso than Gardy? Gardy was EXTREMELY rigid. Molitor has been anything but. Basically everyone not named Mauer has been flexed around based on their recent performances or ideas to jump start them or ideas to jump start the lineup as a whole. I'm confused why it's even a debate that this has been a stark difference.

Sure they do, my original comments came as a comparison of Molitor and Gardy. So if you want to phrase the improvement as being a slight on Gardy rather than a praising of Molitor, I don't care how you shift that, the end result is the same: The April 2015 Twins are better off with Molitor than with Gardy.

I feel like he might have been worth that so far. Whether that continues or is even true is likely what we'll have to watch for the rest of the season. But if the reverse is true, that he wasn't worth 1 win, then doesn't that go back to what I said about him being definitionally "worthless"?