Otto von Ballpark

At age 23 in AAA, Gibson had a 21.7% K rate, versus a league average of 19.7%. Gibson's trouble missing bats really only cropped up when he reached MLB, and that's what took him a few years to overcome. Stewart's trouble missing bats has been an issue since A-ball. Obviously I won't write him off based on one start, but it wouldn't surprise me if it becomes even more of an issue as he makes the jump to MLB. But with Mejia out, and Erv's lack of a future here, there is opportunity for him to log some MLB innings this year and find out. (Edit to add: Gibson also had some durability that was able to sustain him during that long adjustment process in MLB. College draftee, obviously, but he posted 152 innings in his first pro year, and 152 again in his first full year back after TJ surgery even with an early shutdown. Stewart has yet to reach that mark, and he's in his 5th full pro season with no surgeries.)

Not sure. Erasmo Ramirez might be a better bet for Seattle right now? He just shut out Houston for 5 innings yesterday, on 79 pitches. (He's working his way back from injury himself.) But yeah, if another starter gets hurt for them, they could come calling. Or if Ervin finally shows some better stuff. And honestly, if it's just to plug a hole as a 5th starter somewhere, and they don't care about putting Ervin in their postseason rotation, the August 31st deadline wouldn't really matter either.

That's fair, I wouldn't call it a third time problem either. More like a "sooner or later, that much contact is going to get you" problem. It just happened to get him later in this game. Although if he does convert to relief, the hope would be that he can miss more bats in shorter outings.

That's not a fair reading. If I said "I think Miguel Sano's future is at 1B or DH. He missed 3 plays at 3B today." You wouldn't assume that my only supporting evidence is his play today; it's just the latest evidence. Of course, it is fair to question that evidence too. I just thought it was phrased a bit unfairly.

What if his grandfather had been a chicken farmer, so after every strikeout he did an exaggerated rooster strut around the mound to honor him? Personally, I think the arrow thing isn't aggressive enough or frequent enough (especially playing on a team like the 2018 Twins ) to consider it showboating, even if didn't have a good reason or chose not to disclose the reason. Of course, if the reason was bad enough, like "because I am a golden god of closing games", then you will probably see other behavior that will better indicate showboating anyway.

I'm not sure if the motivation particularly matters. If an act is "flashy" and frequent enough, I think it can qualify as showboating, regardless of its motivation. But I didn't mind Rodney.

We really miss Matty B right now...

I know. But he would absolutely, 100% be claimed if placed on waivers. If only by a team that tries to put him through waivers themselves in the near future, although I'm guessing someone would keep him long enough to option for awhile next year, at least.

Trending up because it was so low to begin with, perhaps. Stewart had a 17.5% K rate at AAA this year, versus a league average of 22.0%. (Admittedly was higher at AA this year but was still only league average, and he was also in his 3rd year there.) You are certainly welcome to express a different opinion, but it's not fair to characterize "I think his future is in the bullpen" as an opinion overly reliant on a single play by Adrianza. In fact, it's probably a statement that could apply to most AAA starters, not necessarily a stretch or a knock to apply it to Stewart too.

Stewart won't be exposed to Rule 5 this winter now. If the Twins waive him, he will just be claimed for someone else's 40-man roster. At the very least, he is an interesting relief conversion project with minor league options.

C'mon, there's 5 years of evidence that Stewart struggles to miss bats as a pro starter. That doesn't all go away if Adrianza makes one play. Nothing wrong with a potential future in the pen either.

When you only miss 2 bats in 74 pitches, you are going to have innings like that virtually every game, though.

Mets fans will be thrilled to learn that! Royals fans, not so much.

That's one way to answer. Doesn't mean Ervin's way is problematic enough to require "forgiveness." Keep in mind, baseball is a business where breaking chairs in the workplace can be seen as a positive, morale-building exercise, in the right context. I think Ervin's comment was well within the accepted competitive norms of the sport. Okay, I'm out for real this time. I'm giving up on this thread like it's 10 games back in the standings.

Lifetime health insurance with just 1 day MLB service time. Pension at 43 days. Not that I necessarily think that's what's going on for Stewart.

What do you want, Ervin to break down the whole season when Berardino asks him about losing Rodney, at the conclusion of a short postgame interview in front of his locker? You keep treating it like "they gave up on us" was the premise of Ervin's manifesto nailed to the clubhouse door. I think Ervin has every right to express disappointment in the sell-off like he did. I think fans have every right to do the same. I think fans like Tom have every right to express their disappointment in players like Ervin too. (And I think the front office would empathize will all of those takes, seasons like this are tough for everyone.) I don't think any of it rises to the level of offense or dismissal, though -- that's what really struck me about Tom's write-up last night. I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post, so I will bow out now. This forum would be a better place if I had Ervin's brevity.

You really think the front office is going to view Ervin Santana as some "Johnny come lately"? The biggest free agent contract in franchise history, our staff ace for the previous 3 years, who spent the first half this year rehabbing from surgery? In his 4th year here and looking for his 3rd pennant race in a Twins uniform? (Maybe in the last season of his career?) Honestly, can we stop assuming the front office is offended by this? It is not hard to imagine they understand and even endorse the competitive spirit that drives Ervin Santana, even in making a comment like that. And they probably understand that such feelings don't always have to be accompanied in public by self-reflection on the player's own limitations and failings.

So in the same post, you say Ervin's comment is setting a bad example for the younger players -- but you also say that you could better understand the same comment coming from one of the younger players instead? For all I know, Ervin busted his butt in rehab to come back to try to help his team. (Maybe he needs to go on the DL again for a busted butt ) Also, Ervin's lack of contract after this year cuts both ways. He can't really defer to 2019 or beyond like the front office or his younger teammates. He came back in July for a sweep in Toronto, then saw a cool win in Boston and was probably in the mindset of making a run, especially head to head vs Cleveland. Then recall how Molitor and the team saw the news of Escobar's trade on the clubhouse TV the next day. I don't know what, if anything, the front office told the team prior to that, but it probably came as a bit of a punch in the gut, especially for Ervin who just got back for his last contract year. This was all just 2 weeks ago. Recall then the first game vs Cleveland the following week, Ervin battles, we win a walk-off, Rodney notches the W. Then the next day another guy was traded. This was less than 2 weeks ago. I think we forget how easy it is to be rational and detached as fans or even as executives, and how hard it is for players to do the same. Again, that doesn't excuse bad behavior, but I don't see this comment, in its context, reaching anywhere near that level anyway.

No minor league FA for Kohl yet. Would have been eligible after 2019.

Before I bow out of this conversation, I will ask again for you to consider the context. This was the very end of a post game interview, after a disappointing loss, where Ervin just finished answering a series of questions about his own dimished stuff. Then he gets asked for his feelings about the trade of his friend and fellow countryman, following a couple walk-off losses against our chief rival that the trade possibly impacted. Obviously that's no excuse to take shots at anybody -- but my point is Ervin's "they gave up on us" response was so brief and generic that it hardly constitutes "taking a shot" at anyone given this context. Do you agree with Tom that Ervin should be traded/released immediately in part due to this comment, and its offensive nature to his teammates and the FO? I don't. I can't imagine any reaction to this from the front office or his teammates other than, he cares about winning. It's a players job to care about winning, all the time. Sometimes the business of baseball is at odds with that, and it can be challenging for all involved. If you don't like his comments as a fan, that is absolutely your right too. But Tom seemed to be going beyond that, and it is that I objected to.

I don't thibk the ordering of the wins and losses mattered much by that point -- you picked a date where they just lost 3 in a row, the Escobar trade came when the followed that with 4 wins in a row. They could have gone WLWLWLW over those 7 games and it wouldn't have made a difference. I actually think the "die was cast" even earlier, the trade market just wasn't going to develop until late July. I don't think there was a precise date. Probably no later than the Milwaukee sweep at the beginning of July. Maybe even earlier if you think the Belisle addition was a sign the FO was prepping for trade deadline departures. I think by the time the team was swept in Milwaukee, we needed something like a 15 game win streak, or a 15 game losing streak by Cleveland, for the front office to change their mind from selling. And we actually did pretty well after that -- 13-5, making up 5 games in the standings up until the Escobar trade -- although I understand if it wasn't enough.

Tom, respectfully, I can't disagree with this enough. I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. I don't hear it as him placing undue blame on the front office, or even saying they necessarily did anything wrong. It is really just an acknowledgement of the fact that the front office and players are in very different roles. The front office can sell assets when they feel it is strategically wise to do so, and they can send a letter to season ticket holders explaining themselves. But the players can't do any of that. They have to keep playing. They have to keep working toward the same goal of winning games (and divisions), same as always. And sometimes these different roles will come into conflict. Like right around a trade deadline when we were a long shot but not quite a "no shot" and we we were coming up on a bunch of games with our chief rival (the most recent two having been walk-off losses where perhaps Rodney was unavailable due to trade talks/agreements). If the front office addressed the team right now, I am 100% sure they would acknowledged responses like Ervin's as perfectly valid. I bet his teammates would too, they are all caught up in the same conflict.

I agree that would be ridiculous, since they actually sold at 48-53. I think Ervin's comment is being used to rehash the same old debates, so I will digress. I don't want to do that again. I just think Tom was overreacting wildly to a pretty understandable response to a pretty specific question. Tom's characterization of the clip doesn't seem fair. I strongly disagree that Ervin was being disrespectful or unprofessional, and in no way should it be considered a factor in his future with the club. (Not that I necessarily want him re-signed, but Tom seems to be advocating for his immediate trade/release based in part on this comment. That's what I am reacting to here, not more general trade deadline discussion.)

So his response to the question asked suggests he is missing the point... of a question not asked?

I would have thought so too, but then last year's Rule 5 draft happened. I know he has had a better year in 2018 than he did in 2017, but his pedigree and likely role (relief conversion) are still the same. But yes, if you think he was near 100% likely to be lost in Rule 5, then it also make sense to add him now. I just think his Rule 5 odds are lower, and instead we have 40-man room and we plan to keep him into 2019 regardless of Rule 5.