Otto von Ballpark

Not all "vets" are created equal. Hollins and Kelly were rental players (the kind that no longer brought aggressive trade returns anymore 10 years ago). The modern equivalent trades are Willingham, Carroll, etc., and have returned virtually nothing, and have been meaningless to the Royals most recent rebuild. That's not who the Royals traded in Greinke, although Knoblauch way back when is a fair comp. And the Royals certainly didn't pattern their Myers trade after the Twins!

Most MLB teams are built from drafting, though, no? It's not like the Twins are particularly unique in that regard, or that the Royals had to specifically emulate the Twins to achieve that. Would you say the Mets and Giants teams that the Royals recently faced in the World Series also "used the Twins model" for their rebuilds too?

Not sure if this is fully accurate. Those 3 guys you name are hardly cornerstones that the Royals success is built upon -- when they went to the World Series two years ago, Moustakas had a 75 OPS+, Hosmer 99. Gordon has been better, particularly defensively, but he's only a 109 OPS+ since they returned to relevance in 2013. Cain and Davis have arguments to be their team MVP in recent years, and both were acquired in trade. I'd argue that the Royals success owes more to a plan to exploit market inefficiencies around defense, limiting strikeouts at the plate, and dominant relief pitching, than simply waiting around for draft picks to develop. They were still mired in losing when they shipped out Greinke for Cain and Escobar, as well as when they sent out a top prospect in Myers for Davis and Shields. I'm not sure that's ever been the Twins model for rebuilding.

A.J.?

I think that was more about building the academies than any direct player development stuff.

Didn't we hear similar encouraging observations the first couple games of the season?

No. Testing with penalties didn't begin until Lawton's third year out of Minnesota (although for what it's worth, he was busted in that first year of testing).

Generating a list of shaky assertions like Ortiz failing the equivalent of a post-2004 test with penalties, or Kevin Millar's "career year" in Boston, is hardly evidence equivalent to observing the sound and gait of a species of waterfowl you are trying to determine. More like, an anonymous, unverifiable source once named it as a duck, and it once frolicked alongside another waterfowl named Kevin Millar who we don't know was a duck, but had feathers... I know I said I'd stop, but what I meant was, I will only continue the discussion in animal metaphors.

Jumping into this tangent: I think TR did have some fine accomplishments in his earlier tenure. It did take him awhile -- 6 seasons of thorough non-competitiveness -- but it was a pretty good run after that, even if the playoff outcomes left something to be desired. I think he made a mammoth mistake in choosing his successor, and his return to the GM role has been pretty spotty, especially in trying to leverage the new resources of Target Field.

So, let me get this straight: not 100% trusting a conclusion based on an unverifiable, anonymous, selective leak of a name allegedly derived from incomplete data illegally obtained 5 years earlier qualifies as a "conspiracy theory." But using Kevin Millar's 5 extra raw HR at age 31 with Boston, hit at the same rate as he did at age 29 with Florida, is totally valid evidence for supporting PED speculation? Got it. Obviously this discussion has devolved to pointless even by internet standards, so I'm done.

Man, the FSL is tough for hitters -- the league HR/9 rate would rank 17th among qualifiers in MLB this year! Less than half of the MLB overall rate.

Jay is on pace for 133 innings right now (after his best/longest start of the year so far). He threw 85 innings last year, between college and the pros. Tyler Duffey went from 70 innings to 121 a couple years ago -- he did pitch the last month or so out of the pen, but he was doing pretty poorly as a starter at the time (4.67 ERA, 6.2 K/9 in his first 9 starts at Ft Myers). If Jay is pitching well as a starter, there should be absolutely no need to move him to the pen to conserve his innings. Don't mess with what is working. If they really want to keep him under a firm 120 or 130 or whatever, they could simply skip his last start or two. Although promoting him to start in a more difficult, less pitcher friendly league in AA would probably naturally reduce his innings a bit too.

Pitch in the FSL?

In any case, I figured out how to use BB code for basic tables thanks to this post: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/22417-article-stewart-and-harrison-quieting-critics/?p=479445 Although it would be nice to add styling like borders, highlighted rows/columns, etc.

Clicking on your username, then "My Gallery", then upload. Once that is done, you have to go back to your blog entry, click "My Media", and find your uploaded image. I just thought it was a little wonky compared to the normal uploading of images on posts, where it can be done right on the same page using "More Reply Options".

I won't push this tangent too much further, but there are a whole bunch of issues with those 2003 tests. They were done anonymously, for the purpose of gauging overall PED use in the sport, and individual results were never meant to be tied to specific players. And in fact they weren't. But then in 2004 government agents investigating BALCO seized data from companies which did the 2003 tests, which they believed could link the specimens/results with individual players. Various courts and judges then determined this was quite illegal and unnecessary, and required the BALCO investigators to return the data. However, after that, someone allegedly with knowledge of the results leaked a handful of names in 2009. It doesn't take any kind of conspiracy theory to see all kinds of problems with this. Since the purpose of the test was to be anonymous, how carefully were the original records kept to link individual players to results? Even assuming the separate records of the players and samples were perfectly kept in 2003, the "person with knowledge" who leaked a handful of names in 2009 -- did they connect the dots themselves to come up with those names? If so, was there anybody who was even able to double-check they connected the dots correctly? If not, did the data and/or names go through various permutations of the "telephone game"? Here's a little blurb that illustrates that and some of the other problems with those tests: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/court-ruling-03-mlb-drug-tests-article-1.401138 Simply put, the only "fact" is that someone leaked Ortiz's name in regards to the 2003 tests. It's somewhat less of a "fact" that he actually failed a test, and much less of a "fact" that any 2003 test he may have failed was equivalent to the testing which began in 2004. If the limited 2003 test result leak is your primary piece of evidence, you have a very weak case. Especially in Ortiz's case, where you have 13 years and counting of properly administered and documented (and increasingly expansive) passed tests since then, all while he's maintained his same excellent standard of performance. Even HGH, the more "advanced" PED, has had testing in MLB since 2012, and Ortiz has not failed a test in that time and has posted a 155 OPS+, actually greater than his mark from his first 9 years in Boston (145 OPS+). Even giving the 2003 test leak perhaps more credence than it deserves, I think the worst one can conclude about Ortiz is that he perhaps used very early in his career, but it probably didn't have a material effect.

Huh? Ramirez started with Boston in 2001. Ortiz was introduced to him before his 2003 test. Continuing to playing loose with facts like this seems rather irresponsible given the severity of these accusations.

Millar had a raw HR high in Boston, but it was a function of playing time -- his HR rate was no different that year than an earlier year with Florida. Varitek's "career high" was only by 3 HR, amid a long career of pretty consistent power hitting. Nixon hit 27, 24, and 28 HR from 2001-2003 in his age 27-29 seasons -- which one of those stands out as the "career HR hitting year"? Damon's HR rate in Boston was basically the same as in Kansas City. Mark Bellhorn hit 27 HR for the Cubs in 2002 -- not sure how hitting 17 HR for Boston two years later is key evidence for PED use... PED witch hunts based on relatively minor changes in HR totals went out of fashion some years ago, I think.

Interesting to bring up Millar, though -- he had a 131 OPS+ in 2002, and an even better 2001 (and it wasn't hard to see with traditional stats either, Millar topped .300 both years with 16-20 HR), but the Marlins were trying to sell him to Japan the same winter that Ortiz was released. Both appeared to be rather undervalued assets at the time! At least in the Marlins defense, they almost certainly were selling Millar for financial reasons, as opposed to the Twins straight up release of Ortiz.

Okay, this is just factually incorrect. Millar didn't have a "career year" in Boston, in fact his career OPS+ was 127 before he ever came to Boston, and his peak with the Red Sox was 117. His is almost the perfect theoretical aging curve. Nixon and Mueller had career years there in 2003, but that's about it for "career years" from Boston regulars in those years, so I'm not sure what your "etc" means. Nixon's in particular doesn't seem that out of line considering he was only 29 years old and had other good years too. Also, there was only one guy on that team who was "caught later", Manny Ramirez in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs#Players_who_were_on_major_league_rosters Jeremy Giambi admitted PED use in connection with BALCO, although he was barely a footnote in Red Sox history -- he didn't even last the 2003 season on the active roster. I have no doubt there were PED users in that clubhouse, particularly prior to 2004, but I have serious doubts whether it was as widespread as you claim, or whether it was particularly more egregious in that clubhouse as compared to the rest of the league. Particularly as it relates to Ortiz, who has a long history of clean tests and consistent performance.

I don't know -- it was a weird statistical era. We were still coming down from "sillyball" which I think had offensive-boosting factors that went well beyond performance-enhancing drugs. I am sure players were a lot looser with substances back then, but I'd be hesitant to judge any player or team from just a stat line. And like I said, testing with penalties began in 2004, covering almost the entirety of Ortiz's Boston years -- if it was really a "pharmacy" in that clubhouse, wouldn't we have seen more failed tests? Manny failed in 2009, but he was gone from Boston and entering the bizarre denouement of his career at that point. Even under a stricter and more advanced testing regime, Ortiz is still dominating the sport at age 40. I don't think it's crazy to think he could have similarly dominated naturally at age 30. Heck, Ortiz has had virtually the same effectiveness from ages 36-40 (155 OPS+) that he had from ages 27-31 (156 OPS+).

A-Rod actually confessed to steroid use twice: publicly in 2009, covering his years in Texas (2001-2003), and again privately in 2014 in the DEA investigation into Biogenesis, covering the years 2010-2012. The only blemish on Ortiz's record is a report that he failed the supposedly private, nonbinding 2003 tests. He never admitted anything, and I don't think it was ever even reported what he tested positive for. Not saying that he did or didn't use, but it's a much, much different case than A-Rod. Testing with penalties began for players in 2004, so if Ortiz has used performance enhancing drugs to any great effect in his career, he also probably has the longest record for evading a positive test or any kind of discipline. This gets brought up a lot, and while Ortiz has certainly had hits off of or over the green monster, he has been a fantastic pull hitter in Boston. I have yet to see any stats to suggest that Ortiz's success is significantly more dependent on opposite field hitting than other great power hitters.

I think we are getting bogged down by semantics, but generally agree. Ortiz did have poor value (although not quite as poor as other posters often claim ), but lots of players have poor value at times. It's not necessarily grounds for immediate release. It was an unusual move, even at the time, even when the market didn't fully bear his likely arbitration salary. Even the budget-conscious Twins don't usually make moves like that. But they did it here, which suggests it had little to do with money, Ortiz's market value, or the presence of Mientkiewicz/LeCroy/Morneau. Bringing up those things only seems to excuse the Twins, and distract from the root causes of the unusual decision (causes which may still be at work in the Twins front office and decision making processes).

I wouldn't put it entirely on TK, though. He was probably just the highest profile Ortiz critic in the Twins organization at the time (at least through 2001). I am pretty sure Gardy, Ullger, and even TR weren't just following TK's lead, but actively shared his views. It's pretty well-documented that the Twins organizational structure of that era wasn't exactly conducive to finding and developing Latin American players.

You're giving TR way too much credit here, I think. Despite his nickname of "Trader Terry" he doesn't have a reputation for making frequent trades or selling guys cheaply. (And where he has sold guys cheaply, like Scott Erickson, they have usually been veterans on expiring guaranteed contracts.) We've seen it recently with Fien, Milone, Duensing, Jordan Schafer -- TR is generally pretty committed to retaining arbitration players. I think it is absolutely possible that he either wanted a good return for Ortiz, or he was willing to release him, with no middle ground. In fact, not selling low in trade on guys like Ortiz is probably how he keeps his reputation as a tough trader. Again, I'll agree with the general sentiment that Ortiz was far from a hot commodity, but the circumstances of his departure from the Twins had less to do with that, or with money, than it had to do with the hubris of Twins management, judging a player more about his personality and non-conformity with the "Twins way" rather than talent, performance, value, etc.