bird

I get your point, but I believe the greater issue is an irrational bias in favor of young guys by fans due to an exaggerated perception about how likely they would be to make a contribution. I'd suggest Meyer in 2014 is a classic example of this.

Do you have a link to back up this last statement? Kidding. No argument about this from me.

Spy, I find it amusing that anyone would claim there's been a lack of fault-finding as we paraded this collection out. The complaint I hear that I DO push back on is this mostly false narrative that young, MLB-ready pitchers have been systemically blocked or held back because the Twins have this rigid and brainless strategy in place to plunk a bunch of mediocre veterans out there in favor of qualified youngsters. You seem to be quite certain about this veteran strategy, no? My theory is that the Twins have a strategy to build from within via draft choices. The problem is that sometimes the strategy cannot be implemented due to a tragic dearth of young MLB-ready talent. I would argue that, had Burdi, or Tonkin, or any of the other prospects shown the coaches anything last year, you would have seen them at Target Field. You're attempting to make the case that Tonkin being passed up was ill-advised, right? I certainly doubt that Allen and Molitor trusted him but were over-ridden by Ryan. They all appear to disagree with an assessment that Tonkin could contribute. So, everyone I know WAS cringing at all the veterans you listed and rightly blasting Ryan for it. Meanwhile, lots of people on TD were declaring Burdi and Meyer to be ready, or calling for some of the other high-velo guys to be promoted. Often ignored was a reasonable discussion about exactly which of these young pitchers WAS actually ready to contribute and therefore a better candidate than a current veteran. Frankly, if the big push is for Ryan O'Rourke to come up and replace Thompson, I say don't even bother. But in any event let's dispense with this false narrative that the Twins have a strategy to play crappy veterans instead of MLB-ready young players.

Having two prospects among the top 10 or so is a good indication of what makes a system great. Having a relative abundance of prospects further down the lists simply indicates greater depth. The Twins system was great last year, and would be better described this year as deep. About 20% of the teams have a pitching prospect more highly-regarded than Berrios. I'd probably trade our three lowest-ranked prospects on this list for any one of these guys ranked ahead of Berrios. And yet, Berrios is the most highly-regarded prospect in the American League Central. Detroit's system is lousy and thin.

I have high regard for Gleeman's analysis. One thing I appreciate is his consistent inclusion of content about a prospect's shortcomings, at least statistically speaking. He tends to avoid the temptation to be "first to market" by ranking obscure prospects who are still down in the DR or GCL. He doesn't pretend to have a scout's eye. He understands how little can be gleaned from a handful of stats from the short-season leagues. This adds to his credibility. TD's prospect handbook and Gleeman's rankings are the go-to lists for me. IIRC, Gleeman tends to plug a few what he calls "quasi-prospects" into the very back end of his list. Last year it was Pryor, Oliveros, and Darnell. This year it's Dean, O'Rourke, and Palki. Always interesting to see how many of these bottom-dwellers actually find a way to at least get a cup of coffee with the big club.

I wonder if Boyer would've been a choice for the higher-leverage innings over Pressly if Pressly hadn't been hurt almost the entire year. Or over Tonkin if Tonkin had succeeded instead of failing. Or over Graham had Graham performed all year like he did during brief flashes early on. The Twins were, rightly or wrongly, counting on help from those three guys and perhaps Lester Oliveras, and they didn't get it. The Boyers and Stauffers were Plan B acquisitions in a way. Fast forward to 2016, and last year's Plan B guys are gone, and Tonkin, Pressly, and Graham, among many, many others, including Kintzler, are the Plan B guys, I believe, in the view of the Twins. I really do think the Plan A guys are Jepsen, May, Perkins, Fien, and then some combination of Abad, Meyer, Burdi, Chargois, and Reed. Again, rightly or wrongly. So, I think it's a little unfair to characterize the decision as choosing veterans and stifling the progress of younger pitchers. Like last year, it's about being ready to produce. Pressly, Graham, and Tonkin flunked the test via injury and poor performance in 2015, but will get a chance at redemption in 2016. We need one of those guys to step up, and we need a couple of the 2016 guys (my guess is Meyer and Burdi) to pass the test. If those guys are ready, Kintzler won't run the risk of being this year's Bower or worse Stauffer.

c. I pick c., with the exception of Plouffe.

Who are you calling Kepler? I mean, how would YOU feel if someone called you ErnieBanks?

Yeah, Molitor didn't get off scot-free, but he certainly wasn't universally lambasted, and Gardy would've been for sure. I mention this simply because I think it'll be interesting to see if Paulie learns some lessons, and if he loses the bit of the scholarship the fans seemed to give him in year one. My bet is that Paulie loses a little of the stubbornness we saw with the Santana decision.

Excellent point. Doesn't it feel like Molitor got off pretty easy on that one? Imagine the wrath Gardy would have incurred had he been managing and gone with his little "favorite" Santana.

Pretty high. Let's remember that Gardy was throwing infielders into the outfield because he had a whole boatload of crappy options at his disposal. Hicks and Rosario weren't ready, Hunter wasn't even here (not that he was a good option either defensively), and those guys were subbing for the likes of Willingham and Arcia. Sano might really surprise us out there.

It' not like the Twins called a press conference with great flourish to announce a concrete plan to ensconce Danny Santana in the outfield for 2016. This is a non-story. It's no more complicated than Ryan's comment, which is that the guy has some gifts and they're still giving him a shot at converting them into a contribution in some form or another on this team. Funny that we're so fixated about this guy considering that, at his peak as a minor league prospect, there were at least 12-15 prospects for whom the Twins had higher expectations at the time. And a dozen additional prospects have subsequently been brought on board that have greater promise than him. Danny Santana is and has always been one of those prospects you just hope kind of emerges from the shadows. So, if he gets it figured out, kudos to him and the Twins, and if 2014 was really a fluke, so be it. That's what generally happens to prospects in his category.

Name one.

Actually, Cedar Rapids is a mid market. Des Moines is a large market. Shenandoah is a small market.

That's a defense?

The Justin Upton signing is an obvious and desperate attempt to temporarily cycle up into contention one last time before the bills start to come in. It might just work. But after 2016, they seem fairly destined for a sustained period of obscurity. The farm system outside of Norris, Fullmer and possibly one other guy is barren. They'll have years of contract obligations with almost nothing to show for it, and they've moved just about every prospect they have now. And the Upton signing is not going to be enough unless everything gels for them, most importantly Verlander and Sanchez. It's at least a possibility that Arcia and/or Park give the Twins about what Upton gives the Tigers, let alone a full year of Sano and a MLB-ready Buxton. Counting on productive starts from Norris, Fullmer and that one other guy is no better than counting on Berrios, Duffey and May to bolster the Twins rotation in 2016.

Please tell us more about how you uncovered what Burrow's role was and how you came to the understanding that other scouts were feeding data to him? I think this is a baseless and preposterous characterization.

We have to remember that Melotakis has been rehabbing behind the scenes from injury, so while the Twins have a very solid idea about where he stands, we do not. Burdi pitched in the AFL after the season was over and dominated, so it's no stretch at all to think he'll be better prepared for MLB to start 2016. Rogers was in the rotation all year, and his lefty splits were rather exciting, so it's also not hard to understand why they will consider him as a relief option. Chargois was in his first full year back from injury and was dominant towards the end of the season. Most project him to maybe be best served with just a little more time in the minors, depending on how his off-season program goes.

Okay, you got me. I cringed at the thought of Arcia and Sano flanking even Buxton. I think you convinced me that Fowler would be a decent idea, as I'd forgotten he was a FA. So, in my mind, if any three of Buxton, Rosario, Santana, Kepler, and Sano prove to be inadequate defensively out of the gate...and it certainly is possible that four of these guys leave something to be desired on opening day. I suppose Ryan thinks he's covered that potential "temporary" problem with Mastro, Sweeney, and Benson. It's a cobbled mess.

And sure, all six things could fall OUT of place to start the season, but how likely is THAT? Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Arcia, Santana, and Kepler. If you vote for four bad outcomes, you push for them to trade valuable assets off for Fowler I guess. Even if, for example, Buxton and Kepler are ready later in the year? That's where it gets questionable for me.

Actually, this may be the depth chart coming out of spring training for a reason other than that suggested by you, Levi, and Mike. 1. The Twins appear to be more confident in Sano's ability to perform in a corner OF spot than most of us. I can see him surprising us out there with his defense. 2. The light bulb could go off for Buxton. We might be quickly reminded about the kind of extraordinary impact scouts are projecting this player to offer. 3. Either or both Arcia and Santana could reclaim the stuff they showed us in glimpses. For both of them, the answer is very likely to come from straightening out what's in their heads. So, if Kepler is "better", great. But calling this situation a "cobbled mess" is extreme to me. Uncertainty, yes, a mess, no. As for Kepler, I'm excited about a couple of things. First Bernardo reports that other teams kept asking about him this winter, which is nice affirmation. Second, Molitor's comments are glowing and somewhat telling. He said he's looking forward to seeing if Kepler puts himself "in the mix" during spring training. I know it's popular around these parts to immediately assume the Twins will favor a less deserving veteran. But I think Molitor would be fairly assertive if he thought Kepler was ready and the third best starting option to start the season.

The statistical facts are indisputable. However, your conclusion regarding them is very much debatable.

You suggest it's likely Berrios would have performed well. I'm second guessing you, not suggesting you stop second guessing the Twins. The Twins leave themselves plenty open to second guessing as you know better than anyone. But you do too. For example, when you say the Twins decided against promoting Berrios to win and make the playoffs, you're dead wrong. And when you say there was no evidence of an innings issue with Berrios, you're apparently choosing to ignore the fact that it was mentioned as one of the concerns, so you're wrong there too. But being wrong a lot shouldn't stop you from second guessing them.

Base-stealing stats aren't very good at telling the speed story. However, I found it interesting and maybe a bit troubling to see such low success percentages from a few of the players you'd expect to excel at swiping a base. Anyone else have ideas about that?

This has been re-hashed to death, Mike, but IMO both May or Berrios performing well were unlikely. My own vote would've gone to Berrios though. They didn't ask. But just because you, me or anyone else is "sure" about which is more likely, it hardly qualifies as something about which we paint this picture of what a complete travesty it was to not promote him in September, let alone for the infamous May start that people have turned into this season-altering disaster.