bird

My skepticism gets heightened because Nick Blackburn seems to be the poster child for your argument that the Twins had been passing up high-velo guys repeatedly over the years. Blackburn was a 29th-rounder. Which high-velocity hotshots did we pass up in favor of Blackburn? Who incidentally was pretty decent for awhile (see 2008). The Twins, probably like almost everyone else, has taken its share of high-velo guys in the early rounds, especialy more recently. A lot of those guys flame out, with the Twins and with other teams. Bullock, Chargois, Burdi, Bard, Jones, Reed, and Cedaroth all immediately come to mind in answer to your question. Most of those guys were early-round selections I think.

I'm not disputing this necessarily, and I'd tend to think there's something to the theory that the Twins emphasized command and control over velocity, especially when that extra velocity was packaged with a lack of command and control. But I very much wonder about the second part, where you claim the Twins have repeatedly passed on prospects with high velocity who were more highly rated as prospects than a player that was taken. I'm skeptical that there's a pattern here.

"As to the Twins, their low K/9 rates over the years are not due to poor scouting, bad luck, or a statistical fluke. It's an orginisational philosophy, and has been for years." I'm not interested in creating a poopstorm, but I don't believe I've ever read anything from a Twins source that supports the idea that the Twins have or even used to have an organizational philosophy that promoted low K/9 rates or even subpar velocity. I really wish someone would introduce some validated context to the theory that the Twins have been doing something intentionally that has led to their low team K/9 rates. I'm not of an opinion that there isn't an explanation for it. I just don't know what it is. Anyone? Buehler? Is this taking the thread off course? If so, please disregard.

The players on the teams from the second half of the 1960's are still my favorites, but 1987 was the most special season for me. Lived downtown at the time. My wife and I walked to and from the games with stops along the way before and after. And the welcome home celebration is thoroughly etched in our minds as among the best memories we share together.

The problem isn't Plouffe. He's the opportunity precisely BECAUSE he's a good player. The problems are catcher and a front line starter at the top of the list in my view.

Yeah, for sure, and to me, this is the true test on whether it's time for a GM change. This is the first time in a decade or so that the Twins actually have players worth trading for that happen to be part of a surplus at their position. I'm sure I'm missing one or two, but the last time I remember a high-value player at a surplus position being dangled in the off-season was AJ Pierzinski. Which is why I'm not entirely pessimistic about Ryan trading away a veteran presence. I'm more concerned about him trading a veteran presence in an area of NO surplus a la Span.

Oh, yes, I remember that distinctly. The Twins called Maddon, who said "Gee, I'd jump at the chance to manage the Twins, except that Terry Ryan guy. Yuck. So, heck, I guess I'll have to go with my second choice."

Yes, and it's not silly or bashing Mauer to suggest that he's sub-par among his 1B peers, or that the Twins have better alternatives for regular duty, or that perhaps Mauer serves the team better as a backup 1B, backup DH, and pinch hitter. But it IS tiresome to read post after post suggesting a move back to catcher. Sheesh.

The Twins have six dozen baseball people down in Fort Myers right now for a week-long meeting at which they discuss every single player under contract in both the minors and on the 40-man. I hope some people raise their hands and point out that the Twins are going absolutely nowhere in the future without two things for certain: 1) a starting catcher who is markedly better, both defensively and offensively, than Suzuki, and 2) a starting pitcher who is better than either Hughes or Santana. I'm hoping the strategy is to be more open to and active in the trade market this off-season, but I'm also hoping the trigger only gets pulled if the judgment is that someone else is going to overpay for what you have, at least a little. If I'm the GM, I trade from surplus only, and I dangle high-value assets in this category to land high-value assets in my areas of deficiency. And if I'm the GM, I regard BOTH Dozier and Plouffe as high-value assets that can be replaced adequately with existing assets, in this case Polanco and Sano. Sure, maybe Dozier is better than Polanco, but is he better than Polanco and whatever return we get for Dozier? BTW, I'm dangling Hicks and Rosario too, and pulling them both back unless the offer is stupid good. This requirement is magnified by the fact that we're a year away from knowing if Buxton and Kepler can step in and be more productive than Hicks and/or Rosario. Again, it's all about the return. For the right return, I'll take the gamble that young prospects like Sano, Buxton, Polanco, and Kepler can replace what I'm trading away if my return is a pitcher better than Santana and/or a catcher a lot better than Kurt.

Are you allowed to even SAY this on TD?

I think I agree with this. Graham might work out over the long haul but he was an anchor this season. he Twins are now way down on the pecking order for Rule V.

Allen and Paulie didn't decide that however. Ryan did, and I agree with you about how disappointing that was. Given their limited choices, I contend Paulie and Neil made a good one to slot May in the pen to fill a considerable void. And that's saying a lot given all the questionable decisions they've made.

I wouldn't have liked Big Pelf in the 7th or 8th inning any more than Boyer, Graham, Duensing...Trevor May was pretty darn solid at holding opponents off down the stretch in crucial situations. I think slotting May in the pen was one of the better moves Neil Allen and Paulie made.

Just had a phone conversation and a chuckle with my adult child about all the hoopla over this. He reminded me of something he was advised when he was much younger, which is to pay absolutely no attention to what a baseball player says or does outside of the chalk lines, ever. He reminded me that this player, whose name actually escaped us both, flipped the bat in foul territory. As were the players bitching from the dugout.

Yeah, so the world is full of narcissistic d-bags in many walks of life who think they're entitled to insult others if they so choose. But why take exception to them? They have to wake up the next day only to discover they're still a narcissistic d-bag.

My apologies, jimmer. No cheap shot intended whatsoever, was just taking issue with putting thoughts and words in other's heads and mouths.

Yep- and the players were the guys who couldn't play yet.

Really? Name one person who is using that kind of reasoning. Name one person who has argued that Hunter is the difference. There's a middle ground between that and your intense loathing of him, and that's where I see most every argument fall.

Or Mauer. Or Mauer's mom.

Ivan Arteaga/Stu Cliburn. Ask about whether they have unique challenges in coaching high velocity pitchers, and in coaching relievers being converted to starters. More specifically, ask them to address the opinion that the Twins don't know how to coach fire-ballers. Have them add some clarity and historical context to the widely-held view that the Twins have operated with a pitch-to-contact philosophy. Ask them if they have any explanation for why the Twins have been so consistently horrible at getting K's. Is this a development issue?

I'm gonna sit this one out. Warblers are migrating.

Scratch off Kevin's name and write in Terry Ryan's and post it to One Twins Way.

Then, at least we agree that when good players are developed, that's on the organization too. Right? Right? BTW, not developing good players is on the organization. We've always agreed on this point. We disagree with what causes this to happen.

If you blamed this long stretch of ineptitude solely on poor scouting and drafting, then you and I would be entirely in disagreement. My point, apparently poorly made, is that other factors are the more likely culprit, and some of those factors are human failings, others a matter of luck or circumstance, such as injuries and draft position. You have never heard the word "coincidence" from me. Attribution, yes. I'm very skeptical that there's something fundamentally flawed about the way the organization goes about the development process, at ANY position. A couple years back, they couldn't develop middle infielders. Now the same people are good at it. Today, they can't develop pitchers, especially flame-throwers, according to jokin and others among you. I don't see a shred of real evidence that the problem is either scouting or development as you insist. And I haven't heard one person claim everyone in scouting and development is competent, jimmer. Frankly, how would any of us know?

Success and failure at drafting players at various positions are a function of tons of factors. Competence, and even poor judgment, are at most extremely minor factors. Most of the scouts who some labeled incompetent when we had a dearth of middle infielders are the same guys who recommended the guys people are excited about today. Overnight, apparently, these scouts went from being lousy to being...lucky? I don't buy it that there's been a some fundamental competence issue at the heart of the drought in pitching prospects in the past, nor do I think the promising future pitching means these same scouts have a superior capability. People want to make the correlation, especially when it supports a belief that incompetence has been on display.