bird

I don't fully understand the concern, and here's why: a vast majority of college starters who ever make the majors do so as relievers, because they fail to develop effective secondary pitches, right? It usually isn't about stamina and arm strength, but about having a mix that works through a turn of the lineup or two. So, If the scouts believe in a prospect's ability to develop pitches, why is it such a huge stretch to think a guy like Duffy or Jay can gain the necessary stamina and arm strength to succeed as a starter. Body type? Tate is 6'2", Jay 6'1", right?

Almost every expert in the Milky Way Galaxy viewed Jay as one of the ten best prospects in this draft. I think I saw a report that said he hit 96 on a FB late in today's game, and scouts say he held his velo into the 6th inning on the occasions he was stretched out this year. It appears your concerns about his velo are brushed aside by some of the scouts. What should NOT be brushed aside are that several scouts are saying he has a chance to develop three 60 pitches, and that he's also shown a change that's above average. He was thought to be one of the two or three best pitchers in this draft, and it's important to note that many pros think the chances that the others (Tate and Fulmer) end up in the pen might be higher than that of Jay's.

Sorry nick, should have been clearer that I'm referring to Mientkewicz, and not Doogie.

Not a chance that Dougie was spouting some sort of "corporate line". He said it and he meant it. He's a reliable judge right now on the readiness of Sano, and if I recall, he basically said Sano would get chewed up and spit out right now. Hardly the kind of message one would send if one were obligated to pass along a "corporate line". We can be confident that the Twins will see the question of MLB readiness and MLB need much much differently than us, though.

Dougie was quoted extensively recently, I think, and made his view quite clear that both Sano and Buxton have things they need to master before they're ready to have success in MLB.

I think they've tried to balance this out somewhat by emphasizing position players with their international signings over the past couple years. We should see some hitting talent emerge and maybe even trickle into A ball later this year, certainly next. Guys like Diaz, Minier, Guzman, etc. And I wouldn't be surprised to see them skew things by a few picks toward position players in this draft.

The whole character and leadership question is fascinating, but what makes it so frustrating to tackle in a thread with any value being dispersed by the discussion is that it's nebulous and almost immeasurable. My own views on the subject are schizophrenic for sure. I sense that the media opinions about the leadership exerted by an individual can be overblown slightly by the likeability and accessibility bias. That's why I discount a report unless the reporter talks about the opinions of the player's peers, and even then I want comments from several players about specific actions and words that evidence the trait. I sense that some TD commenters discount the importance of character and leadership either because they don't have the power to measure it and therefore feel a bit impotent about the subject, or because they have some sort of allergy to players that are sought out and therefore appear frequently in the media. We've had people in our community here that were verbal assassinators of Cuddyer, for example. I don't know what I think about how much credit to attribute to Hunter. What I do know from my own experiences is that having a healthy culture and atmosphere within an organization is huge. I don't see any signs of change in that regard with the Twins in any other place but in the clubhouse. I have thought the rest of the organization, despite the irksomely (to some) conservative decision-making piece, has had a very healthy culture. I don't care about WAR, and am happy to ignorantly give Paulie, Hunter, Dozier, maybe Perkins, and Allen good grades for their stewardship of what appears to be a great clubhouse environment. My strongest opinion is about bad apples. I would look to weed out the jerks and the knuckleheads fast, despite their talent level. Delmon Young may wind up on a winning team, but I believe the team will have overcome his presence and that his production will have been offset my his dbag quotient.

Not true. He DID strike out and then flip his bat like a 4th grader.

All the more reason to watch a replay. Because beer.

I get this Levi, but I'm wondering if what we're seeing from Paulie is in reality an anti-head not incompletely in the game thing. I know we can point to examples of mental lapses from players who have NOT been demoted, but based on his comments about Vargas, and based on the number of mental lapses we've seen from Arcia, is it possible he's singled those guys out as guys who need to work on becoming more disciplined and professional in their approach?

Agreed, we both have had our say. At what point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe when Arcia shows he's recovered by getting a hit or two, something that hasn't happened yet during his current rehab. Or maybe when Pinto comes out of his current ten-game swoon in which he's batted .143 in AAA with no more HR's than Escobar over that time period. Or maybe when Vargas shows satisfactory progress on whatever improvement program they have him on in the eyes of his coaches and manager. Or maybe when Escobar stops clobbering home runs.

You only have to back to comment #83 to find your first example. It couldn't be more clear. I'll remind you that examples are prevalent. You yourself have called Ryan clueless, called his honesty into question, and have repeatedly said things that could ONLY be interpreted as characterizing him as an incompetent. It's a favorite ploy of some to criticize a decision and extrapolate it to mean someone (usually Ryan) is incompetent. But I will say you've toned your criticism down, and I thank you for that, in all seriousness. This is a message board. And until twinsnorth49 or someone else bans me, I'm going to care. Whether a victim is present or not, it's wrong to demonize them. It's wrong to mischaracterize things and intentionally portray someone in a bad light. I don't care who the victim is, that kind of bashing offends me. So yes, I'm going to push back and ask whether there might be a different perspective when a verbal lynching gets underway. If you feel that hijacks things, so be it.

My Lord. Go back to my original post please, and please stop accusing me of hijacking the thread on the basis of the words, everyone. Geez. The basis of my first post was about what you just very clearly stated: that they continue to play Escobar at DH out of incompetence, and that it's a terrible baseball decision that anyone can see. Even though I also disagree with the decision, I don't see it as a sign of incompetence, and having little understanding of the rationale in play here on Paulie's part, I think it would be arrogant on my part to bash the decision as a terrible one that anyone can see. Just sayin'

Is Paulie delivering a lineup card to the home plate umpire with the DH spot in the batting order crossed out? Yeah, I know, throwing Esco's name in there is the same thing.

You used the word exactly how you meant to use it, mike. I disagree with you on that basis, not on your word usage. I think you intend to portray the FO as having simply shrugged their shoulders and thrown their hands up in the air, and I call bull to that. I'm not defending the decision. I don't like it either. I'd have called up Vargas. I also don't pretend to grasp their thinking. My guess is Paulie is perhaps overly enamored with some things about Escobar's game, maybe his versatility, or who knows, maybe his likeability. Likewise, Vargas may have forced his way into Paulie's doghouse, who knows?

I disagree. Maybe you think an injured Arcia, a slumping Pinto, or an undisciplined Vargas would have performed better than 81 OPS+ over the last three weeks. I guess I might think the same thing. It's reasonable to think that. The AAAA masher idea is also reasonable. And maybe Paulie and gang think otherwise. In any event, no one shrugged their shoulders. No one punted. That's an insulting portrayal.

You're right, it's not necessarily inferred that you don't think their reasoning, which you say you don't know, is acceptable to you or not. I apologize. When you used the words "borderline embarrassing", I thought you were talking about Paulie's decision, not a fan's reaction to the possible outcome of that decision. I would take this off-line with you, but seeing as how you moderate these threads, I'll say it here. I don't appreciate being accused of looking for things to get "bent out of shape about", and wouldn't direct such an insult at you. Also, the inferring regarding the idiocy of the decision is derived from the tone of the posts which describe the decision in no uncertain terms as such, and not from me.

Again, the word "punting" connotes giving up. This is an unfair and insulting description of what's going on. The actual options they have, mike, includes the option they chose. We don't like the option they very temporarily chose, but Paulie and Ryan have not ignored the other available options.

As a double-play combination, how does Santana look to everyone? My eyes tell me he and Dozier are pretty solid. Maybe this is a more important factor than we realize.

I just don't think Escobar is headed in that direction. I think his odd and suboptimal usage has been a very temporary thing, albeit not temporary enough for most of us. The Twins have permanent solutions for every position except catcher and possibly SS in my opinion. It's just a matter of getting those players to the stage where they can handle the MLB job. The question is about when (if?) Rosario, Arcia, Vargas, Hicks, Santana are ready to perform with consistency at this level. If Escobar turns into the next Punto, it will be because he's the starting SS and wearing down, IMO.

It's just that every once in awhile, when people don't like Molly's reasons, whether they know them or not, it would be soothing to the ears to hear even a subtle acknowledgment that there MIGHT be an acceptable reason. I don't get that from most posts, do you? Instead, the vibe I get is that keeping Vargas down and slotting in Escobar, even temporarily, is idiocy. To use your words, borderline embarrassing. If I called YOUR judgment on the matter borderline embarrassing, how quickly would I hear from one of your fellow moderators?

We're assuming a lot here. Is it possible Molitor believes, right now, that Escobar stands a better chance at the plate than Vargas, Arcia, or Pinto? Why is everyone so sure Vargas at DH at the moment changes the outcome of even one game over Escobar or Nunez? And why is everyone pinning the Vargas demotion on Ryan but not Molitor? Clearly, the longer-term consensus is that Vargas and Arcia will produce more offense than Escobar, that's a given. But isn't it possible that Molitor's and other's judgment is different than yours regarding these last few games when it comes to the DH situation?

The quotes from Gonsalves himself are illuminating about both the Twins and him. It looks like he's been working with his staff at CR and having great success incorporating some things he might be able to get away without at that level. But you're right, he's very probably ready to face more hitters who will force him to continue to do the things he mentioned.

By the time the #FreeStephen web site is up and running, the 2015 draft will be over, the new draftees will be signed and assigned, and Stephen will already be riding the buses in the Florida State League.

The word "punting" connotes giving up. Not only is this unfair, but don't you think it might be insulting?