bird

We have to keep in mind that these decisions are not made strictly on the basis of the box scores. The field staff at Rochester weighed in certainly, as did Ryan and perhaps others in the front office. Molitor likely voiced an opinion as well. Edit: Ah, Wetmore's interview sheds real light, doesn't it? It's so nice to get some solid journalism on a more frequent basis from some of our newer mainstream guys.

Is this a complaint? If so, of what?

Agreed. The real problems are that: 1) Buxton, Hicks, Arcia, and Rosario aren't the ANSWERS they were projected to be right now; and 2) Ryan wasn't prepared for this to happen and decided to give us a Plan B that we don't like in each of the last 3 years. He can't be faulted for the former and he's understandably taken plenty of heat for the latter. But you know what I'm tired of? People depicting Ryan as if he went all smoke and mirrors with us regarding Hunter, giving us this big hard sell about how great he was going to be at mentoring. This just didn't happen!! Yeah, he may have made a comment here and there lauding Hunter's "leadership" or whatever, usually in response probably to a lead question by some journalist. But any hype job about his intangibles have come from the media and others, not from Ryan, I wish we could dispense from this stupid talk about how hoodwinked we all got by Ryan when it comes to Hunter. Geez.

Just curious, Mat. I assume the post-game spread was on Ricky's dime. How did it differ from your normal post-game fare?

I'd argue that you don't value the concept of taking measured risks in the same way many of us do, including the Twins, and certainly excluding Tin Cup. What was Tin Cup's downside? You can argue credibly that the Twins are more risk-averse than, say, Illitch. That's cool. You can also argue credibly that Ryan has some risk-avoidance tendencies that make him miss an opportunity here and there. But to be fair, you have to consider the downsides of the risks you want your team to take and be a bit more understanding about why some risks are avoided and others, such as the huge contracts for Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana might be acceptable but Scherzer might not. Hell, even Illitch has his risk limits.

Actually, the performance of our top prospects is a bit of a mixed bag, and that's par for the course for any organization. Also, like the Marlins perhaps, it may be misguided to claim any slow start as significant. A closer look at those who someone rates as a Twins top ten prospect: The buzzkills, at least temporarily, are Meyer, Burdi, maybe Rosario, Buxton, Sano, and Thorpe due to injury. On the positive side are Gordon, May, Tonkin, Berrios, Pinto, maybe Hicks, Polanco, maybe Stewart, and Gonsalves. Minier and Diaz have yet to play.

This is a question Boards of Directors asks Managements when a turnaround needs to happen. In my own experience in these roles, There's an exhaustive examination of a number of possible scenarios based on the competitive landscape, existing resources and strengths, risks weighed against market opportunities, etc, etc. Often there is some urgency, which means strategy may be somewhat dictated by the importance placed on time. If I was to pretend I was a fly on the wall at 1 Target Way, I'd say they came up with an arbitraryish target of getting back to .500 in four years, meaning in 2015. I can imagine a discussion about different approaches and settling on the path they did. I wouldn't doubt they've talked about the Cuban market each year, and the FA market each year and have decided to spread the International investment and try to accelerate things via the FA signings of Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana. My guess is that the other signings that have been the source of great loathing on TD (Pelfrey, Hunter, Stauffer, Boyer, etc.) were not topics of conversation at the board level per se and are considered fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things for them. The Buxton/Sano setbacks probably caused them to think that maybe .500 won't happen in 2015. Any way you cut it, the question of how long it would take is almost an afterthought to every thing else once you commit to a strategy.

A nice, crisp, and accurate synopsis of some of the key issues this team has and is facing.

You articulated my biggest complaint and fear about Ryan. This is an asset management business now to a greater extent than ever before. His history is spotty when it comes to optimizing the returns for surplus/redundant assets.

Every business that fails to reach its stated timeline can probably trace the failure back to flaws with either the process or with the execution. I don't think anyone was saying timelines are odd here. It's just that they're a lightning rod for disagreement and it never resolves a thing to discuss them independent of a discussion about what might be going right and wrong with the strategy and execution, right?

I for sure agree with the first part, mike....but I wonder if he's getting better BY hitting AAA pitching. One can dream.... My guess is they're waiting to hear from the Rochester field staff that Hicks has succeeded at making improvements on every aspect of his game they've called into question, including perhaps some things that won't show up in the box score. I'm rooting for him.

I have found the construction of the bullpen to be particularly galling. I had a bad vibe about Hunter, but I had a similarly bad vibe about more than a one-year FA contract for the guys that were out there. Ryan screwed up the previous two years on constructing the OF, but I thought Hunter on a <one year plan and CF options of Hicks, Robinson, Schaefer, and Rosario coming into spring was probably OK given the two things of a "meaningless" year and Buxton very probable in September. I've been sort of "meh" on the FA signings of Nolasco and Santana, but cut more slack than most because the market and available options have both been unfavorable. The timeline question is very very secondary for me. I look at the process, factor in what can't be controlled, balance out the good and bad decisions. I cut more slack than most regarding results/outcomes that are unexpected. The Twins have been snakebit IMO. Injuries to Sano, Buxton, Gibson, Meyer have all been hugely impactful, as was Rosario's suspension. But they also have had an inordinate number of injuries to really good prospects like Melotakis, Chargois, Wimmers, and Bard that have been impediments. I think many have a definition in their mind about what a "rebuild" is that just doesn't totally square with either the reality of the situation and with Ryan's strategy. We may wish otherwise, but Ryan is dealing with a problem that got real bad real fast, and he's been contending with limitations in cash resources and tradeable assets. Like it or not, building up the third resource pillar, the prospect pipeline, was the way he's gone with obvious exceptions. The "timeline" discussion becomes an emotional hot button around here in large part because building up a pipeline is the slowest and an agonizingly uncertain path littered with many failures for each success, even among the most highly-touted prospects. I know I'm in the minority here, but all things considered, I'm a big fan of the process and strategy being undertaken. I also am satisfied with the amount of progress despite all the setbacks among our key prospects and the temporary buzzkill that is Chatanooga.

Although neither Dalton Hicks nor Joe Mauer will ever hold a candle to Adam Brett Walker III.

Jham was talking about Hunter vs. another Collabello/Parmelee type of "parade", and he favored Hunter. You altered the discussion to make an inaccurate claim that the Twins had promoted hardly any prospects in the past few years, which you put in the context of the "rebuild". Adding veterans and prospects are sensibly part of any rebuild discussion. The term parade is irrelevant but the difference between the introduction of hardly any prospects over a few years versus introducing 15 of them within the past 2-3 years is massive.

This statement makes no sense, mike. Almost no one at all in the past few years? 1. The Twins have promoted at least 15 players from their system to the majors in the last 2-3 years. A third of the current roster in fact: Gibson, Arcia, Vargas, Herrmann, Santana, May, Thompson, and Thielbar. Hicks, Pressly, Tonkin, Achter, Pinto, Polanco, and Darnell have also made appearances. 2. The "rebuild" isn't done of course, and "rebuilds" include outside acquisitions. The only players still with us are Mauer, Dozier, Plouffe, and Perkins, so you're looking at 80% plus turnover in the past 2-3 years. 3. The next wave of promotions has been delayed, but most experts are still excited about Buxton, Sano, Polanco, Rosario, and Meyer. Doesn't it seem reasonable to hold off a bit of criticism about their promotion activity simply based on the reality that prospects dictate their own promotion schedule by virtue of their performances? To say that a problem exists because they've hardly promoted anyone is just plain false. Yes, they still have to fix "part of the problem", but this is a function, you know, of how much time it takes to fix a problem that got really big in a hurry. It's not a function of inaction any way you look at it.

First of all, it wasn't a suggestion that he MIGHT be done. I'd be in agreement with that. It's just a tad premature for an all-out declaration, based on last year's offensive production. (Yeah, I know about WAR. Bill James told me.) We're 20 games into 2015. How on earth is it NOT premature to stick a fork in him already? Isn't that like, the epitome of premature? It's obvious to all of us that he's a mere shell of what he was, and I hated the signing myself. But to declare him "done"? I'm not at all focused on Hunter, but rather on Rosario, Buxton, Hicks. Those guys haven't convinced the field staff that they'd be an immediate improvement, even though I would personally rather watch those guys struggle instead of watching a declining Hunter.

Ash lives right down the street from the library.

Hunter probably doesn't make the Premature Fork Hall of Fame alongside illustrious past inductees like LaTroy Hawkins, Michael Cuddyer and its most recent inductee Trevor Plouffe. However, he is a worthy nominee, so thank you for that, Dave.

Salty and AJ were favored over Zuke by most everyone on TD as I recall. The lesson is that players are unpredictable.

Actually, mike, my comments were not in response to anything you said. I like to poke fun at the commonly-held notion that either small bits of data or years of data in and of themselves are credible. They can both have value, but as we see so often, data can become utter garbage, depending upon what we don't know, how it's used and manipulated, and what data is excluded. More importantly, the conclusions that are drawn from identical data can be all over the place based strictly on the concluder's world view. As for your question, I for one probably can't tell you much at all about your golf game even with a history of your past 600 holes if I'm limited to a bunch of scores on a piece of paper, can I? I mean, are we talking Putt-Putt or Interlachen? But anyway, nice golf game you have there.

If the advanced data fails to support the previously-held opinion, then one must collect data for months or years until one of the following occurs: 1. The collected advanced data supports the previously-held opinion when one or more tiny portions of said collected advanced data can be cherry-picked to support said previously-held opinion; or 2. We've all forgotten why we cared about said previously-held opinion in the first place, let alone said advanced data. Them's the rules Chief.

Pinto has been working at getting better as a catcher for a decade in pro ball. There are some skeptics here regarding whether "handling a pitching staff" is a real thing. I find that curious, given that it seems to be the first thing that managers, coaches, and players, especially pitchers, talk about when they discuss a catcher. It seems to me that handling a pitching staff is much more important than any of the other things. I'd be very surprised if Pinto ever turned into an acceptable MLB backup catcher. He's been taken to task on virtually every aspect of the job: footwork, framing, pitch-calling, you name it. I wouldn't bet on either Suzuki or Pinto being part of the future past 2015, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of them traded during the season and the other traded during the off-season. Maybe Pinto comes up for a spell to DH while Vargas figures things out (or not) at AAA. Frankly, I don't see a move like that as a considerable one here in 2015. And I question whether Pinto will end up giving you even average production from the DH position for any length of time.

My eyes are telling me he's looking to hit the ball when runners are on base. In the past, they told me he'd be just as content coaxing a walk in that situation.

Santana and Nolasco are absent. Arcia, Santana, and Vargas are looking pathetic right now. Every other starting position player is under-performing. The back end of the bullpen is scuffling. No other starter is on fire. I'll take 8-10, thank you.

The question of whether the Twins changed their draft approach and thereby created a hitting shortage in the low minors this year is a good one. But the thing is, the draft balance didn't change in 2014, which is the year most of the CR roster was drafted. In fact 10 of the first 20 draftees were hitters that year, including Gordon, Murphy, English, Kuresa, White, and Kelly on that CR team. The Twins have consistently drafted more pitchers than hitters in the early rounds. There just doesn't appear to be a correllation between the draft approach and the offensive production. I think the two main factors are international talent and chance, or essentially the quality of that year's draft. Here's the breakdown for 5 years in terms of pitcher/hitter ratio of the first 20 rounds: 2010: 13/7 2011: 14/6 2012: 14/6 2013: 12/8 2014: 10/10 (this was the year the Twins loaded up on all those relievers and supposedly created this black hole) My theory is that hitting talent just hasn't been as impressive in general. BTW, the success rate with these early pitching picks has been decent, all things considered, so it appears to have been a good idea to emphasize pitching.