bird

The Twins are not rebuilding with vets. They're rebuilding with prospects. Name a vet that's been added in the past two years, besides Nolasco and Hughes, that you think the Twins view as someone who figures into the future. You are mistaken about my assertion here.

No need to strain yourself, Levi. We agree on two things: the Twins have been crappy hen it comes to disposing of players for equitable value. This is an "assessment" problem that would be hard to dispute. We also agree that they've had a "healthy share" of poor assessments. I will submit that, if you exclude the barrage of Smith mis-assessments, their track record on everything else- trades, drafts, player development, international signings, scrap heap resurrections- has been better than most teams. I submit that, when you add up all the Arcia's, all the Mauers and Buxtons, all the Fiens and Thielbars, all the Willinghams and Hughes's, that my point may not stretch your ability to take it seriously. My biggest gripe in these threads is that people resort to regurgitating stuff about the same handful of past sins without adding some balance. That people draw these harsh, hyperbolic, dramatic conclusions about what a mistake demonstrates about the FO or manager. That people constantly recite the W-L record as the only true indication of what's going on. That people come to these premature and extremely negative conclusions about things like the Worley situation. And that people look under every stone for an excuse to be critical and are so stingy with their praise. The Worley trade is perfectly defensible, Levi. Worley may or may not end up being a "mistake", as you so vehemently conclude. I happen to think you're very premature, but concede you may be right eventually. What's NOT defensible is declaring you're taking an unassailable position, thereby rendering a different view as not to be taken seriously, right? I haven't defended the Worley trade outcome as successful because I don't know what it is, even if you do. I've defended the decision-making as reasonable, and your reaction feels extreme to me.

I don't agree with this at all, jokin. May is a top 10 prospect in our system and was a top 5 in Philly. And why wouldn't the Twins take a secondary asset like Worley? Why wouldn't they hope to occasionally get the type of performance from him like we saw yesterday? And who disagrees with the assessment that Revere ends up as a 4th outfielder, a defensive replacement, pinch-runner type suited best for the NL, whose career fizzles out as his speed diminishes? It's preposterous to suggest, right now, that the trade was a bad decision, or that the outcome of it is clear, at least for those of us that know the limits of our predictive capabilities.

And it's still too early to call the Revere trade a bad decision, let alone a failed outcome, and those are two different issues. Also, it's unrealistic to expect any team to have the prescience to avoid a Worley situation.

I think we can trace the problem to two factors. The first is a long-standing systemic problem with what's called the sell discipline in the asset management business. This management group has been guilty, for many many years, of not extracting equitable returns from the assets they dispose. No examples needed, as the list is obvious and long. Second, the series of incredibly destructive trades made in the Smith era. Again, we know which ones they are. But the good assessments are still far, far more prevalent than the mis-assessments that get constantly raised.

None of these 8 is relevant in a discussion about a complex, multi-year rebuilding effort. Rebuilding teams do precisely what the Twins are doing, even the Yankees these days. Which is to incrementally rebuild incrementally and live with the complaints from an impatient fan base regarding solutions that are a year away or haven't yet been a priority.

You mean all those mis-assessments that are prevalent with every team over seven years? All those mis-assessments that get brought up all the time, while all the correct assessments, which are far more prevalent, go unmentioned? Are Fien and Thielbar mis-assessments? How about Hughes? Arcia?

I'm missing the relevance of this question. Were the Twins supposed to clairvoyantly know that Worley would decide to be less professional about being traded than most players are?

I agree with this. He's certainly not worth getting all worked up about, especially about unrelated past sins, real or otherwise. Worley was "surprised" by everything, it seems, from the moment he learned he was traded. He came to the Twins with a horrible attitude. That was evident in the physical condition in which he reported, his work ethic, his blaming his pathetic performance on everything else, including the wind, his mule-stubborn refusal to take direction once he was finally shipped out. How about holding Worley accountable for his dismal behavior instead of turning it into an irrational rant about how those darn incompetent Twins blew it again?

Just a terrific write-up, jokin, thanks. And thanks, Halsey. Love the stories from you, so keep 'em coming.

The thread topic was NOT about how crappy Correia is. Even I can decipher that, and I don't need a bunch of superfluous stats to help me out. The question was about Gardy's comments. Some of you suggested he hold have essentially thrown the FO, and maybe Correia and indirectly Nolasco, under the bus, which he shouldn't do IMO. Some of you insist he threw the AAA starters under the bus. I've re-read his comment with an open mind to that notion, and find the comments matter-of-fact and completely innocuous in terms of that. And also accurate. May and Meyer look like they're both really close, but isn't May still a little wild? Hasn't Meyer been working hard on perfecting a new grip? I doubt these two would watch the video of Gardy's comments and feel they were criticized, unfairly or not, let alone thrown under the bus.

I've followed baseball since 1961, and there have been plenty of Terry Felton types. This generally happens because replacements aren't available. I understand the impatience to make a move, since we have what appear to be good alternatives, but I also can accept the possibility that giving Correia every last chance to right the ship may not be so ridiculous. Maybe they see things that lead them to believe the AA guys would struggle here, or maybe they they think Correia isn't that far from getting on track to where he was last year, when we would have been pleased with him as our 5th best starter. ANyway, back to what Gardy said. I believe most fans, like me, would regard his comments as having been fairly innocuous, a little informative about the alternatives, and and not at all disparaging about the guys in AAA.

Two months (maybe less). Lots of walks. A bit of luck. Still, one could argue he's been dominant. But it's possible that people real close to the situation believe he's a shade less than dominant.

I know I'm in the minority, but I think the angst over Correia is overdone just a bit. Johnson has been the most worthy of promotion, followed probably by Darnell and May. I'm just not sure our W-L record would have improved with an earlier move. And if so, by how much? But I agree with jettisoning him. I can't stand watching him pitch. I'd rather watch Butera bat.

Levi, if you're saying the comment YOU suggest he make is flippant, then yes, we're in total agreement.

I don't see his comment as one bit flippant, any way you shake it, Levi. What's so wrong with trying to persuade the interested public that clamoring for the head of one guy in favor of an over-hyped prospect is premature? 100% unnecessary perhaps, but hardly a disrespectful or flippant comment.

Exactly who has Diamond been blocking, mike? I think you've made a blanket statement here that's not borne out by the facts. Every team makes a flurry of moves at the break, i.e.. a week or so from now, when SS ball starts in earnest. Gilmartin is the only starter who has excelled, and that has been due to a recent surge. So, in a couple weeks, if Diamond is still sucking and Gilmartin is still dealing, I'll join you in complaining about one specific case. Contrary to popular opinion, the Twins do as good a job as any development system out there to advance the the truly standout talent in its system. You won't be able to cite but a couple examples of a dud player blocking a stud prospect where there's no room for disagreement about readiness for a promotion. But there are many many examples of high-ceiling guys playing as the youngest or one of the youngest players in their league. Berrios, Thorpe, Stewart, Buxton, Arcia, Sano....the list goes on and on, mike.

Are people so sure that May, Meyer, Darnell, or Johnson would come up here and immediately be superior to Correia? My bet is that every one of them would absolutely stink up the joint in most of their first 10 starts if they were brought up today. Maybe in a couple of months they'll be ready to only stink up half their starts. What's the hurry? They're getting great experience right where they are. And by the way, Gardy's description of "up and down" is spot on for all of these guys. It's delusional to think any of them, May included, are absolutely dominating AAA.

The fact that he's smart enough not to say this is why he manages a clubhouse as well as any manager in baseball. And what you're suggesting is paramount to throwing his front office under a bus. How stupid would THAT be?

Yeah, and don't mix that one up with the dozen threads predicting 100 losses.

This is priceless. Thanks for sharing it, Jeremy.

There are/were at least ten outfielders up and down the system sitting out with injuries. There are plenty of outfielders available at extended. The point I'm making is that there isn't a system-wide dearth of outfielders, just a very temporary shortage. mww was making it seem like a management foul-up, and it isn't. But the main point is that there is no reason for the Twins to emphasize outfielders in this draft more than they always do.

Let's look at some facts: Cedar Rapids has 4 outfielders on the DL, so they surely have a current dearth. Zach Larson and JD Williams are both ranked by Seth, and are hurt, as are Jeremias Pineda and Zach Granite, who probably aren't "decent". The 3 healthy outfielders haven't been too bad: Jason Kanzler, Jonathan Murphy, and Ivory Thomas. Contrary to some opinions, none of these 7 outfielders are "playing out of position". I suppose a harsh critic could say that none of these guys are "decent". Fort Myers? Anyone troubled by an outfield of top prospects Buxton, Walker, Kepler, and Travis Harrison? Sure, Rosario is "playing out of position" due to injuries to Buxton, Nate Roberts, Lance Ray, and others. You certainly can't describe this as a "dearth" and be fair about it, can you? New Britain? Sure, things are less than ideal right this minute with Ortiz, Kvasnicka, and Wimberly playing, none top 40 prospects. But with Nate Roberts and Lance Ray playing in extended, and with Buxton and Walker eventually set for promotion, it's not like the Twins are to be faulted to a great extent here if one is fair. Rochester has the kind of outfield one should expect for a AA team. Guys bouncing back and forth in the early stages of their MLB careers like Arcia, Herrmann, Hicks, Parmelee, and Cola. Granted, most of these guys are pretty bad fielders, and the loss of Presley and Maestro is glaring. Still, I think if we compared our system to others, the outfield situation wouldn't seem deficient.

This. I'm not sure how anyone can be of the opinion that "not much has changed". It's not just a matter of realistic expectations. Quite frankly it's choosing to see the good things along with the bad. Even with Buxton, Sano, and Rosario delayed, how can anyone feel like nothing has changed when we're seeing Pinto, Arcia, Santana, and Tonkin surfacing? Why complain about the fact that some of this prodigious talent is a year away as if someone's at fault? A whole lot has changed.

I think I'm recalling correctly that Jeff Johnson tweeted that Stewart was throwing a ton of breaking balls and off-speed stuff.