bird

His fall may remain inexplicable. Levi, but don't you think this happens with pitchers often? I'm sincere about this question: do you see a one-way pattern that indicates they have a systemic organizational problem with evaluation or the coaching of pitchers or players in general? You're pretty fair in your criticisms, and I respect that.

Well, mike, I certainly wouldn't venture an opinion about how much the Tonkin selection was a matter of skill versus luck. I'll leave that to you, my friend. And again, I'll answer your last and frequent question. The scouting and development staff is doing better than most of the competition at bringing in players. It's naive and simplistic to think that any team generally recovers from its low point in the cycle in 2-3 years. It takes awhile. The evidence of how well they're doing is just beginning to surface. Do you disagree that the likes of Arcia, Gibson, Hicks, Tonkin, Pinto, and Meyer is a sign of basic competence at the very least? Are you unimpressed by this large group? Can you refute the fact that the next wave is impressive?This includes Sano, Buxton, May, Rosario, Santana, Wimmers, Turner, Bard, and others. How about the third wave of Kepler, Polanco, Walker, Berrios, Harrison, Melotakis, Jones, Vargas, Salcedo, and others. Are they a sign of organizational malfeasance as well? Are Kohl Stewart, Lewis Thorpe, Stephen Gonsalves, Minier, Jorge, Navaretto, Eades, and Vielma a product of dumb luck bestowed upon our lousy scouts? Here's what I think: concluding that the Twins have inferior people comes about because of frustration with the lack of wins these last three years, not from the reality of the situation. The front office can be rightfully blamed for a series of bad trades, for being spendthrifts to some degree, and especially for a good deal of ineptitude at extracting optimal value for surplus assets. But not for scouting, mike. BTW, it's always good to compare. One of the major pubs had a point system for grading farm systems. They gave the Twins the equivilent of a 6, a point less than Boston, Pittsburgh and maybe the Mets as I recall (but not lower than the Cards and Rays) Kansas City got a 3, Cleveland and Chicago got 2's, Detroit less the 2. This thread was about accountability, mike, and I used the bullpen example to illustate the hypocrisy in picking one example of failure to demonstrate ineptitude whoile ignoring examples that refute it.

Here we go again, my friends. This staff made an aggregious error in judgment about Worley, apparently. Okay, mea culpa to them. Now, let's talk about their savvy assessments for a second. Let's focus on their bullpen. Yeah, I know, I'm being unfairly selective here, aren't I? Other team's scouts cast aside Thielbar, Burton, and Fien. What a bunch of nincompoops. Our scouts were savvy enough to scout and draft Tonkin in the 30th round, Perkins in the 1st, and Swarzak and Duensing in between. Where's the thread giving these same scouts credit for assembling one of the league's better bullpens? Just look at today's waiver wires. The Worleys of the world are a dime a dozen. Whether due to injury or something else, pitchers like Worley spit the bit all the time. You want to assign accountability? How about putting the blame squarely on the person most responsible then? And that's Vance Worley.

That's an instructive comparison. Last year, Gibson was sent down, much to the chagrin of a lot of TD'ers. Worley had too many chances in 2013, not too few, and it can be argued that Gibson got too few. But in the end, it boils down to be being ready when you're called on. Meyer, May, Darnell, and Gilmartin are all ranked among the Twins 30 best prospects by various pundits. The fifth starter, Kris Johnson, may or may not have a higher ceiling, but I'd take my chances on him over Worley right now, especially if conjecture about Worley wanting out is in fact true.

Easy choice. Neither. But I'll take any of 7-8 others over Worley. Meyer, May, Darnell, Johnson, Diamond, Gilmartin, Dean, Wimmers to name eight.

Are you guys maybe making this more complicated than it really is? The guy sulked publicly about the trade to begin with. Then he showed up last spring in less than optimal condition. He earned a demotion, big time, despite the patience of his employer. He continued to perform poorly in AAA, almost comically poor, and got sent home early. He came back, looking trim and ready, but then it got windy, and he let us all know it "is out of my hands". So yeah, they "didn't like the guy". More accurately, they like others better. They like Meyer, May, Darnell, Johnson, and Gilmartin better as starters in Rochester. They like Tonkin, Olivares, Pressly, Guerra, Hoffman, Thompson, and Ibarra better as relievers down there, apparently. So, yeah, it was a personnel decision, and not a complicated one at that in my view. He became a commodity with no significant value over the masses in AAA.

This is my suspicion as well. Maybe it won't be so windy in Pittsburgh. Maybe his fate won't be "out of his hands" there.

Hope this clears space for Diamond in Rochester.

Behind Steve Drew and who else?

But I agree with you that the performance of the bullpen may be the single most important determinant in whether we have a 60ish win or 70ish win team in 2013, and part of my own optimism stems from a belief that we have enough bullpen depth to overcome the inevitable breakdowns.

Levi, I guess I'm not buying the notion of an over-worked bullpen resulting in reduced performance being a colloquialism. What I saw last year was long, oppressive stretches where not a single starter gave the pen a day off, and you had the same relievers warming up and coming in night after night. The pitchers themselves were occasionally commenting on coming into games with tired arms. I think an argument can be made that the bullpen was very ngood last year and would have performed even better had Andy been in a position to more effectively manage their workloads with days off and in some cases fewer innings.

Whew. Finally. A GOOD fan.

As JB_Iowa said, ones opinion about whether they'll be better or worse all depends upon how you look at it. I personally don't begrudge anyone their more pessimistic view from my own, and actually enjoy and respect those views unless they're whiney or venemous, but I happen to see things like tobi0040 is describing it. If 73 wins in 2013 is optimism, I'm guilty. My more serious crime is in being successively more optimistic the further I look down the road, because of the guys who may or may not establish themselves this year ( add Arcia, Tonkin and maybe Herrmann, May and even Buxton to the above names). The Sano and Rosario buzzkills aside, we're very close to actually having a surplus of talent, albeit not especially high-end talent yet, for the first time in more than two decades. If it wasn't for this, the 2013 season would be close to unbearable for me, because I dislike watching about half the players on the roster.

Can you name anyone who thought, going into 2013, that Worley, Diamond, and even Hendriks would be as awful as they were? I can't. And that we'd have to put up with Walters, Hernandez and DeVries besides? So, count me among those who thought they'd be a bit better in 2013. I think I was down for 75 wins in 2013. It's possible Nolasco, Hughes, and others will be worse than people like me expect. So, I'd label a 73-win prediction to be optimistic and at least somewhat realistic. Like you, Chief, I'm not happy about the prospects of watching even a 73-win team. But personally, it matters to me if they lose 100 games rather than 90, because it would probaly be the result of prospects failing, injuries, etc, which is never a good thing.

My bet coincidentally was placed today in Vegas. I bet the over (73 wins, maybe). Five main reasons: Worley, Diamond, Hernandez, DeVries, and Walters.

As I recall, the TD community liked this decision when it was made. I still think it was a quality decision.

Don't be so damned effusive in your praise, Mr. Wins. Oh oh, here comes an infraction.

Correct. Semantics.

He got sent down because his fielding was sub-par.

This is spot on too.

This is spot on.

The Twins did him a favor by cutting him now, giving him a better chance to latch on to a new team. I wonder if they'd even keep him in AAA if he went unclaimed.

As frustrating as Gardy is about platoons, Please please keep Presley on the bench. And while I'm all in favor of playing the guys with a future (Hicks, Pinto, Arcia, and Tonkin are the only ones that come to mind), I don't see how Kubel or Bartlett are impediments to that, really. Unless one thinks Parmelee, Escobar, or Collabello are part of our future I guess. Still, I'm totally uninspired by the thought of watching Kubel and Bartlett play baseball this summer, and really hate the notion of both Escobar and Bartlett as bench players. More and more, it's looking to be a long summer. Sigh.

Love your contributions, Halsey. Thanks for taking the time! Just wondering if Kubel avoided the strikeouts during bp.