bird

Come on, Vanimal, let's let them play the games. I can easily see them with final rankings of, like, 23rd and 24th or something.

I understand this point of view. However, I cut them more slack for a few reasons. First of all, after we get through the first half of the first round of any draft, the odds of a selection overcoming the issues that caused them to drop this far down in the draft? Less than 50% for the rest of the first round, dropping to 25% in round two, and dropping precipitously after that? What percentage of all 3rd rounders ever see a MLB mound? So, taking chances on the Melotakis's and Cedaroth's and Burdi's and Bard's isn't quite as ridiculous as it's portrayed to be. If you score with one every other year, you're probably ahead of the game. Second, the organization ran into some pretty tough luck with injuries to so many of these prospects: Burdi, Wimmers, Baxendale, Bard, Jones, Melotakis, Chargois, Jorge, Rosario, Guerra, Tootle, Bashore...and maybe others drafted in the first 2-3 rounds. Sure, they missed on a few too, like Hunt, Gutierrez, and Bullock. But remember, these guys were already long shots for the most part, 50% or much less. The injuries derailed some careers and pushed back the timetables for others. Third, the jury is still deliberating the issue. Tyler Duffey, Chargois, Melotakis, Burdi, Bard, Wimmers...there are a number of 2nd and 3rd round selections (or later) that could pan out and turn the effort to correct the previous shortcomings into a successful one. How many winners will it take? When might people stop mentioning a couple of highly visible failures and instead (begrudgingly?) acknowledge a couple of winners? I for one am optimistic that a few of these selections will still end up looking like very smart investments. Fourth, as is frequently mentioned, the value of high-leverage RP's has been sky-rocketing. People can complain about the current status of the farm system, but I think the experts still regard the system as being pretty rich when it comes to excellent bullpen prospects. Fifth, drafting and developing RP's and drafting starters and then converting them are not mutually exclusive things. Taylor Rogers, perhaps Wimmers now, Perkins in the past...but the fact of the matter is that you can't count on a huge uptick in velo, so if you want velo in your pen and are curmudgeons about paying for it on the open market, you probably need to draft it. So let's wait a while longer. This year and next should be telling.

And I thought Duffey was varying his stuff, throwing a CU now, and perhaps looking like he's figuring some things out. And let's not obscure the point, which is that it might be a bit early to call it quits on Duffey as a starter. The Twins seem to think so.

Vogelsong never was better than #10 on the depth chart. Slegers just moved up a spot.

Sorry my friend. I can't control the sounds that enter your ears. I don't tend to speak in as absolute terms as some would like, I know that. In the case of the topic we're discussing, I'm pushing back on opinions you're putting out there as black and white. These roster decisions are often more nuanced. I apologize for lacking the ability to articulate the differences between what you describe in such absolute language and what I believe is often involved.

And I still believe that if any of the young guys was considered to be a major upgrade over any of the vets to start the season, they go with the young guy. Of course depth is a consideration. Your argument is that, more often than not, decisions are made for reasons other than which player has more ability. Current ability to give the team passable innings as a starter. You seem to think service time is a common factor in a lot of these decisions. I don't buy that at all. But if things are pretty equal (which is very commonly the case), and further development and seasoning is one of the possible benefits, sure, of course teams will make use of the depth they created and have the younger player serve as the first replacement of many replacements over the course of a long season. Making a decision SOLELY for the purpose of using this depth? These things don't happen.

Really? How many? How do you know this? Are we sure about upside AND current ability to perform? Every spring, a number of future superstars are sent down for financial reasons and to help an organization aspiring for long-term sustainable excellence. You can probably count the number of players that fit this category on one hand. These are decisions that have tens of millions of consequences for the teams. If Santiago gets the call over Berrios, for example, it will be because they decide Santiago, for the moment, has more "ability" to impact team performance than Berrios. I doubt many would argue that Santiago, at least at this point in his career, has more "upside" than Berrios, although it's important to keep reminding ourselves that most scouts have a lower opinion on his upside than most of us do. So I guess we could accept your view on the basis of upside. I just think there are other considerations. The varying considerations often conflict. For example, maybe they believe that Berrios would actually provide a fractionally better level of performance than Santiago between now and the trade deadline. We don't know what their assessment is in this regard. But maybe they can flip Santiago for a longer-term benefit at the deadline, and this delay for Berrios may actually enhance rather than harm his upside. But I believe if they thought Berrios would be a difference-maker out of the chute over Santiago, they'd make the call. It certainly wouldn't involve a discussion of service time IMO. I just don't think that all kinds of players are passed up for worse players every spring. I think the cases we can point to will consistently be explainable as an expectation of either a short-term or longer-term team benefit, and the number of decisions tied strictly to service time are few and far between. I could be wrong about this however, as I've never really focused on the question.

The vast majority of the time the decisions are entirely about the question of which player is the best fit at the time from the perspective of team performance. There are not always clearcut advantages, or clearcut winners. Factors other than pure performance are important. For example, the composition of the BP staff may dictate that the team is better off with a lefty who can actually get an occasional RHH out, and O'Rourke gets the short straw. So, yes, on rarer occasions, a player who "deserves" a spot gets cut. But I believe that the option and service time considerations are secondary and come into play only when it's a bit of a flip of the coin. And this does happen a lot, when you struggle to decide between two evils. Boshers and O'Rourke. Yuck. When Kris Bryant reaches FA status, what will his team have to spend? When Shaggy reaches HIS time, will the expenditure be a tenth of that? Shaggy will make the team if he doesn't stink up his BP's and if he shows up sober. I doubt there's been any real discussion about his options. They desperately want him to shine. This notion that a vast majority of the time decisions are made on the basis of factors completely out of the control of the player doesn't hold water for me.

Thanks, and I also loathed the idea of Napoli. Not because he was 41 or 35 or whatever, but because I'm tired of hoping guys like Vargas or Park are the answer and then having them continue to be questions instead. I mean, when are we finally going to have someone come up and immediately be an answer, right?

Mike, when you provide specifics like you have here, I don't think anyone would accuse you of sloganism. You make a strong case with your three points. I appreciate that you tend to respect the alternative lines of thought behind the moves, and THEN disagree. I'm with you on loathing the thought of putting up with Giminez as my backup catcher, Vogelsong as my 5th starter to begin the season, and Kintzler as my high-leverage shut-down RP. But I understand the moves and agree with the moves, because: 1. Garver has yet to taste AAA and despite his age may require more seasoning. JRM struggled all of last year and there's no guarantee he'll be anything less than pathetic as a backup this year from what we can see. I believe JRM is Plan A, Garver is Plan B, and Giminez is the Emergency Plan. That's the order of the wish list, not the other way around as is some times portrayed. If I'm wrong about this, it's because I'm ignorant as to their current assessment of JRM and Garver. Maybe we think too highly of them. 2. May, Berrios, Mejia, Haley, and Duffy are Plan A. Plan A includes Santana, Hughes, Gibson, and Santiago. Since everyone knows that your plans ALWAYS implode when it comes to the rotation and you'll have to alter the plan even before you break camp, and since everyone KNOWS you need at least 10 starters over the course of a season, Plan A calls for a great deal of depth. So, already May is kaput. Hughes was already iffy. They may have already concluded that Duffy takes a back seat in the plan to Haley, we don't know. Signing Vogelsong is NOT a signal of a strategy change at all. He's part of Plan B, that's all. He gets reps in camp because they know that before the season is over, they're going to be tapping into next year's Plan A, which is this year's Plan B: Gonsalves, Romero, et al. 3. We agree to an extent on this point. They aren't giving every young RP they think is close a shot at making the roster. I believe Plan A has Shaggy, Pressly, and Rogers in the pen. My guess is they view the others as fairly fungible. So, Plan A calls for going with Kintzler, Belisle, and a couple of others, and any of these could find themselves as trade deadline assets. Plan B is Burdi, Reed, Hilgenberger, Melotakis, etc. Should any of them assert themselves in a big way, there will be room for them. Shaggy will not be sent to AAA unless he falters, and if he falters, this will be mostly evident in his bullpen sessions. I think we argue mostly about who is included in the strategy and not about the strategy itself. It's reasonable to wonder if Santiago is a better option than Mejia, but I don't believe the current pecking order that slots a few veterans like him on the depth chart ahead of the a few promising prospects is a sign of some strategic game plan that needs to be altered. I think it's a case of practical thinking by the people closest to the field, who then convey their opinions upstream.

If we read Thad's Q&A with the MLB writer, two things are clear to me. One, they think more highly of Hughes than most of the commenters here, and two, they anticipate bringing a few prospects up over the course of the season. Those are two things about which Thad sounded most enthusiastic. We'll see whether their judgement is sound I guess, especially regarding Santiago over Mejia and Berrios to start the season if that happens.

This solidifies my point, which is what you call merit is very different than what the team calls merit. We don't know their reasons oftentimes. Is the player inattentive to coaching, obnoxious to be around and therefore a clubhouse issue, late to the park? Is a player a positive influence on other players? My point is, we assume a lot. We're quick to decide the decision is based on service time or options because we know about those things, when other important factors might be the larger consideration. Those things aren't always baseball-related, but even when they are they can be invisible to us. So I agree with you. Your version of merit alone (based mainly on meaningless games by the way) is simply false.

I'll re-phrase what I said. When the team decides on one player over another, it's based on the merits. We as fans might try to define those merits to include only what we know and see. But the team knows and sees important things that we don't. Has Breslow fixed his mechanics enough to merit his selection over O'Rourke? Do O'Rourke's fellow pitchers hate being around him when he heaves into their wastebasket in the bullpen? Does Breslow have an important mentoring role that merits his selection over Boshers? Maybe none of these things enter into the equation, but other things besides stats from last year or this spring certainly do, and we're not privy to much. I want the youngest guy to the best choice whenever possible, but I'm not going to be overly critical if that doesn't happen.

Yes, and the same would apply for all unsettled roster spots. I agree, "youth movement" is a fan's simplistic term, not the strategy. I don't think I've heard anyone connected with the team use the words "youth movement". The strategy has always been to get better, not younger, but obviously the improvement has to come primarily from home-grown talent. The argument is often presented that X player should get the spot because "we" need to see what "we" have in that player. I think "we" lose sight of the fact that the team has a much much better idea of what X player has and what X player still needs to work on. While it's perfectly sensible to want the younger prospects to replace the players we ran up there previously, it's not a good idea in all cases. I completely disagree with the idea that veterans are exempt from demonstrating merit. These prospects get the benefit of fan's wishful thinking at times. Maybe they don't merit the roster spot as clearly as we might think.

Compared to....? You knew I'd ask that... Not to obscure what Pseudo and markos are talking about though, I think we can all agree that, in a broad sense, the returns for all those players should have been better. Some of us think much better. Maybe we can all agree that there was at least some bad luck as a contributing factor to sub-optimal returns. Most of us would probably concede that they squandered some opportunities as well. And then there were the frighteningly bad trades involving Ramos, Delmon Young, Hardy...(shudders*). Bottom line: had we gotten better results in more of these trades, and had we executed a more thoughtful sell discipline with regards to players near the end of their control windows, etc., we would have enjoyed two benefits. One, our rebuild would have been more efficacious, and two, our prospect pipeline today would include more talent.

I agree with a lot of what both of you guys are concluding. One twist I'd give it is that Carl Pohlad was a penny pincher in an entirely different way than Ryan was. And Jim and the boys, I believe will prove to be different than dad was, more open to the examination of all aspects of certain financial risks. Back in the days of Carl's iron-fisted rule, Ryan, in agreement with everyone else, decided to avoid auction scenarios. If Ryan was in favor of this avoidance simply because he thought they couldn't compete, that would be one thing, but I think most of us have long ago concluded that Ryan's distaste was more driven by hating to be part of a bidding war, and this cost the Twins as far as certain opportunities and markets go. But overall, the tactical (not strategic as Ryan was never a strategist) decision to focus on Europe and Australia and lesser Asian markets and avoid having a strong presence and interest in auction-driven Cuba and Japan was probably a good call. I know it's a consensus view that Smith wore out his welcome with the Pohlad boys by pushing to spend money. I don't buy this. There were important people within the scouting department that never had a one-on-one with Smith. There were rumblings about him, his communication style, his abandonment of the consensus culture within the scouting department, and of course he had the disadvantage of succeeding an immensely well-respected and popular boss. And then there were the trades. Old Carl probably liked Ryan because Ryan liked to find players on the cheap, but towards the end, I really believe the boys were seeing two problems, first with Smith in a role he never should have been in, and then with Ryan. After all, they do read TD.

I very much agree with this take. You described the team's historic achilles heel IMO. They've had a huge asset management problem throughout Ryan's reign.

Ah, so your answer is that you ARE going to fail to consider any other factor that truthfully and accurately explains both the past failings and successes of the team's IFA efforts. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah, I get this, but my own take is that in past years they have often preferred "better" players over the ones they had available from their own system. And better players they could attract were going to be veterans. I mean, if I had a buck for every time you reminded me over the years how crappy our talent pipeline was, I'd buy you your own golf course. That said, I would concede that Gardy and others had a bias towards veterans, but not as exaggerated a bias as we all have towards projecting MLB readiness on to these prospects. The caution here being about Garvey over JRM or Giminez, and I imagine maybe soon about Berrios over Santiago. If I had a buck for every time someone mentioned that Berrios was ready to light the MLB world on fire last year and the year before...or Burdi, or Reed, or Chargois, or... I feel somewhat comfortable that this FO, when the decision is a close one, will almost always go with the inexperienced player over the veteran, especially if the kid has a higher ceiling in the long term. When it comes to Garver, I wonder what their thoughts are regarding his ceiling.

I get your point that you'd prefer one over the other based on their age. But let's not project the reverse preference on the organization. If Garvey gets sent to AAA, it will have absolutely nothing to do with his birth date. Rightly or wrongly, they will have decided either that someone else will help the team more at the moment or that Garvey has a few things yet to work on. Obviously, we'd all like to hear that Garvey is ready to go and is a solid regular in the making.

gulp

IIRC, the explicit language in the contract is much different than how you describe it in implicit terms, but it's all about the contract baby. About the promise you made to another. About the harm done to another when you don't make good on your promise. About the truth, about honesty, about being a trustworthy partner. If no one agreed to stay within the pool, fine. If no promises were explicitly made or implied, fine. If no one was harmed, fine. If all parties acted in good faith toward one another, fine. There's room for interpretation here, both regarding what teams agreed to and whether the behavior of some was ethical or not.

Well, in an exercise of utter and complete irrelevance, I suppose we could print of a list of every IFA currently in the system or the player assets received in trade for them. Then you could export your Smith darlings onto page two of the spreadsheet, and presto, you'd have your list of "Ryan's grand international accomplishments." If they're not on Smith's irrelevant list, are they not on Ryan's irrelevant list? And then you could choose to continue to entirely ignore my point and to further feed your own belief that Ryan or Smith matters a whole lot in a discussion of IFA signings. You want to manufacture some story about two different philosophies? Be my guest, but you'll be making it up. And if you want to review some 20-year history of the Twins' foray in the international markets, please don't pretend that success and failings boiled down to a difference in "philosophy" between those two guys. Are you seriously going to fail to consider ANY other factors that have and are influencing the failure and success of IFA efforts? Can you find it within you to at least concede that other factors, such as budget, staffing levels, facilities, strategic focus as an organization with a 60-person scouting department, happenstance, the scouts on the ground themselves, etc. have more impact than the GM? If not, I suppose you can carry on with a discussion of the critical difference in philosophy between these two GM's who had so very little to do with getting the kid to the contract table.

I respect this viewpoint. Our difference of opinion is all a matter of our two different interpretations of the intent and meeting of the minds that accompanied the organizations' signing of this contractual agreement to each other. After reading it, and in talking to a few legal types I know well, I formed an opinion that the teams initially viewed the agreement more along the lines I view it and perhaps conveniently morphed their interpretation more to your description, which is the narrative that apparently stuck with the media and the fans. The slippery slope maybe? But again, I haven't spoken with any Twins owner or official to ask why they made this impactful decision to not bust the pool. They might be hurt by it for a long time, we don't know yet. I will say that everyone is free to drive 90MPH on Highway 100, but that doesn't mean it's not speeding, even if almost everyone is going 90MPH. There are lots of speeders on Highway 100. I'd guess most of them believe they cause no possible harm to their fellow motorists. The slippery slope maybe?

Thank you Chief, and likewise. I see speculation as to their motives to be perfectly understandable, especially in the context of their history, but I also find that conclusions about their motives are unwarranted despite the many ways they've managed to jade us. I'm not 100% convinced either, but I have this nasty tendency to defend the accused, regardless of who it is, against unfounded conclusions. And because of my experiences, I give Jim Pohlad the benefit of doubt in this instance, but don't expect others to do the same.