bird

that explains everything.....

So typical of the Cardinals to start a college player in the Appalachian League and have him feast on younger competition instead of challenging him right away in A Ball.

Of course people expected more, but let's be fair and remember that most of us expected the team to scuffle. Let's not pretend there were a lot of Terry Ryan accolades and pre-orders of series tickets based on the farm system. No one on TD predicted what we have going on. And what's going on has very very little to do with decisions about which prospects to promote and which cloggers to unload. Hell, if we followed the advice of ourselves, we would have started the year with Nolasco and Milone working the loading dock at Kohl's with Duffey and Berrios getting clobbered to death, so pick your poison I guess. Based on other people's opinions and not my own or yours, I remain generally optimistic about our prospects. Almost every comment describing Smith's sins addressed his dreadful trades and not the farm system, which he had nothing to do with. I honestly can't recall a single commenter blaming Smith for the problems with the pipeline. Any praise directed towards the FO was based on a system that went from being ranked bottom half to top-rank status, and you can hardly call that praise unwarranted, or over the top around here. And it's possible to express optimism about the farm system without praising the FO, which is frankly what mostly happens here these days. And of course we're going to expect prospects to lead the way. What other expectation would we have? Free agency? Trading Nolasco for an ace? Specifically, however, I don't expect Garver to necessarily arrive here in September, play a couple dozen games, and have that experience catapult him into a starter's role for 2017. And when people were up in arms about Berrios languishing in AAA, I suggested he'd probably look overwhelmed in MLB and perhaps bashing the FO for that decision was misguided. We want Gonsalves to advance, we want ABW to be called up, we want Burdi to start the season in the BP (last year), someone even harped about Kiriloff's placement in E-Town. So when those things don't happen, it's either because the stupid Twins don't know enough to promote them, or, if they falter, because the stupid Twins don't know how to develop them. Hey, the system's pretty good. It's going to take awhile still. Some guys will flame out. Not every promotion decision and roster decision is cut and dry. Maybe we dish out too much praise and too much criticism, and to the wrong people, right?

If I recall correctly, Shane, you've been creating your own Top Twins prospects list for some time, and my vague recollection is that you've been overly optimistic about any number of prospects. You've also been very assertive in your opinions about promoting prospects, and some of them have turned out to be, well, not really prospective big-leaguers. This isn't meant as a criticism of you. But looking back at your own track record might serve a s a reminder that we can't simply look at the numbers and come away cock-sure about what they mean in terms of either readiness for the next step or likelihood of future success at a higher level. I know absolutely nothing about a lot of these prospects other than their stats. Unfortunately, the little that I've heard about a lot of the Rochester players makes me skeptical about whether we're really miissing much in not seeing them here in September. Walker, Palka, Vargas? Meh for me. Baxendale? Same guy as Wimmers to me. Beresford? For what? Wheeler lasted for one out tonight. Reed's not ready, or that good. So for me, the exception might...might...be Garver, and I don't necessarily agree with you about the best next step (if in fact they choose one and not both now that Rochester is eliminated). The AFL is a very valuable development experience, and I'm not so sure exposing Garver to some coaching outside of the org is a bad thing at all. Contrary to your statement, no one has really said it wouldn't be worthwhile for Garver to get a September callup. Obviously, it would be ideal to have him experience both if he's truly ready and physically fresh enough. But again, we may be over-hyping this guy, I don't know. I just know that all of us are pretty good at under-hyping some guys when they first arrive (Dozier, Perkins, Plouffe, for example) and over-hyping others (Hunter, Hicks, Berrios).

I get your point, and am obviously less distrustful than you are. I'd have to wait to see on Garver. If they say the catcher could use some time to recuperate a bit before the AFL, yes I'd trust their decision. The problem so often comes from the lack of any explanation, and from mainstream reporters who are consistently reticent to push for explanations regarding decisions like this. If we got explanations more often that made sense, maybe we'd trust this organization more.

Me personally? I guess I rely on what the couch scouts can tell me about the real scouting reports and field staff reports, and then remind myself constantly that a high percentage of even the top dozen or so prospects from every draft and international signing class will eventually flame out or succumb to injury or sin. And right now, I'd say it's a safe bet to say no one in A ball is a future ace for the Twins. There probably aren't 30 of those guys in all of the minor leagues right now, let alone in A ball for the Twins.

Let's hope we hear his name when Instructs start.

Again, I think you might be seeing through a distorted lens, Dave. There are two extremes that we hardly ever have to "get a kick out of" on here. One is a viewpoint that the only problem is a couple of minor mistakes and some bad luck, meaning there is no change required. This is a viewpoint I don't recall seeing lately. You seem to think you see it all the time. Suggesting there may be more to a decision than we know does not constitute a blind defense, and I personally get tired of this blanket characterization. The second extreme is that the organization is completely and utterly clueless. That viewpoint, which is simply idiotic, is also very rare on here, thank God.

Rochester gets eliminated as early as tonight, so let's see what happens. But would opting to give Garver a break before starting the AFL be insanity? Maybe, in the org's view, that would make more sense than plugging him in up here, who knows.

Good points. The good calls are outweighed by the bad ones for sure, although part of that falls on the player, good and bad. And I suppose it makes sense to give pitchers like Gibson and Santana and the two others who will be here next year a chance to throw an inning or three with Garver.

Exactly this. The Twin's farm system is chock full of C prospects. All they'd be doing is cutting Onas Farfan to make room for someone else's Max Cordy, or whatever. All guys with a snowball's chance at ever seeing AAA let alone contributing anything during their entire careers that remotely resembles what Plouffe will do next week. I want to see Garver, Turner, and Murphy too. But I'm not going to confuse this with a belief that the only way the organization can "know" enough about the stage of development of prospects is to let me see them play baseball. I just don't see a lot of clogging going on, frankly. Garver gets the AFL call, which is probably vastly more helpful to his development than a short stint of MLB where he's very likely to be overwhelmed. Maybe this enters into the organization's thinking. Doesn't sound insane to me.

I understand the sentiment, but have to say the Twins-organization-can't do-anything-wrong crowd is for all purposes non-existent, just like the everything-they-do-is-wrong herd has been culled to being practically non-existent. One of the things I most appreciate about my fellow contributors here on TD is that we tend to understand and accept that some of us are, in our minds, tolerant and forgiving, while others, in their mind, are discerning. As one of the former, I'm perfectly good when my pals encourage me to be more "discerning", and I don't think they object too much if I suggest they're being a bit harsh or to consider both good and bad. The nice thing is we don't accuse one another of being in one of those non-existent crowds. Welcome back, Shawn.

An expectation that Wells has a decent shot as a reliever and is a long shot as a starter is probably a good way to think about it, don't you think? Guys are lights out all the time as Low A prospects. Think Eddie Guardado. It's pretty much impossible for us to study the spreadsheets and be any good at all at predicting which of these guys has the necessary intangibles and will hone their skills and which ones will flame out.

I miss Gardy.

Quite common however for outfielders.

The fact that you could even HAVE this thought made me kinda shudder.

Perhaps you meant to say if a new GM comes in here and tells his new pitching coach to get Gibson to change his act. Has a certain appeal, eh?

I remember things a little differently. I remember that Detroit's farm system had been depleted to the point where most experts ranked it as one of the two or three worst pipelines in the league. This was certainly pointed out as a factor in any discussion of Detroit's longer-term prospects given its aging MLB roster. Prior to the trades, a comparison between the Twins and the Tigers could reasonably favor the Twins in terms of rotation depth. I remember that Dombrowski made what many thought at the time might turn out to be brilliant trades. The farm system contributed nothing to these trades. Detroit's farm system is still thought to be one of the weakest systems in the league. Most of the talk you're recalling may have come before these trades, although there were probably some who simply didn't realize just how artfully Dombrowski pulled off his final maneuvers as the Tiger GM. Contrary to what Nick is suggesting, aside from Norris ranking among the best 20 prospects, Fulmer was also a top 100 prospect, and Matt Boyd had just earned an honor from one source as best pitcher in all of MiLB. So, all three of these guys were elite pitching prospects by most standards. The one legitimate question people expressed was how ready any of the three might be to contribute to a pennant drive in 2017, and that's one of the reasons that most people saw the Central Division as a tough one to predict. While I agree with Nick and others that the one viable way to acquire a frontline starter is to trade Dozier, I think we need to resist any notion that we're in any position to do what Detroit did. Dozier, despite his amazing run here, does not offer comparable value to what Price and Cespedes offered at the time of those transactions.

Agreed. As Seth points out via Bernardino, and on tonight's pre-game, Paulie clearly said Park suffered a second and distinct injury to his hand, separate from the problem he had with his wrist. Anyone who suggests either of the two injuries caused his performance to suffer or alternatively had no impact on his performance are just guessing.

That is probably an irrational thing on my part, but I hate it. Help me out. What my eyes see way too often is what looks like a very hittable first pitch. I'm probably wrong about that? I'm surmising that, since he's well-scouted, pitchers "know" he's going to be taking and therefore throw something from their arsenal that they "know" they can throw for a strike, right? And probably not at its nastiest. So, I'm listening to Smalley and other commentators constantly talking about how a hitter's AB depends on taking advantage of the one or two pitches in an AB that they can destroy. I realize Joe gets a ton of walks by being patient, gets hits because he sees a lot of pitches, gets a lot of two-strike hits. But I also have this perception that he's increasingly vulnerable these days when it's a pitcher's count, especially to the strikeout. Where's Parker when you need him?

My bad, I misinterpreted troyhobb's comment: "the ONLY reason Joe catches flack is because of his contract". The bottom line is that too many people "hate" him because they can't separate their thoughts about his contract from their thoughts about his performance. We all know those people, and we probably all know a few adoring fans who don't particularly care about his contract and aren't particularly discerning about his performance. There are many of us who don't give a rip about his contract but find "some fault" with his performance. They are not connected whatsoever for us. OTOH, we might, now or in the future, fault the FO because Mauer is still playing despite clearly superior alternatives simply because, in our estimation, they refuse to "waste" $23M. In my view of things, that time hasn't arrived but might be quickly approaching, maybe next year. It'll be interesting to see how the new GM handles the situation. Not sure what A-rod has to do with our discussion. And no one here believes anything that even resembles the "most hated player in the game." thing. Where did THAT come from? troyhobbs clarified his earlier comment quite well.

I also see reasons for some of the flack he gets that have nothing to do with his contract.

I can't recall the last time I read a comment that I'd describe as boastful about the Twins' farm system, so I question your perception in that regard. I am perhaps one of the frequent contributors here who mentions the rankings often. It's invariably mentioned in response to an opinion that the Twins are exceptionally bad at drafting and developing players and combined with an appeal that the commenter reconcile this fact with his own opinion. With the graduation of crown jewels like Sano, Kepler, Polanco, and Berrios, we're seeing the rankings justifiably fall into the 10-15 range, which is still not "bad". Connecting Buxton's success at a certain point in time, crown jewel or not, to the overall health of the farm system doesn't make much sense to me. On Buxton "only" measuring up to Wilson, I'd also be disappointed. His struggles are forcing me to recalibrate my hopes, which have been based on all the superlatives the scouts have dished out for years when it comes to Buxton's tools. The thought of recalibrating my hopes all the way down to the servicable category is not one I'm ready to entertain, but I guess I can adjust begrudgingly to a Willie Wilson outcome but I'll label him a semi-bust.

Different game, of course, but I think it's the same with Mauer. Could he have expanded his strike zone and swung at more balls in RBI situations? Sure, and maybe a few times it would have resulted in runs. More often, it would have resulted in a bad at bat. Instead, he looked in the on-deck circle and noticed Morneau or Cuddyer or Sano and said, but if I get on base, then that guy can knock in the run and me too and at the end of the day, we have even more runs. (quote) I wish I bought this, Seth, but I just don't. I'm inclined to say it's a conditional habit that demonstrates a stubbornness and even a selfishness. Granted, lots of players get wide eyes in those situations and swing out of their shoes, and granted, Mauer probably gets fewer hittable pitches than most, and granted, Pucket can clobber a bad ball whereas Mauer can't and shouldn't try. But still...just recall how often Mauer gets into a two-strike count with runners on base where a strike was called on him. And you're taking your bat out of your own hand for Cuddyer or even Morneau?

My "dislike" of Joey is misplaced, irrational, and based on misperceptions. But it just won't go away. I keep seeing pitchers pour hittable first pitches down the heart of the plate while Joey's bat stays superglued to his shoulder as if he'd face a firing squad if he dared swing. I see a big, strong, remarkable athlete that apparently lacks the athletiism to adjust his swing and pull hittable pitches over the right field fence a dozen times a year. Or maybe he's stubborn. I see a player who is selfish and unimaginative, and one of the confirmations of this particular misperception is that he appears to be unwilling to expand the zone by just a fraction with men on base and seems happy to coax a walk in situations where the team needs its stud player to carry them on his back with a big knock. I see a player vulnerable to injury, and unlucky for sure, but also perhaps somewhat deserving of the nickname of General Soreness. I see a player who lacks the "it" factor. I see a player who demonstrates almost no visible leadership dimension. He's uninspiring to watch on the baseball diamond much of the time, and he's boring in the interview room. I can't recall the last time a teammate sung his praises to the media, especially regarding something he did to help them personally. I see a remarkable athlete, taken 1/1 in the draft for a reason, who has under-shot the mark in his career, and, as misguided and irrational as it is, I tend to think injuries played a smaller role in this than his own human flaws did. So, as great as his career has been, in my mind it should have been better. The arithmetic doesn't tell the full story of the performance I've witnessed over the years.