bird

Nolasco's bad for sure, although not as bad as the ERA number suggests. Reports came out that the Orioles, and perhaps others, were scouting Milone and Nolasco, so I'd suggest there is at least a slim hope one or both could be moved for a little something maybe, depending on the willingness of the Twins to absorb some of their contract sins. The way I look at it, I'd very possibly think that Nolasco and Milone, as bad as they are, give me a better shot at winning a given MLB outing than Darnell, Dean, Greenwood, Albers, or even Wheeler, the guys at AAA who have helped Berrios keep that team in contention. So, if a team comes along, desperate for a 5th starter but with worse options than those guys, maybe they throw a bone our way and give Milone or Nolasco a try here.

Excellent.

I should have said HAD, my bad. Their system became good due to the incredible flurry of prospects received via trade and their most recent drafts. Those events are too new to alter the situation to which I was referring. And I'll bet that, when someone reviews their promotion patterns in a year or so they'll ring that prospects aren't advancing at a faster pace than most other teams. The teams pushing their prospects will be the teams who are now at the bottom of the heap in terms of pipeline depth.

I'm sorry I couldn't have made my point more clear. Happy you got a chuckle as it flew over your head. Seriously, I'm in agreement about Berrios, but not confidently so. People make performance predictions that become laughable all the time around here, so I apologize for having so little faith in you and everyone else who is so certain that Berrios wouldn't have been an embarrassment at Target Field in June and July. And frankly, I think anyone on here who is confident that it would have been best for Berrios, or the Twins for that matter, to have been brought him up and kept him up back when he was originally promoted is, well, overconfident. It's about more that the stat line, and the kid was visibly unnerved during that one start, right? So I don't know, maybe there's a method to the madness, who knows? As for using Fulmer's and Rodon's management, and the decisions to promote them, as an instructive comp to Berrios? Self-explanatory. No goalposts involved at all.

I read the quotes too, including Berrios' self-critique. Some of us read it with the intent to understand what could possibly be the hang-up. You're going to have to help me with what, specifically, you find so indefensible about any one of the comments in the article, jimmer. I don't know enough to agree with the reasoning, let alone to defend it, but I will defend the comments themselves as being based entirely on competent observations of the guy in action. No one logged into TD knows enough to agree with the comments that were made. And yet some still want to attack the reasoning. Whatever.

Wait a sec, my friend...Carson Fulmer was the 8th selection overall in 2015. He came out of powerhouse Vandy and was advanced. He JUST got called up. From AA. Because the CWS have no better options. And he got ambushed in his start, and sports a lovely 8.10 ERA. So you are correct, sir, the CWS, rightly or wrongly, would not have Berrios in AAA, but I sure wouldn't use them as a shining example of how teams do it right and compare their management of Fulmer to our management of Berrios. And please go back and read that Chronicle article. People keep pointing to the stats as if nothing else counts at all. I agree that Berrios needs to be in MLB in a week or two, but let's not be so sure about how inexcusable this delay is on the basis of our perusal of the stats. And Carlos Rodon was the 3rd player taken. The drop off after him was a cliff! He cannot be used as an example of what the Sox did right and the Twins are doing wrong. No scout out there had Berrios' ceiling anywhere near Rodon's ceiling, and most still don't.

If you read the Rochester Chronicle article, you'll see that Berrios describes very clearly what it is that they've asked him to work on.

Well, then we're certainly blessed to have you here on TD, Foghorn Leghorn. I would not have been able to have this sort of scouting prowess in a million years. Pray tell, how long is this going to take?

Good point. I don't have an explanation, but I'd guess the thinking has a couple sides to it. First, Berrios is a long-term asset that they feel can better adapt to the final refinements in AAA as opposed to the bright lights of Fenway, for example. Where you see decimation, they see something slightly different. Secondly, they're showcasing the guys they want to trade, sure, but perhaps they have a different assessment of the relative chances to see a good performance right this moment from Nolasco or Milone as opposed to Berrios. Prior to his last dismal start, Nolasco had pitched six innings in the previous three games while giving up 3 ER or less. I doubt, going into those three games, there were many people on TD willing to predict that we'd see three straight decent starts from Nolasco, or a terrific start from Milone. I'm not saying we should applaud the Twins for getting a string of okay performances, but let's not turn around and totally trash them when Nolasco turns in a clunker. They may be wrong, and we may not like it, but there's a distinct possibility that the field people at AAA still believe that Berrios is highly likely to throw a clunker or two here in August, so let's just keep him here and work with him and let Nolasco play out his time here until the trade happens.

I think you answered your own question here as to why Berrios hasn't been called back up, right? Almost all of us think Berrios gets the call when one of these guys, mostly Santana and /or Nolasco, gets shipped off. I'm not going to get my hopes up about his starts in 2016, however. To me, he often looked shell-shocked last time around, and apparently still invites concerns by those who see him pitch with respect to his excitability and the quality of his stuff starting off a game.

Thanks for sharing that article, Mike. It was informative and very specific about what they believe are the last couple of refinements he needs to make, and these are things that aren't evident from the box score. I see that some here think this explanation is somehow "dumb". Sounded pretty smart to me. And let's remember, the Twins don't exactly feel compelled to bring players up so "we" can see how ready they are. They're not going to be any more impressed with OUR opinions about a player's development than some of us are about theirs.

This might be instructive. The Braves have a fairly depleted farm system. Logic tells us they will push prospects along, since they don't have better prospects at the next level due to this lack of depth. So, it would be easy to simply assume that this aggressive promotion pattern is a function of a philosophic approach rather than a function of need. Similarly, a few years back, very close to 50% of all the prospects the Twins drafted and subsequently signed were left-handed pitchers in that particular draft. This was clearly an attempt to correct a pitching deficiency within the pipeline. Now, maybe it was coincidentally a year where the available lefties with any promise were mostly college guys, or all the truly promising, signable lefties were off the board (as usual) by the third round or so, but I vaguely recall that we suddenly had this influx of college LH pitchers. Seth can probably give us some history, and maybe my feeble mind is wrong on this. But my point is that something like this will probably skew the demographics in the system temporarily, and general assumptions about placement and advancement philosophy might be less valid.

Mike Radcliffe has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with minor league promotion decisions.

As an experiment a couple weeks back when we were discussing the topic, I took it upon myself to question my own skepticism aboutt precisely those two constant criticisms: 1. that they start older guys at lower levels when other teams do not, and 2. That they keep them there for a longer period I reviewed the bios of our starting pitcher and compared it to the bios of the opposing starting pitcher. I made the comparison at every level, AAA doen to the GCL. I figured that, if the critics were accurate in what they were saying, we would usually discover that our pitcher was one or more of the following: a. older than their guy b. more tenured, meaning our guy started his career earlier than their guy c. had pitched more professional innings than their guy d. was an earlier round draft choice than their guy Now, I only reviewed a total of 12 box scores, so this hardly passes for a scientific analysis, but what I found not only suggests the criticism is invalid, but it seemed to suggest the opposite case might be more accurate. And keep in mind that we played farm teams of a wide range of organizations. I payed particular attention to the Cards, and our guy was younger, less experienced, and a lower draft choice in both comparisons. Of the 12 comparisons I made, in only 3 cases was our guy older, more tenured by measure of the signing date of each, more experienced in terms of IP's under their belt, and a higher draft pick. Some, but not that many, of the comparisons were mixed. In other words, maybe our guy was a few months older than their guy but their guy was a 2nd rounder with 50 more IP's....that sort of thing. But clearly, I'll continue to remain extremely skeptical unless someone shows me the numbers. And frankly, I really don't believe there is a commonly-held belief out there among the KLAW-type pundits that the Twins fit into a minority category with respect to the placement and movement of prospects. KLAW and perhaps a couple others may honestly believe this, but that doesn't make it true. It'd be fun to see what the results looked like in a 2nd or 3rd look. I hope someone is willing to take a half hour and do this. Although I can tell you that 28 YO Nick Greenwood at AAA is gonna make me look foolish tonight.

And you're basing your opinion on looking at a handful of statistics? This lacks credibility. And you're supplementing that with wild and irresponsible conjecture that sheds no true light on Kirilloff, but does shed light on your own prejudices, thrylos. Those two things aside, I would bet that every single manager and coach in the Appy League who has seen Kirilloff play would consider him to be the best hitting prospect and overall position prospect on that E-Town team, by all means. I'll wait for reports from expert observers who have actually seen them play, but yes, these other four players are also looking pretty good, statistically speaking.

Furthermore, I doubt a single member of the Twin's field staff believes that Gibson isn't much much more likely to produce for the team than any of Wheeler, Albers, Dean, Darnell, Baxendale....we do not have a surplus of pitchers that are of Gibson's caliber. The coaching staff just needs to help him avoid those frustrating periods of drastic under-performance. I for one am skeptical that we have the coaching in MLB to consistently deliver that kind of value. I miss Rick Anderson.

I agree. We don't have a surplus of guys as good as May or Gibson, and I always struggle with ideas about creating new problems via trades. Trade form surplus. We can replace Kintzler, Abad, and Boshers in 2017. Start there, but find out what the market is for practically every player on the roster. If someone gets stupid about Dozier or anyone else who is readily replaceable in 2017, pull the trigger. But don't start offering up guys who clearly can be part of the near future. That doesn't advance the rebuild one bit.

The move that's close to indefensible is leaving Chargois in AAA to begin with, which was made more likely with the original Ramirez move. Maybe unlikely, but I can see an argument for bringing Boshers up for a few appearances here while the scouts are filling some seats at the games. It's not exactly a crushing blow to the team's post-season aspirations for Chargois to wait yet another week or so. Hardly something to add to one's growing list of all Rob Antony's transgressions so far.

Yes!

I think this is a bit unfair. Jim Pohlad has put on a business suit and gone to work early almost every morning since before a lot of people on TD were born. Obviously, he has had enormous advantages in life and in business. But he's not just showing up and treating Pohlad Companies and the Twins like they are some unappreciated toy. Jim Pohlad I think can be described as somewhat socially and interpersonally awkward, but that shouldn't cause us to unkindly paint him as either uncaring or inept, although it's understandable since he clearly invites criticism. He can actually be kind of engaging in person, self-deprecating, a little sarcastic even. I hate to see anyone demonized, even if they're guilty of saying some pretty stupid things.

So, one of the minions at the Pohlad Companies caught the ear of Bobby and told him about Twins Daily. Bobby read a few threads, and took it to Jimmy. "Look, these guys at least like and know baseball, so maybe we should listen to them and get rid of Ryan", said Bobby, rather forcedly. "Listen, Bobby, I don't barge into YOUR office and tell you how to run the airplane company", responded Jimmy, rather perturbedly. "We own an airplane company?", asked Bobby, rather inquizzedly. Well, they eventually called Billy, who sided with Bobby, and that was that.

I don't get the thinking that somehow what this guy did should not be a serious crime. And apparently, the Cardinals are doing a masterful job of avoiding trouble related to what Correa did. No doubt that Houston spent a ton of money developing it, and deciding what data to collect, how to organize it, how to use it for decision-making, how to present things and who gets to see it, etc. It fits the description of a trade secret. Despite the fact that the data was clumsily secreted from the competition, the Cards are wrong to gain access to it or to take advantage of its intellectual value. We have no real idea about how valuable this property is, or how much harm has or will be caused to Houston, or how much value the Cardinals have or will derive from it. But logic tells us that, because each team spends many many millions each and every year trying to gain an edge in this part of the business, the crime is a serious one. But still, four years feels like a lot of punishment to me, and it's hard for me to believe that the Cards are being justifiably exonerated here.

Whether I leave my door open or force you to break and enter, your punishment should be the same. If all you do is make yourself a big old PB&J, tidy up and leave instead of walking off with my priceless artwork? The judge should go real real easy on you. Baseball is big business. This wasn't some hack job into someone's fantasy baseball spreadsheets. But still, 4 years was a shocker to me, especially after having seen The Big Short. No one at Goldman Sachs got 4 months.

This is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the man. Jim Pohlad has put on a business suit and headed off to work early almost every morning for longer than many of you have been alive. He's been a worker, a producer. He's not sitting around. It's not like the Twins are an idle child's plaything that he simply doesn't appreciate. He has other endeavors as well, and not all of them are selfish ones. I very much believe that he'd prefer it if he wash't close to the spotlights. He doesn't possess the type of personality, the kind of charisma, that endears people to him, that's certain. We can't pretend to know his passion, and we as rabid fans should cut some slack here.

Pretty much, yes.