Mike Sixel

Nice writeup.

I can't figure out Dozier.....some days he's good, somedays he's not. The bad days have been too many for my taste lately....but he can play 2B for sure. Now he needs to figure out how to hit better. Hicks I think will be good, but looks overmatched from the left side. He's been better in May, I would be ok if he was sent down, I'd be ok if he was not sent down. I'd like his defense to be more consistently good, because I thought he'd be great on defense, not good on defense. Pressly looks like he could be a good reliever. No idea if he can be a starter sometime, but he looks like a real reliever. Nice job there. Turning point? I don't know, it's one game in 162, it is hard to find a turning point.

Dang, I should start using real periods......

Interesting story on one of the NPR podcasts on those ads, and how most people have not been arrested that are in those ads.....and how the algorhythm used to show the ad in different ways seems to make more black people show up as arrested, and white people in more generic searches.......but how most people don't view the ads as racist per se, but that the "system" is racist and the math generating the ads reflects that system. It was a great listen on the long drive last weekend.

Straw man to ask for a team that has never failed in a draft, I've never asked for them not to fail. I expect some, even a lot, of failure. You can call this what you want, but I've never, ever asked for that. heck, in 2004, they had 5 first round picks, 5! It is true, the farm system is vastly improved in the last few years, and I've acknowledged that over and over on these boards. I've said repeatedly, over and over, that Smith did a great job in international free agency, for example. How is it inaccurate? Look at the record the last three years. Look at the number of starters that were drafted that are effective players. Mauer and Morneau and some relief pitchers. Dozier is not effective, though he's a much better 2B than SS, I agree. Plouffe, jury still out. LF and RF are not draftees. SS is not a draftee. Not one starting pitcher is a draftee. They are about to lose 90+ games for a third year in a row. I guess my standard of success at being good at drafting and developing players would not result in that kind of record. I've also, again you don't like this, never asked for an ACE. I've asked for a series of number 2/3 types. I think Gibson fits that mould, which is why I think he should be up right now, and I complimented them for that pick at the time, and have since as well. Diamond might or might not fit that mould, he didn't the first year or this year so far, while looking like one last year. I have also acknowledged, just today on the 2004 draft thread, that injuries have really hurt this team's pitching. But, now we are just arguing past each other. I've laid out my thoughts on this thread several times. 1. The team is going to lose 90+ games for three years in a row. 2. Very few players have come up from the minors in the last few years and been good and consistently good for more than a year or two. 3. The starters are historically bad (for the Twins) and were last in the all of the majors last year. 4. I have offered an example (St. Louis) of a team that manages to keep drafting and having success, despite winning in the majors also. If that's not enough, I apologize. 5. They traded two starting OFers, with no certain replacements on hand, which I think is Ryan acknowledging they had not drafted well lately, and that they needed to give up valuable assets to get some. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he and others from the Twins FO have said they've failed to draft and develop starters lately. 6. I'm done with the back and forth, people don't generally find this entertaining to read. I'm sorry that it apparently upsets you so much, that I think they have not been successful in developing talent. But when I look at who has come up in the last five years, and I look at the results at the MLB level, I reach a conclusion that they have not been good at drafting and developing players. If you reach a different conclusion, that's your right.

I agree with that, but it's so risky......

this week alone, I've admitted twice on these boards I was wrong about something. I was praised by a moderator for a balanced approach, and getting a thread back on topic. I have posted that there are two sides, and multiple things causing things to happen and that people should be willing to listen to others and politely consider others' opinions (which is why I admitted twice I was wrong). Not sure what you want, Jim, if that is referring to me. I'm not offended by Ryan's behavior, I disagree with his process. Those are two very, very different things.

Same issue with football.....the delays between channels is annoying as heck.....

St. Louis has had no problem sustaining their success.....heck Wacha is up from last year's draft. Fine, I wont' ignore trades, let's look at the last three years and next year......how's that looking?

Hermsen moved to the bullpen in AA, why was he not the one DFA'd?

Someone above said maybe it is communication.....if so, that's on the coaches. Again, I think it is mostly the players, but I think there has been an attempt to make everyone fit some specific moulds, that maybe they should not.

Kind of like when they tried to change Garza's approach, that had been his secret to his success his whole life, when he got up here......in TB, they told him to pitch the way he wanted to pitch, if I remember correctly. But I might be misremembering that.....

So he's a cross between Roger Clemens and Ty Cobb? Yuck.

How's it worked the last three years, or looking next year? I provided a ton of data about the outcomes the last three years, of his approach. It is cool with me to disagree, but claiming I use rhetoric w/o data is not fair at all.

Doumit and Parmelee are almost identical in hitting WAR measures. Their numbers are eerily similar. Given that the team is not going to win much this year, and Doumit is old and not part of the future, Parmelee should be playing, imo. If the strategy is to rebuild, then commit to the strategy, up and down the food chain of command. Partly commiting to a strategy is a really, really, bad idea.

Cool stuff Seth. I've been reading and commneting for some time, not always how you want, but you keep me interested. More non-sports writing from you would be great.....

Injuries have killed this pitching staff, Seth is right about this.

Agree with every comment in this thread.....

Agree with all of this, it is mostly on the players, and it is on the FO for how the players were acquired and dealt. But if the coaches have no effect, good or bad, what is their role? To me, the frustrating part of the conversation is that some people (on both sides) can't see that there are multiple things at play here, and that people feel this need to protect their stance, and are unwilling to even consider that someone else might be right.

It's not empty rhetoric to me, maybe you all draw a different conclusion from the last three years, and the likely internally driven results next year for starting pitching. But to me, this is bad, very, very bad.

Not true at all.......I usually say "drafted and developed" I left that off this time. Sorry. Look, if they are so good at it, name the starting pitcher on the roster this year they drafted? Name the good one on last year's roster they drafted. Explain why they have the worst ERA they've ever had the last two years. Explain why they felt the need to trade two starting OFers this year for pitchers. Blackburn had a very limited run of effectiveness. To me, he's a failure of the system, but I guess if a guy is good for 2-3 year, that's good enough. Liriano and Boof were traded for, not drafted. Garza and Baker are successes to me, though they strangely traded one, and the other was hurt. Duensing, Crain, Neshek, Perkins, Mijares, Guerrier are relievers, or ineffective starters. Diamond was a trade also. And, I'd say the jury is still out on him. So, in review, they have zero starting pitchers on the roster this year they drafted, or even traded for and developed. They had no good pitchers last year on the roster they drafted (though the Baker thing is the killer there). This year and last are two of the worst years in starting pitching history. Fangraph WAR rankings for starting pitching for the Twins: 2013: 3rd worst in the AL (thanks for swiching leagues, Hous), 25th overall 2012: last in all of MLB 2011: 5th worst in AL, 19th overall, with 1/4th of the WAR coming from Pavano, not drafted or developed by MN So, how am I wrong, that they are bad at developing pitchers, given the results the last three years? And, they have 1 guy in the minors that looks ready for next year right now for sure. Meyer and May might be, might. But neither is tearing up AA right now, and both came over with question marks (most online experts stating that May is a future reliever). So, what is the likelihood they are much better next year, from internally drafted and developed players?

Liriano, Boof - not drafted. Sorry, should have read "drafted and developed" and "starting pitchers".....that's the issue for this team, they have no starting pitching. Blackburn was good for 2 years, that's not enough. Slowey was an odd case to me. I still think he is better than what he showed here. Garza, no idea why they traded him. I count 2, Baker and Garza that were good for any period of time. That's not enough, not when you need 5, and you will not sign good free agents. It just isn't. Btw, looks like Seth mostly agrees with me on the timeline..... As for Garza starting down low, that was a different time, with a totally different signing deadline. Also, note that Gibson was the 22nd pick, not 4th pick. Big difference. Also, they are holding Gibson back now, even though he is clearly ready, and clearly one of the 5 best pitchers in the organization. Pretty sure I did not say start Gibson in AA, did I? I said that it should not take that long for a college pitcher to come up tot he majors, moving one level at a time. IF that is his likely path, then he's at least as raw as Stewart, and Stewart is more advanced and younger, take Stewart. And, as I pointed out KLAW and others who have actually worked in FOs have not been complimentary of the Twins approach to college pitchers. But, you are right, this is someone's path that does not work for the Twins, so it is certainly possible they would draft Shipley and move him faster. Seth is right, when they have a good college pitcher, they do tend to move him faster than any other type of player they draft. So I stand corrected on that statement.

Rochester is not a good pitching staff, how is there not a need now? I don't get the hesitancy to promote prospects in favor of guys we know are not good. Nice night for the 2012 draft class, let's hope they can continue to improve. They desperately need these pitchers to work out. Soon.

And if the players are bad, it is never the coaches or FO fault, it is always on the palyers....that's how this thread is reading. The Twins had ZERO culpability here?.....come one, it has to be some of both, doesn't it?

Apparently the manager does not agree, since Doumit started in the OF, and not Parmelee. How hard is this, exactly, to have a strategy to rebuild and grow from within? Apparenlty, really, really hard.