chpettit19

Varland has done well in his 2nd innings. It's the 2nd time through the order that he falls apart. I have no problem with Sands being a once through guy, but Varland has performed well enough to be a multi-inning guy. Just not more than once through the lineup.

I will be shocked if they let any of them go longer no matter how they're doing. They wouldn't let Ober and Ryan have unlimited leashes last year and they're better pitchers than any of these guys at this stage. It's just not how they believe in running the team.

I think everyone not named Pablo Lopez or Bailey Ober will be bullpen arms come October. Obviously, somebody has to start the game, but I don't think there's another arm on the roster they'll let go through a lineup more than once in a playoff game. Game 1: Pablo Game 2: Ober Game 3: SWR once through followed by Varland once through- Hope to get 5 or 6 innings combined Game 1: Festa once through followed by Zebby once through- Hope to get 5 or 6 innings combined Game 2: Pablo Game 3: Ober Repeat as needed Depending on how many games they play each series, and where the off days fall, and how rested Pablo and Ober are coming into the postseason things could change and they could get away with fewer "bullpen" days here and there, but that'd be my guess for what their plan will be in the playoffs (with the obligatory "if they get there"). I don't think there's any chance they're letting any of the young guys go more than 4 innings in any game. The real challenge comes if they have to fight until the last day or 2 of the season just to get in and don't have the chance to line up their rotation. Then you might end up with Pablo and Ober not being available until game 3 or something real bad.

Do you believe the front office would hire a manager that would do things drastically different than Baldelli? How do you think this dynamic works? The front office just puts together a team with certain strengths and weaknesses randomly and hope that their manager uses them in the right way? You think they have a right handed hitter who's only skill on a baseball field is hitting left handed pitching on the roster at all times and just hope their manager uses them right? Garlick, Luplow, Farmer, Margot the list goes on and on. You think they thought those were the most talented players and the fact that Rocco platoons them wasn't something they planned with Rocco? Do you believe they think Rocco is doing things wrong? That's what it'd take for them to fire him. He hasn't changed drastically in his entire time here and they extended his contract. Do you think the front office thinks he makes the wrong decisions and leads in the wrong way but still extended his contract? This idea that the front office would stay and Rocco would leave and you'd see the team run drastically different flies in the face of all logic. These are front office strategies that Rocco also believes in. Molitor didn't and that's why they fired him. They wouldn't fire Rocco and then hire somebody that doesn't believe in their strategies. It doesn't make any sense.

It worked for the entire middle segment of the season. Why is it not working now? This isn't something that changed. Your argument is basically that it took them until the middle of August to be effected by the switching of lineup spots. They were 5th in baseball in runs scored from May through July. 8th in baseball in runs scored from opening day through July. They weren't in static order that whole time. Why was it working then?

Yes. But my bigger concern is killing the problem at the roots (probably the Pohlads but that's a discussion for another day), and not just one of the branches. I don't like a number of their strategies, and don't think they can win a World Series following them. But if you keep the guys truly driving the strategies around while just making Rocco the sacrificial lamb it doesn't solve anything. My stance is that whoever is currently in charge of the development of hitters and pitchers (not fielding) can stick around and continue to run that. The rest I'm ready to move on from. I'll even sacrifice the person running the hitting and pitching development if it means never having to see them roster another short-side platoon bat with no speed and limited defensive skill again.

Bringing in his 2 best relievers is "trying to lose?" If bringing in Jhoan Duran and Griffin Jax to a 2 run game in the 8th or 9th inning is "trying to lose" I'm not sure what any manager could possibly do to show they're trying to win. I didn't like pulling Ober. I would've left him in. But let's have a little perspective here. He didn't put Okert or Richards in there. He went to 2 guys who are supposed to be amongst the very best in all of baseball. He over managed that game, but let's be realistic about what he did. It's pretty easily defensible decision even if it's not the one many of us would've made.

That's a lot of disagreeing with points I don't see anyone making. Nobody, especially not me, has said he isn't responsible for decisions he makes. Nobody, especially not me, has said he isn't making the decisions. Nobody, especially not me, is saying he isn't trusted to do his job. Go read my posts again. My point, from the beginning, has been that firing Rocco doesn't solve the problem because the front office believes in these strategies! They hired someone who agreed with their strategies and they trusted to execute them. If they fired him, they would hire somebody else who agrees with their strategies and they trusted to execute them. Rocco got hired (and extended) because he believes in the same strategies as the front office. This isn't rocket science. Rocco and the front office are on the same page. Firing Rocco doesn't get rid of "quick hooks," platooning, Duran being used in the 8th here and there, pinch hitting, players moving around the field, etc. Because those are front office strategies that Rocco agrees with and the front office would just bring in somebody else who believes in the same things. This isn't a Rocco problem, it's a front office problem. They didn't ask Rocco how he wants to run the team and then went and built a team around that. They found somebody that had the same vision as them and went to work building a team that they trusted Rocco to manage the way they all agreed was the best way. You're disagreeing with points nobody is making. Or do you believe they think he does everything wrong but they're tying their careers to him anyways?

One of the quotes is from last September about a situation 11 years ago, yes. There's not a person who follows major league baseball who would argue that the front offices are LESS involved with the manager and clubhouse. It doesn't work the same, no. The front office and manager/coaches are even MORE intertwined now.

So then you have to beat somebody better than NYY?

No wild card left a lot of teams back in the day not trying at all. Where's the "luster" in that? And a lot of the teams that went into the year trying to win ended up being out of it by August and then they weren't playing with much "luster" either. There's pros and cons to the wild card. More teams trying now (Boston, Seattle, Detroit would be completely out of it without the wild card) than before, but the teams that were trying back then knew they had to build better teams. Double edged sword here, I'd say.

I'll never understand the idea of "we should hope they avoid this good team in the playoffs so they only have to play this good team." The playoffs are hard. Get in and give it your best shot. If the Twins can't beat New York or Baltimore the better option is to go White Sox on things and lose 130 games and get a top pick. There were a couple teams that were "better off playing" the "lowly" Rangers and Diamondbacks last year. Until they weren't. The Twins should be hoping they get into the playoffs and have the chance to show what they can do. You have to beat good teams along the way to a championship. That's the entire point. Hoping good team B beats good team A for you just means that good team B is a good team. Apparently better than your super feared good team A.

So your belief is that the FO brings in platoon only bats and disagree with them being platooned constantly? You think they hate how he manages but extended his contract? You think they secretly want a manager who'd do things differently but just aren't firing him? The Pohlads made a public declaration that this front office had to keep Molitor for at least a year. They fired him as soon as they could and brought in Rocco. Is it your opinion that the Pohlads are now forcing them to keep Rocco? Did they force them to extend Rocco? Or is it more likely that the FO like Rocco and the way he does things and that's why they hired and extended him? If they fired him, is it your opinion they'd hire a manager who doesn't platoon, leaves all his starters in for 7 to 9 innings every night, only uses Duran in the 9th, has 1 dominant catcher and the other who plays 1/4 the time, and never pinch hits? And I've never said "dictate." I said they set the parameters. And I said they set them with him. They all agree on these strategies. That's the point. The front office and Rocco agree on these strategies and it's how the next manager would manage if they fire Rocco. That's why it's not a Rocco problem. It's a front office problem. Either they bring in righties who only hit lefties because Rocco told them that's how he wants to manage even though they disagree or they hired Rocco because he believes in the same platoon strategy as them. Which do you think it is?

Of course Rocco makes the call. I've never claimed otherwise. What I've claimed is that he's not working independent of the front office. What I've claimed is that firing Rocco isn't going to lead to a drastically different approach to managing the team. Do you think the FO hates platooning? They have Margot and Farmer and Garlick and Luplow types on the roster all the time, but it's Rocco doing all the platooning on his own? Do you think they hate how early he pulls his starters? Do you think they hate how he uses his relievers? You think they think his every other day catcher usage is nonsense? Or do you think they agree with all those things and that's why they not only hired him but extended him? My point has been that this isn't a Rocco problem. It's a FO problem. They aren't going to hire someone who is going to manage the team differently than how they built it to be managed. I don't get why this is controversial. Rocco and the FO agree on these strategies. It's why they're followed. It's why he was hired. It's why he's still here. And it's how the next manage would manage if he's fired but Falvey and Levine stay. And, yes, Gardy rejected his lineup because he's the one in charge of the clubhouse and how that's handled and the people side of things. Just like I said Rocco is. My claim has always been that they do things together. That Rocco isn't acting independently of the front office. And your proof that I'm wrong is that Gardy didn't just do exactly what he was told. Which has never been my argument. They work together. Which is what I've said from the beginning and you roundly reject because you think they put together a team that's clearly built for all the strategies Rocco deploys but they'll randomly hire someone who will deploy different strategies. Yeah, I can follow that very clear logic.

Jack Goin. Here's an article where he comments about writing lineups for Gardy in 2013. So before Rocco and this regime even take over the front office is already providing their input on lineups. (He also talks about not wanting too many platoons which I wish this FO agreed with) Here's the forum he talks about Derek and/or Thad talking with the top of the coaching staff "multiple times per day. Is this information going to convince anyone around here they're wrong and Rocco isn't acting independently without input from the front office?

He agrees with their strategies. Not sure why that's a lack of integrity. That's the point. Rocco wasn't hired and extended and forced to manage in a way he disagrees with. He was hired BECAUSE these are the strategies he also believes in. He came from Tampa. Most of their strategies are stolen from Tampa. They wouldn't hire someone who doesn't agree with their philosophies. That's the entire point.

Well we've had a former front office staff member on this very site confirm that Rocco and the front office talk everyday. Is that "strong proof?" The idea that Rocco is doing things independent of the front office makes no sense. They provide him information and strategy everyday. If they didn't like how he does things why did they extend him and not fire him? Do you think firing Rocco would lead to them hiring a manager that does things drastically different?

They don't call down to the dugout and tell him to take players out, but they talk everyday and set the parameters for the decisions he makes in game. Our bosses in the real world don't call us in the middle of every project we're doing and tell us exactly what to do when, but they give us the parameters and expectations for how it should be done. Same thing. If they didn't like how he did things he'd have been fired long ago. Are there individual moves here and there that they wouldn't have done the same or didn't like? Of course. Nobody is on the same page about 100% of things. But they gave him an extension while he managed this way. Doing all those "head scratcher moves." The idea that Rocco is making decisions independent of the front office or the way they want things done is misguided. He isn't. They talk literally everyday during the season. They are very much involved in the way games are managed. Do you think if they fired Rocco they'd hire some fire and brimstone manager who ignored their analytics and managed "by his gut?" Or do you think they'd hire someone who platooned, pulled pitchers after 83 pitches sometimes, didn't have a set closer all the time but instead used matchup based data to make decisions (data that comes from the FO, by the way)?

Lewis is actually the only one I can buy into being tired. He's played so little, and had so few off-seasons where he could work on improving his stamina because of his injuries. And his swing data shows a drastic decline in swing speed over the last month. He's either hurt or out of gas. He's only played 65 games this year, but his 66 last year was the most he'd played since 2019. By a lot. 2021 he played 34 games and that was his previous high since 2019. He actually makes sense to be wearing down. The rest of the team has no excuse.

Agreed on the "they really aren't that young" comment. Sick of that excuse and the "we need to keep Farmer cuz of his clubhouse presence" nonsense. But good vs bad manager stuff in this day and age is difficult. It's simply a different world in much of major league baseball now. Joe Maddon is often viewed as the original "analytics" manager for his time in Tampa. He's out of the game now and is very open about a lot of that being because front offices have reached too far into clubhouses. For many (most? all?) MLB teams the manager's job description is basically to manage the clubhouse and to execute the baseball ops departments visions/plans. Rocco seems to be good at both of those things. By all reports he's great at managing the clubhouse. Not the way everyone on here wants it to be managed, but every veteran not named Shoemaker who leaves this team has great things to say. Even Sonny Gray praised the Twins and the clubhouse atmosphere, etc. and people seem to think he hated Rocco with every fiber of his being. What makes Rocco a "good" manager is that he's on the same page as the FO and executes their strategies. I don't agree with many of their strategies (I've annoyed more than 1 person with my constant complaints about the platooning), but I don't see any evidence that Rocco isn't executing the plans and strategies that this FO seems to very clearly believe in. To me, the question isn't a Rocco question, it's a FO question. I don't care if they fire Rocco today (other than it's never fun when someone loses a job they very clearly put great effort into), but I don't see how anyone thinks it's going to make a major difference. The FO isn't going to go out and hire someone who's not going to platoon, who won't give "scheduled off days," who won't alternate catchers every other day, who won't put non-elite prospect rookies on the bench and only play them when forced to, who won't pull pitchers earlier than some of us want some times, etc. etc. etc. Rocco is executing the front offices plans and strategies. If you dislike his in game management you dislike the front office's strategies. It's very important for managers and baseball ops departments to be on the same page. You don't want a manager who never platoons to be in charge of a team the front office built around platoons. That'd be a disaster. Firing Rocco doesn't solve anything, if your complaints are about the in game management. Because they won't hire someone who's going to do things drastically different. Because this is their vision for the team. The only thing that would change is the behind the scenes clubhouse management that we don't see and can only go on what we hear from reporters and players. And all that seems to be glowing about Rocco.

FYI, Keaschall's 2025 season shouldn't be up in the air at all. This surgery was known to be happening for a long time and they planned it to let him play as deep into this season as possible while still being ready day 1 of spring training 2025.

Trusting your talent vs trusting your numbers/predictions. I'm pretty over this regime. Whoever's in charge of the minor league system can stay and keep running that, but I want new guys in charge of the MLB roster and strategies.

Or, worse yet (in my opinion at least), poor play that you just can't take out of the lineup because YOU THINK the next guy is poorer. They very well may be poorer, but at least give them a real shot to find out. A real shot includes being allowed to fail and still get playing time. Jackson Chourio (super prospect so not the same as most of the Twins guys) and the Brewers are a good example. He struggled a ton through May. Then the switch flipped and now he's playing like a star. Milwaukee didn't pull his playing time and replace him with Margot or Farmer types. They let him play and now they're being rewarded. At the end of May Chourio was hitting .210/.254/327/.582. That's less than stellar. He played in 50 of the teams first 57 games. They let him take his lumps and grow. He hasn't had an OPS under .876 in any month since May. June was .897, July .876, August .926, and September is off to a .935 start. They didn't replace him with Margot, Farmer, Gallo, or some other struggling vet. They're 4 games out of the best record in baseball and lead their division by 9 games. He's played in 129 of 143 games for them. The Brewers are the second youngest position player group in baseball, barely older than Cleveland. It hasn't always been pretty, but the youngsters learned and grew and improved. And now they're running away with their division. And, just because I want to annoy you further, they have 345 PAs of lefty on lefty. The Twins are at 176 PAs.

I'm with others and would love to see him go to the AFL for some extra hacks. If he performs well there start him in AA next year. If he continues to perform have him be your September call-up. Then pen him into the opening day lineup in 2026 and take your extra draft pick in 2027 after he wins the Rookie of the Year.

I was talking to some buddies last night and said the way to (start to) make up for their absolutely horrid 10 months of PR is to give the fans a 5'5" hero to cheer for the rest of September. Giving them a 6'8" one as well would be really fun! But I'll start with them just playing the 2 rookies they've called up in the last week+ at this point and see if Keirsey and Helman can provide any kind of spark.