diehardtwinsfan

No, not unreasonable. I'm more referring to some of our own suggestions of what we would do. I'm pretty convinced that if the collective here ran the Twins, we'd have nothing but 90 loss season in our future too. We get tunnel vision b/c we don't really pay attention to how other orgs are run and hold the Twins to a standard that no MLB team could reasonably reach. I don't have a problem complaining when they things wrong (the chief of which was not having a good CF backup plan, and lesser issues was not addressing the SP log jam by trading Milone this offseason when he might have netted a scratch off ticket). I'm not sure the average fan has a good understanding of baseball economics much less what it actually takes to develop and acquire talent (and I'm not claiming that I do either). Lots of folks on the board seem to think that struggles are nothing more than a player getting unlucky and that free agents can be picked up and discarded in the same manner that they are in the NFL. Others would trade away the farm for vets on the wrong side of 30 (see Shields, James whose name comes up here frequently or even better, go look up all the threads saying we should get Nolasco/Santana prior to them being a Twin) while others would waste service time calling up guys who have no business playing in the majors with the idea that they should just be able to succeed. Others expect results after a dozen games and if they aren't there simply write the guy off as a bust. I realize that these are all different people with all different manners of view, but I suspect that just about everyone of us would end up unemployed in a short manner if we got to move from armchair GM to real GM. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize the front office because quite frankly, they deserve it at some times, but I am saying that we should probably approach it with just a little bit of humility, because I think we all suffer from that tunnel vision in one way or another.

I won't argue that there are some on this board that will criticize no matter what, but we did all have different opinions of what should be done. I'd have rolled with Sweeney or signed a stop gap CF on a 1 year contract. I'd have also traded Milone. I probably would have kept Plouffe based on what Todd Frasier netted in his trade, and as such, Sano would have been in RF. I agree that no one saw this collapse, and that makes me wonder if they will regress a bit positively, but I think my bigger concern right now is the decision to go young when your manager refuses to play young talent. Something has to give there. I was pretty happy with Molitor last season, but if Molitor has Gardy level distaste for young talent, then quite frankly this was an awful hire. I could care less about shifts and stats (OK, maybe not), but truthfully, the most important aspect of Gardy's replacement was the ability to develop talent. I'd think that could be flushed out pretty easily in an interview.

Or perhaps we at TD have a bit of tunnel vision with respect to how difficult it is to both identify and develop talent Honestly, it's probably a bit of all 3. The Twins aren't perfect as an org, neither is everyone MLB wide, and quite frankly, we do put some pretty unreasonable expectations on our front office as well.

I was kind of hoping that a prep lefty like Wentz or Garret would be there at 15, but I think Whitley would be a good pick here if he's a available. He's really tall, boasts mid 90s speed already that can pick up a tick or two as he develops as well. I think I'd happy with any of those 3. For the record, they have Collins getting snapped up at 6. If he's gone, I think they go with at least one prep C in the second round. With 3 picks (did they have 2 or 3?) there, they can get their safe college arm that they usually grab as well as a prep C and someone else.

I agree with the others that things have to shake out, though I think Vanimal's assessment is probably the most accurate. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Gibson has another rebound and posts respectable numbers by end of season that he might go on the market as well. I'd certainly consider it if he did what he did last season again. He would also likely get a nice return. I suspect Nolasco will be gone, whether that's a mid-season trade or he just gets cut, who knows. I think you'll start seeing relievers rotating through from the minors yet this season, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start rotating Kepler/Walker/Buxton back in after the ASB.

Kepler was pretty bad in April (though in his defense, he spent a lot of time accumulating rust on the ML bench), but he's been good in May. Just about anyone can get hot for a couple weeks, so I think I echo what others said and say that I'd wait until the ASB at the earliest. If this is nothing more than SSS, we will know by then. If not, I'd call him up and put him in a corner spot. That's just me of course.

Buxton wasn't that good his first month, nor his second. He had plenty of time to learn on the job and didn't improve. That's what happens when you're overmatched, and it is why he needed to go back down. I wouldn't fault the Twins for sending him down. He's not ready. I would fault them for not having (or using if you count Sweeney) a viable option in the first place.

Agreed, and if everyone thinks said guy is the BPA, then I suspect the Twins would draft him. When the disagreements happen, I'm guessing things like need suddenly factor in a whole heck of a lot more... and they should... If you have 6 players that everyone likes equally or close to equal, I'd draft the catcher or the pitcher in that group.

Like it or not, it is good in a way. We may not like Maestro up on the major league team, but Buxton and Rosario certainly haven't cut it. They pretty clearly needed more time in the minors as they are both clearly overmatched at the moment. Kepler isn't really a CF, and truthfully he's finally starting to come around in AAA (he was pretty bad in what little PT he's had thus far). Walker hasn't been very good in AAA either. It's bad from the standpoint that there was no real backup plan for CF, and this is a scenario where you go out and get that 1 year stop gap/make good type contract. Perhaps that was supposed to be Sweeney, but Buxton hardly earned the job out of spring training and yet Sweeney was cut despite out performing him. The problem with going with the kids so to speak is that you have scenarios like Rosario and Buxton. This is hardly unique to the Twins, and it's fairly common when you think about it. It's the big debate between win now and win later. You go with the kids, you're choosing win later, which isn't going to go over well with some fans, and you may have to make adjustments like Maestro because they didn't cut it. That's baseball. It sucks, but that's how it is. You go spend a lot of money, you choose win now, but as soon as that age curve hits, whatever money you still owe is still owed. This isn't the NFL, and you don't get to just cut them. It's why we are still cursing the Nolasco contract and why no one likes the Mauer contract at the moment.

I suspect he'll get his shot, though given that he started in AA, I don't think it's unfair to start bashing management on this one. He did his job there and is now getting a tougher assignment in AAA. He'll be up soon enough.

This goes back to why I say BPA is ridiculously subjective. Trout slid into the 20s. Pujols got passed on by every team multiple times. BPA is easier to tell in hindsight, but the reality is that with foresight, there's really no such thing. Drafts fall into tiers. As Jeremy noted, there's a clear top tier ahead of the Twins. None of those guys will be available when we draft, yet some will mostly likely fail. Their failure rates will be lower than those in the tier below them, but some guys who go lower will be better than some of the guys drafted above them... and then there's the whole debate as to what constitutes a BPA. I doubt you could get TD to agree, much less a half dozen scouts in a war room. You have factors such as position (up the middle vs. corner, pitcher vs. hitter), ceiling, floor, the likeliness of hitting either, not to mention the much harder to quantify intangibles such as mental makeup, attitude, work ethic, and how exactly an 18-22 year old kid is going to handle life as a professional athlete or how they will handle the signing bonus if drafted high enough. I'm commenting more on the idea that some posted saying the Twins didn't draft BPA except in 2012. It's easy to say in hindsight when without question they got the best of what was available at their pick (though even now I'd hardly call that a sure thing given that neither Buxton nor Berrios are stars at this point). In foresight, however, there's no such thing. There's no magic formulas that are completely objective that you can use to quantify who the best players. You cannot objectively quantify a kid's mental makeup, attitude, leadership skills, etc. You can only guess on how they will physically develop (though at least this one can have some objective criteria). You can watch them hit a High School curve ball, but that means absolutely nothing about their ability to eventually hit a major league curve ball. You can only project, and there's no universally objective way of doing that. My point, after all the rambling, is that I absolutely hate the way we use the term BPA around here as though it's a sure thing that's easily quantifiable. It's only obvious in hindsight, and the only thing you can really try and do is learn from the mistakes as to why Albert Pujols got drafted in the 13th round, or why Mike Trout slide to the late first round. BPA pre-draft is like the replacement player we use to calculate WAR. It's a myth. They are easy to find once the dust has settled, but don't really exist until well after the fact.

I figured Dean would get a shot before Berrios (not on the 40 man at the time) and maybe Meyer (though Meyer to be honest earned his shot), but yeah, there's been lots of change... I'd really like to be a fly on the wall in a conversation between TR and PM. Really curious why guys like Polanco and Kepler just sit the bench. That's fine for a couple days, but at one point, you have to just play them. I'd rather they have added Beresford to the 40 man and let him sit the bench than to do that with Polanco. The same with Dean and Meyer. Polanco and Meyer have talent to have an ML future. Dean and Beresford are on the fringes. If you're going to just put the guy on the bench, I'd have brought up those two.

The reason why Trout slid was that he had question marks. The same could be said for Berrios to be fair. This is my problem with BPA. It's much easier to tell in hindsight, but not so obvious with high school or college players. When you look at the tiers that develop every year, there will be players in said tier that fail, and some that succeed.

He's 18.... Perhaps he found daddy's secret liquor stash. I hear that dehydrates you too, but I'm not speaking from experience as I've apparently never had a hangover in my life (and not for lack of trying), and I'm sure daddy is keeping it well stocked given the product presently on the field that he's forced to watch.

Agreed. You have to set aside some of the hacking as Hollywood needs to hire some white/black hats as consultants, but putting that aside, this definitely has a uniqueness about it that most dramas are lacking.

I need to figure out where I can stream this. I don't fly Delta anymore

I'm actually more interested in their second round picks. There are two catchers that look to have a decent ceiling that will likely be there at that point. I'm hoping they walk away with one of them.

They did this with Rosario. It clearly wasn't working. They did this with Buxton, and it didn't work. I suspect the kids will get another shot, but I do think there's merit in recognizing when said kid isn't earning that job and demoting them accordingly. The season is lost, and the guys you want to step up aren't doing that. I don't have a problem with filler like Grossman for the time being. You'll see them again at some point, hopefully that's at a point where they've earned it.

Yeah, it's definitely not on the list of how I'd handle it. That said, I'd definitely use the Rochester shuttle, but it may even be under the context of "you get X starts, then we call up player B no matter how well you're doing. Go out there, relax, and do your thing." Certainly takes the pressure off if they know they are going down no matter what I'd think...

At the time I don't believe he was on the 40 man. I don't mind bringing up a prospect and letting him sit for a couple days if you're in a situation where a guy will be out for a week and you just need a warm body. It certainly acclimates them to ML life, and I'm guessing they kind of like the pay check too. But yeah, for a longer term issue, you want the kid playing, or it really does cause a problem long term.

This kind of cuts both ways, as I don't believe anyone is a fan of scholarships. I don't have a problem with him earning it, though I do get real annoyed when they add a kid to the 40 early and then 4 starts later option him. That's horrible options management. With Berrios being in AAA, it probably won't matter, but then again we said the same thing about Arcia when it happened to him. That said, I just hope these Rochester trips come with a list of things to work on. That to me is the biggest thing, and sometimes these prospects never really work on those items b/c they can get through AAA based on talent alone and never hone certain parts of their game b/c they never needed to. The humiliation can be a motivating factor. It's not all lost. Not exactly happy here, but this can be just as much of a good thing as a bad one.

Either that or they recognized a bad return. You're right that this was an investment, and with any investment, there's risk. Graham was pretty bad in the majors. He was pretty bad in AAA as well. Likewise, we all have no clue about anything that may have happened behind the scenes. There are lots of reasons to bash the front office, I'm not sure this is one of them. I'd be more upset about their lack of willingness to go out and get an impact reliever personally. There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now.

He was hitting well in ST. He hit decent in Rochester too. I'm perfectly fine letting him hit until he shows he cannot do it. Perhaps we found a small gem there, perhaps he turns back into a pumpkin... who knows.

If he keeps having trouble making it out of the first, then yes.

OK people. It's not the end of the world. Rookies struggle. That's why the front office goes out and gets those mediocre vets. I'm guessing much Berrios's problem is nerves more than anything else. He has a reputation in the minors of impeccable control, which was clearly lacking last night. He'll get another chance.