Alex

I can live with that explanation (even if I think the FO saw it differently), and I hope you're right about the offseason.

Could you explain these lists? Is it that the players on the 2013 list look to be important parts of the team in the future?

I think that more accurate and consistent strike zones would be a massive improvement to the game of baseball, far more than the system of replay they are implementing, where a lot of what happens after something is overturned will be subjective (not unlike the recent incident in the Twins game).

Touche.

Anyone else find it ironic that these discussions are what we do to maintain our sanity in the face of a historically bad Twins season?

Chris Hermann is my bet. But with the expansion don't we have a 20 man pen? I'm not saying we won't use them all up, but ...

Also, is it wrong to think that -- as long as she's not a Twins fan -- I'm considering that she may have the better deal?

Yeah, but my guess is he'd long been well aware of that fact. The woman in the green shirt probably thought her future was full of opportunity and then she realized that someone tagged her "that" photo on facebook where the fat guy's belly swallowed her face. I mean, every time you look at her you gotta think about that.

I feel sorry for the woman that lost her head there. I mean, that kind of picture has to ruin your future.

So, I was looking forward to running shortly while listening to the Twins. Bad plan as it's looking like double torture.

More like in dire need of what happened to Jack Nicholson's character at the end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest....

This is probably one of the things (lineup construction/ignoring platoons) that the organization should look for new management with new ideas.

We'll see, but let's see if those examples compare. Were any of those players called up mid-season and had as long a run of difficulty as Hicks before being sent down, not to mention skip a level of the minors? Morneau was called up in June. Had a 115 PAs of .665 OPS before having success the following season. Cuddyer was a Sept. callup and had just 20 PAs where he struggled. The following season .740 OPS in around 100 PAs and posted just under 100 OPS+ for the next few seasons in limited ABs before really coming into his own. Hunter made it 20 PAs in April 1998 of OPS+ of 60. He struggled his first two seasons with OPS+ of 73 and 80 before taking off. Sure all of them struggled in their first appearance and were even below average for a couple hundered at-bats, but none of them were as historically awful or as bad for as long as Hicks was. (OPS+ of 63 and a sub .600 OPS). Gibson and Arcia weren't thrust into the starting lineup day and both spent time at AAA. Gibson's stint was incredibly short, 10 games. Arcia has actually been one of the better hitters on the team. Honestly, there's no comparison between any of these players and what the front office expected from and thrust Hicks into. They are absolutely blunders both for the team and him: calling him up when he wasn't even close, leading him off, not getting a major league player who could handle the position, and keeping him up for so long. If even these, so clearly mistakes by the FO (remember they said he was READY and put him in the leadoff spot), aren't recognized as such, I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion. I mean, I recognize that there might have been reason to support the FO to start -- that I think is a tenable position even if I disagree with it, but based on the results I don't understand how the move can be defended as the right one.

Lucky for the rest of the AL, neither are the Twins.

See my above post. You may be right that he could have been more aggressive at another spot, but that was never really his approach. I'll agree, though, that -- regardless -- placing him in the leadoff spot was just one of many of the Twins blunders with him.

While I could understand that it adds some pressure, I don't think it's the difference in his season. Some mentioned that he changed his approach because he was batting leadoff, but he always took a lot of pitches (his high OBP was indicative of that) I read a scouting report on him (and I looked again and can't find it, maybe someone else knows the source) regarding his minor league time that a reason for his high strikeout rate was that he takes too many good pitches. He was getting himself into holes in the count and, at least there, iirc, the scout mentioned he was also taking a lot of borderline strikes and getting called out in an attempt to get the walk. So in the end, his greatest strength was also what was causing his K's. In the majors, that approach doesn't work as well because pitchers are more accurate and will throw you a strike until you can make them pay.

Great article Nick and I saw your discussion with Mackey on twitter. The point I think he misses and that frustrates me about his perspective and those that share it is that, for the Twins, spending money isn't mutually exclusive with doing what the A's and Rays do. The Twins are in a position to do both. As you've pointed out, unfortunately, they haven't been able to evaluate, develop, and flip talent like the A's and Rays and are left with just one option in the near future for competitiveness.

We're talking about two different things then, what they would have done (and did do) and what they should have done and why we are talking over each other. I think most people, who didn't want Hicks to start in CF, would have preferred they put Mastro out there (prior to injury) or sign a filler, but I did hear Clete Thomas bantered around as a place holder. Then when Hicks struggled and continued to do so, Richardson could have been an option, but no, he wasn't mentioned as an option that I saw earlier. You're correct that from a front office POV, and how they make decisions, that Hicks was going to be the CF and that they weren't going to add anyone. Like I said in my post above, predicting the Twins choice is different than arguing it was the right one.

We aren't talking about a prospect that was tearing up every level he'd been at. Even the season after his promotion was good, not dominating. As for BA, predicting who would be the opening day CF and what the Twins should have done are two different things. I think most people understood, the way the the front office was putting out information and talking about Hicks, even before spring training, that he was the front-runner.

The point was both could easily hold a spot for a month or two and certainly wouldn't have been worse than Hicks. They also could have signed someone -- they had the money to do so. In the end, they went with a combination of Thomas and, sometimes, Wilkin Ramirez. Definitely not a winning combination but it was better than Hicks and had they not locked themselves into Hicks, they certainly could have had better options. If you still think that calling Hicks up was the right move over that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Easy to criticize now? A lot of us were criticizing it at the time. We've seen plenty of examples where spring training numbers don't matter and don't show anything, and certainly shouldn't be valued over a much larger sample like minor league performance. I also think they were planning on starting him regardless -- unless he was horrible. They had Clete Thomas and Antoan Richardson in the minors. There was no real reason they HAD to go with Hicks from the start, nor was there a reason they had to stay with him as long as they did. They could have gone with them for a month until they were sure Hicks would be ready. EDIT: I realize maybe you're referring to leadoff, that was a bigger team construction issue. They had a ton of unproven hitters in the lineup and very few on base guys that would fit there (and not in the middle of the order). Additionally, If Gardy is so stuck in his ways about lineup construction, I'm definitely ready for someone else's new approach.

In Nick Nelson's article about calling Hicks up, I mentioned a major red flag. There were other concerns but for me it was his strikeout levels. He's never struck out less than once every five PAs and I thought that was a massive signal he wasn't ready, especially a player with his skillset. At best, he'd be comparable, but jumping two levels it was far more likely that he'd end up striking out more -- and not just more a lot more. This turned out to be the case and in the majors, he struck out once nearly every three times at the plate. So, I'd agree with Shane that it wasn't as shocking or mysterious.

I'd forgotten what he looked like. Also, I wondered if they had to call him from home.

The finale to my own personal trilogy today (after these two games) will be the latest episode of Breaking Bad....somehow it seems fitting.

For Minnesota fans, currently just another opportunity to wallow in frustration and despair.