KirbyDome89

"We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation." I was very clear about the type of posts we're talking about; posts that started this thread. Rosario doesn't move out of the box on an infield popup and he's criticized for not hustling. Where you see the posts as tinged with racial stereotypes others see fair criticism of a player failing at the most basic aspect of his job. You may feel that some of the criticism is unfounded, but again, your presumption that the motivation is racial is as equally unsubstantiated as the posts you're targeting. You're not the arbiter of truth when it comes to these posts i.e. your feelings about a post don't grant you authority to attack it, and they absolutely shouldn't be used as justification for doing so.

Perhaps a small bit of both, but for myself and a good number of others the first reason you gave is the sticking point. IMO the draft is a total crapshoot but if you're a bad team, you're selecting high, and you very likely have multiple roster holes so rolling the dice and holding onto a guy who likely isn't a MLB caliber player isn't doing much damage overall. Conversely, if you're the 18' Twins and you're looking to build off a WC appearance, handing a roster spot to a guy who has no business being in the big leagues is too steep of a price to pay for essentially a tryout. The fact that the pitching was so bad for MN last year, and is once again struggling only magnifies the issue of wasting that roster spot. I certainly wouldn't say his presence on the active roster has no effect on the bottom line. Like I said before, Kinley's direct impact on the losses is minimal, but that's because he is being hidden in the bullpen. He can't contribute to losses in any meaningful way because he isn't being used in any meaningful innings. Indirectly though, his spot in the bullpen elevates every other pitcher. The bullpen is a ladder and Kinley is sitting on the bottom rung. Moving him out allows the Twins to shift guys down into roles they're better suited for, at least for the moment. It's also forcing MN to carry 13 pitchers, which then affects positional options off the bench.

I'd gladly swap Lynn, Morrison, Duke, and Rodney for Darvish if Chicago was willing.

You're right, it isn't just Kinley struggling, but he's very clearly the easiest fix, and I would argue he's very clearly the most overmatched. He had no business being a major league roster to start the year, and the need for performing arms in the bullpen has only magnified that. Kinley certainly is the lowest hanging fruit, and I do think it's a bit of "told you so," but I also think it's deserved. This was the most predictable outcome, and even the staunchest FO supporters were questioning the decision at the time it was made. IMO this is as much about the poor performance of Kinley as it is about the stubbornness of the FO hurting the team. I was a "hater," this offseason for expressing disappointment with the quantity vs quality approach but that isn't as clear cut as the Kinley situation. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

You're right, Santana certainly makes the Twins a bigger "winner," than "loser," in the Rule V, but the point is that they can't really afford to be taking terrible guys via that draft every year. When MN grabbed Johan they had lost 90+ games the previous season and were set to repeat. That's a very different situation than fighting for a WC spot. No, Kinley absolutely isn't the only reason the bullpen has been bad, but I don't think most posters are insinuating that. I don't think it's particularly fair to say "He's only the mop up guy, his impact is minimal, so the bullpen issues don't really fall on him." He's in mop up duty because he can't be trusted to pitch at any other point in a game, and he's been fairly terrible even in those situations. The Twins are very obviously hiding him. He isn't costing games in the later, more meaningful innings, but that's because he isn't competent enough to be brought in for those innings.

Agreed on all of that. I don't think that was the view this offseason when they brought in Kinley though. I doubt anybody thought they were a lock, but I don't think many saw the bullpen being this bad early on. It makes no sense for a team trying to crawl out of the WC to waste a roster spot on a guy like Kinely. If the FO didn't view the team as contenders for a playoff spot then the moves they made apart from Kinley are certainly confusing.

It should be trashed. It was a complete waste of a roster spot last year and the FO held on much longer than they should've for a team that was actually winning games. It's indefensible this year now that they consider themselves contenders. There's a difference between taking a few lumps and being unable to pitch at the major league level. Everything about Kinley's performance this ST and early season, as well as his past, suggests the latter. Johan has nothing to do with the 2018 Twins. We could lay a pile of Rule V flops at your feet as evidence that the draft is nothing but a junk swap, but again, that isn't the point. It's about what's best for the team, and some years it'll make sense to participate while other years it won't. If the argument is to just roll the dice because they hit the lottery once, then why not roll the dice on somebody who, similar to Kinley, has long odds of ever being serviceable, but can actually be kept in the minors? A 27 year old who has struggled above A ball isn't hard to find.

Not a playoff team based on how they've looked to start 2018?

Lets hope it's via DFA. This experiment probably shouldn't have been started in the first place, let alone allowed to continue beyond ST.

Line of the night.

Almost all of those guys have thrown less than 8 innings so I'm not sure how much we can really get from measuring collective ERA vs. collective xFIP. The K/9 is encouraging but the BB/9 isn't. IMO the high BABIP is more about who is pitching rather than bad luck.

NY hasn't looked like the world beaters ESPN and every other media outlet has gushed over all year but given the way MN plays there, it wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't even split a 4 game series. I agree completely, they need to take advantage of a weak division, and win the games they're supposed to if they're going to make the postseason.

I'm not defending how they played this weekend. There's no way a team that expects to contend for a WC/division title should drop 3 games to TB, but I'm also not going to lose perspective. I don't think taking 2 of 3 from Houston means the Twins are at the Astros level and I don't think dropping 3 games to TB means the Twins are that bad either. It's cliche, but 162 games is a lot, and they're going to have some ups and downs. A split and a series win, or even sweep of the Reds puts them a few games over .500 to end April. Given the choice this offseason, I think everybody would've taken a +.500 record heading into May.

Meh, a split in NY followed by a very winnable series vs. Cincy can change the outlook quite a bit. That said I do find it a little concerning that some individual performers who floundered to start the year have continued to struggle into late April. IMO we're approaching the point where the problems are becoming trends and not simply slow starts, small samples, or slumps.

I think it's more of an indictment of Rodney that Molitor is going with Reed for another inning to face the middle of the order, especially since it's a clean start to the 9th.

Nobody is arguing that it's sustainable. The guy is swinging a hot bat, there's no denying that, so why not take advantage of it while it's still hot and then toss him aside when reality sets in? That's really all anybody has suggested, I don't think it's unreasonable.

+ that roster spot he's wasting be being hidden.

Preferably the former, but the latter is making a strong early season case for demotion.

Deserves feels like a strong word in this case.

I know you don't care. That's kind of the problem.... What's the difference between telling another poster their post is tinged with ugly racial stereotypes and flat out calling that person a racist? IMO not much but if you want to split hairs on that point be my guest. The issue is that you've conveniently appointed yourself as the lone juror and executioner, but being the merciful soul that you are you've allowed those who stand accused a rope to explain themselves to your satisfaction and thus escape your wrath. Can you see how problematic that is? We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation. I feel strongly about some issues that are brought up on TD but that doesn't mean I get to attack anybody I disagree with and shrug it off as "their feelings don't matter." This isn't about feelings. It's about not acting like an jerk in a thread and trying to excuse by making claims as unfounded as those you attacked in the first place. This attitude of "by whatever means necessary," gives individuals carte blanche to do just that. Yeah we're just going to flat out disagree that those participating in this thread don't understand that coded language or stereotypes can be harmful. I don't think we can credit the cleans boards on this site to your vigilante enforcement of your belief system.

I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between a small group of us agreeing on how to utilize generalizations within this thread and how their misuse in a world outside of this thread becomes harmful. That's just undeniable fact. It you want to say I'm enabling others by pointing that out and offering it up as reason why generalizations are pushed back on that's fine. I'll disagree and say it's important to understand exactly what we're talking about and how it can/should be applied. I don't see how our disagreement about that matter precludes us from attempting discussion, but if you don't think it can happen then it certainly won't. I will say though, this isn't the instance of victims vs. offenders it's being painted as.

Sarcasm

I feel like we came to consensus on this. We might agree to disagree about how generalizations are handled but I think within this thread everybody has come to the consensus that no individuals are being indicted. I'm not going to lie, it was slightly irritating that my contribution to the thread suddenly became a strawman 11 pages into a thread that has shifted from Rosario, to race in general, to how bias is interpreted and acted upon, to criticism of Buxton and Sano, and finally arrived at criticism of Latin players in general. There honestly hasn't been a strong theme other than race itself. Take that for what it is I guess. There's a notion that "the conversation," we're supposed to be having is being shut down. I'm not sure I agree. Nobody is telling anybody to "shut up," or that "we can't admit bias exists." That's hyperbole. While the conversation has shifted, it certainly hasn't been hijacked. This thread is in no way dominated by one "side," IMO it's a fairly even back and forth of ideas, so if the thread is guilty of missing the mark, then you, Brock, myself, ect. are all complicit in that failing. If we're going that route, then we've all participated fairly actively in the thread and to that end we've all distracted from "the conversation," via strawman posts. I might think understanding and defining terms is important for productive conversation, while others will label that as ignoring the real issue. I think basic civility and holding each side equally accountable is vital, others may view that as demanding a conversation be held on my terms. We, not necessarily you and I, but this thread, can disagree strongly on some of those points, but we've at least reached a consensus about starting a conversation. Why is the finger still being pointed at others for attempting to shut anything down? We have the ball, so get it rolling. The point I'm getting at is that if you or Brock have an idea of where you want this thread or "conversation," to go then take it there. It might not happen as immediately as either of you would like. It isn't always fair for the first person to turn the page to criticize others for not already being there. However, as I pointed out before, the thread has shown it's capable of shifting.

This "by any means necessary," way of thinking does nothing positive. It's precisely how we arrive at a point where simply having an opinion that differs in any way is used as justification to attack. It absolutely becomes a one way street if you've proclaimed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. This approach has nothing to do with having a discussion; it's about validating accusations which ironically are as unfounded as the posts with which you find offense. This isn't some truth crusade where you're going to out a bunch a closet bigots posting in code. You're going to piss off individual posters by personally attacking them, and then pretend that the reason they no longer post is because you've warded off their racism, when in reality they're abstaining from posting to avoid being harassed for having the "wrong opinion," as decided by you, or for failing to articulate said opinion in a manner you deem appropriate.

Now that they're back in the states we can at least resume blaming his struggles on the weather.