Article: Planning To Fail

[Craig Arko]

So, if you criticize the twins, in an awful season, you must also post positive things, or your statements are bad? Does the opposite apply? If you say good things are you also required to say bad things? This entire thread is filled with ad hominen attacks. Pretty pathetic. You want good news posted? Post it.

The Twins are bad. Really, really, bad. Les Steckel Vikings bad. Terry Ryan wearing his Mike Lynn cosplay suit making the Herschel Walker deal bad.

 

Now here is good news:

 

http://www.xmasclock.com

 

Easy as pie.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Craig Arko

[KirbyDome89]

 

There's a difference between questioning moves and stating opinions as fact.  Nick certainly has a right to question some of the moves in light of the results.  Statements like "the team did not have a plan" are inflammatory and untrue.  The plan did not work, obviously.  And there are a number of reasons for that, but don't say there's no plan.
 

In reality, we don't even know whether Terry Ryan was dismissed because he wanted to go young and rebuild, or rebuffed rebuild efforts and wanted to ride things out with vets.  

 

Would the team have been any better if Plouffe had been traded, and Sano was given 3rd base to start the season?  I'm less than convinced.

 

Would the team have been better if we had moved May into the rotation and cut Ricky Nolasco?  I again ask this thread to find 1 piece of evidence that throwing out of the pen is somehow more stressful and more likely to cause injury than starting.  I think it's ludicrous.  I think May always had limitations.  I'd move him to the rotation, but can't say keeping him in the pen was a mistake, per se.

Would the team be better if we never signed Park?  Extremely doubtful.  Power hitters are expensive.  We've got him for 3 more years.  He's not hurting the team, and could still be a net plus i a year or 2.  Anyone suggesting Vargas is a .950 OPS guy and that they knew all along might be lying.  He got sent down as he was likely regressing back to his expected level.

 

The biggest issues regarding the team's failures are all pitching related.  The team apparently did the right thing not extending Gibson.  Santana looks like a legit signing.  We traded Nolasco.  Millone had a career worst year.  May kept getting injured.  Berrios is a disaster, Meyer was a disaster, Hughes was a disaster.  We have an ability to improve the rotation, but we have to trade Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Gordon, or Dozier.  It sucks, but that's the truth.  And we've done none of those things.  If all 5 of those guys are still in the organization next season, I'll consider that a pretty big failure and a lack of planning.  This year was not a disaster on all fronts.  It's a disaster involving pitching and defense.  All the other stuff is needlessly piling on.

Not every scenario is black and white and often statistical arguments can be made on either side so disagreements come down to opinion. I see no problem with this and I believe most posters understand it. However, you've gone off about posters stating opinion as fact, yet this thread is full of posts where your opinion is stated as fact.

 

You're right, little is known about the TR situation. We do have information, in the form of statistics and video on May, Nolasco, Sano, Plouffe, Park, and Vargas. Reasonable arguments about performance can be made either way based on their play this season. To argue from a hypothetical scenario in which none of the moves you mentioned occurred isn't a viable defense, its a fallacy. 

 

If Buxton, Kepler, or Sano are traded this offseason this organization might do the unthinkable, and sink even lower. I'm fairly comfortable throwing Gordon in there too, barring a blockbuster deal in which he is packaged. 

 

I agree this season isn't a total disaster there are some positives moving forward. However, I haven't seen unfair questions or critiques in the article or this thread so I'm not sure where the piling on is coming from. What I have seen are some posters complaining about other posters who complain. That seems pretty hypocritical to me.  

[shs_59]

yeah of all nicks points i think the one i disagree with most is Michael Tonkin

 

The guy is no good. I have been off his bandwagon since late 2014.

 

when you have a 96 MPH fastball as flat and straight as an arrow and a slider in the mid 80's with little tilt and mild action that TONKIN RARELY throws and when he does 80% of the time its for a ball..

 

your're the DEFEINTION of a Quad A Bullpen arm.

 

Michael Tonkin is No good at MLB baseball.

 

I've been trying to package him in trades I.e. Meyer and Nolasco ect.  for months and months now.

[old nurse]

 

Nick made the argument about pitch total.  He's not wrong.

 

And your list is a good way of showing how the exceptions prove the rule.  Not to mention your point does nothing to explain away how bad the Twins attempts have been for the last few years.

On Tonkin. In some of his stints  of longer than an inning he has faced fewer batters than he did when he pitched 1/3 of an inning. Is there a drop in his average velocity of his fastball, which is what you would expect if pitching to more than 3 batters an outing.  Data. None from the calling foul party.  Molehill being made into a mountain.

 

Infielders made into outfielders. Sorry I didn't list every single player who has played multiple positions in the infield, outfield catcher and pitcher for you. Does it really take that kind of effort? I really also love the too big to be an outfielder  argument so when he is the largest 3b ever not making plays it is suddenly rose colored glasses time with what is happening.. 

[KGB]

Games IP ER ERA

<1 Inning 18 8.33 12 12.97

1 Inning 16 16 5 2.81

>1 Inning 22 39.66 18 4.08

 

56 64 35 4.92

 

Looks like Tonkin's main problem isn't when he goes over an inning, it mainly been when he pitched and inning or less.

[Jham]

 

I agree this season isn't a total disaster there are some positives moving forward. However, I haven't seen unfair questions or critiques in the article or this thread so I'm not sure where the piling on is coming from. What I have seen are some posters complaining about other posters who complain. That seems pretty hypocritical to me.  

You've somehow highlighted and missed my point at the same time.  What opinion did I state as a fact, again?  I believe I stated that the criticisms are fair.  What I disagree with is the using opinions as fact, which then obviously leaves no room for debate, discussion or disagreement.  1 side is right, the other wrong.  And this is exacerbated by emotional responses and raw nerves that come from losing 2/3 games.  This is precisely when you need clear heads and not snap decisions.  In my opinion, we need to fix the pitching staff asap.  I guess I did state this as a fact, but no one has disagreed with that part.  But really, a lot of the criticism amounts to choice of the color of paint in the guest room, when there's a hole in the roof and water in the basement.  I'm questioning the productivity and focus of the article is all.  Plus, NIck and others make valid points that can easily be glazed over because of the unnecessary attacks.  IE counterproductive.  We all want the same thing.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Games IP ER ERA
<1 Inning 18 8.33 12 12.97
1 Inning 16 16 5 2.81
>1 Inning 22 39.66 18 4.08

56 64 35 4.92

Looks like Tonkin's main problem isn't when he goes over an inning, it mainly been when he pitched and inning or less.

The idea put forth here is that frequently going over an inning (higher pitch counts) has worn him down, to the point where he is less effective across all of his outings, regardless of length.

 

He's been in the multi-inning role all year, and his ERA has been steadily climbing all year, so perhaps there is something to it.  Not that Tonkin is any kind of great pitcher, but there is evidence to suggest we haven't been putting him in a position to succeed to the best of his abilities.

 

Heck, a lot of people here have been endorsing Pressly as a key bullpen cog going forward, and his run prevention has been almost exactly the same as Tonkin's except Tonkin has given up 4 more HR (leading to ~8 more runs overall).  I wouldn't be surprised if Tonkin's profile makes him slightly more prone to allowing HR, but his advantage in K rate could be enough to balance that out, assuming he was deployed similarly to Pressly.  Probably worth finding out in a lost season, rather than seeing if he can handle long relief -- if we don't see him as anything better than a long reliever, he should probably be dropped from the 40-man this winter, frankly.

Edited August 30, 2016 by spycake

[howieramone2]

 

Also: Everyone is welcome to blog on this site, Joe. I see you have zero posts. If you want to change the tone of the conversation, then do it. 

Good advice. If you want to see something positive, do it yourself.

[TheLeviathan]

 

  What I disagree with is the using opinions as fact, which then obviously leaves no room for debate, discussion or disagreement.  1 side is right, the other wrong.  

 

  Plus, NIck and others make valid points that can easily be glazed over because of the unnecessary attacks.  IE counterproductive.  We all want the same thing.

 

It looks to me like facts are being used to support opinions.  You disagree with one fraction of the opinion (Tonkin) and have chosen to die on that sword here.  I'd argue the person you're really talking to about glazing over the forest for the trees is yourself.  

 

No one on a message board filled with opinions is going to be able to post anything that will reach universal agreement.  There will always be those that feel there were "unnecessary attacks" somewhere in the post.  You don't like the point on Tonkin.  Ok, state your case with facts that counter the point.  I don't think I've seen you do that.  

Edited August 30, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

 

On Tonkin. In some of his stints  of longer than an inning he has faced fewer batters than he did when he pitched 1/3 of an inning. Is there a drop in his average velocity of his fastball, which is what you would expect if pitching to more than 3 batters an outing.  Data. None from the calling foul party.  Molehill being made into a mountain.

 

Infielders made into outfielders. Sorry I didn't list every single player who has played multiple positions in the infield, outfield catcher and pitcher for you. Does it really take that kind of effort? I really also love the too big to be an outfielder  argument so when he is the largest 3b ever not making plays it is suddenly rose colored glasses time with what is happening.. 

 

Um, Nick provided data in his original post.  Where's yours?

 

No, you don't have to list every player, but when you're going to cite Michael Cuddyer from almost a decade ago, perhaps you should consider what that says about the strength of your argument.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

You've somehow highlighted and missed my point at the same time.  What opinion did I state as a fact, again?  I believe I stated that the criticisms are fair.  What I disagree with is the using opinions as fact, which then obviously leaves no room for debate, discussion or disagreement.  1 side is right, the other wrong.  And this is exacerbated by emotional responses and raw nerves that come from losing 2/3 games.  This is precisely when you need clear heads and not snap decisions.  In my opinion, we need to fix the pitching staff asap.  I guess I did state this as a fact, but no one has disagreed with that part.  But really, a lot of the criticism amounts to choice of the color of paint in the guest room, when there's a hole in the roof and water in the basement.  I'm questioning the productivity and focus of the article is all.  Plus, NIck and others make valid points that can easily be glazed over because of the unnecessary attacks.  IE counterproductive.  We all want the same thing.

No, I understand what you're driving at. I simply pointed out that many of your opinions are stated as fact. I do the same thing, as does everybody on the site. Like I said, most divides can be supported on either side so where an individual falls is often based on opinion. It just happens that sometimes one side is better supported or represented. 

 

I hope nobody does disagree with your opinion on the pitching staff. Its hot garbage right now.

[gocgo]

If Rob Antony is making the roster moves, I think I've seen enough.  Why are we bringing up guys that really don't have a future with the MLB team (Albers, Shafer) over guys that either need the time up in the MLB for them to have a better future (Buxton), or guys who we need to get a look at at the highest level (Wheeler).

[Steve Lein]

 

No offense to Nick intended, but IMHO it's sh*t like this article that have made this site almost unreadable. The fact that I still come here so often speaks to what a strong fan of the Twins I am, and certainly not to the tone and quality of the content bring posted. It has pretty much been reduced to the following: Every move made by the Twins is sh*t. I know better than seasoned professionals what is right for this team. MY priorities are what matter, and if the team's don't align with them then they are wrong. If a player isn't performing like an All-Star RIGHT NOW, he's crap and not worth a roster spot. Anyone under the age of 25 is ok, anyone older is crap. If an All-Star player like Dozier or Mauer go through a stretch of rough play for a period of weeks, he's crap, cooked, worthless. Like all baseball video games have shown, a player performs at the same level all the time. And if his rating dips below All-Star, you trade him for a prospect that will always turn into a new All-Star, because that's how player development actually works. Now imagine, a positive upbeat fan trying to follow his favorite team and having to wade through a sea of this sh*t every day. And before anyone tells me that I'm out of touch with reality let me say that to a large extent, reality conforms to your attitude and mind-set. Reality is what you make it, or as ObiWan said, many of the truths we cling to depend on your point of view. I don't know, maybe there's just a hell of a lot of bitter, miserable, depressed people in Minnesota and on this site.

 

Obviously late to the party here, but... um... how do I say this?... Oh yeah:

 

 

This basically reads as because of the "strong fan of the Twins" you are, you couldn't possibly ever see them doing anything wrong. 

 

They have a .422 winning percentage over the past six seasons. 

 

I'm a huge fan too, and I've been harsh on them for 4+ seasons now. I believe that because of the type of fan of them I am, I SHOULD BE harsh on them for what has gone on recently. I want better. You should want better. We're well past the point that we KNOW they have made a litany of mistakes. Sheesh.

 

 

[Nick Nelson]

 

1) Do you even really believe that?  

2) For a third time, my problem with the article is the stating of IMO ridiculous or at least arguable opinions as facts.  

3) You have to pitch at least 1 inning to pitch multiple innings.  Tonkin has had 3+ years to prove he's anything more than Jason Kubel's brother-in-law.  He hasn't succeeded in any role.  

Where was any opinion stated as a fact in this article? Seriously, show me one example. The opening portion was phrased as a question to the reader. The conclusions states that it "seems" the Twins have been operating without a plan, at least without a half-decent one. This is how you express opinions. Not sure what else you want.

Re: Tonkin. In 60 MLB appearances over the last 3 years he had a 3.35 ERA, 1.32 WHIP. Those are fine numbers from a young reliever learning his way in the majors, so your third point (which, I MUST SAY, appears to be an opinion stated as a fact!) isn't very accurate. He has done ok when given the chance but that has happened infrequently because the Twins have continually shown a preference for low-upside vets (Stauffer, Fien, Boyer, Burton, etc etc)

[Nick Nelson]

 

Games IP ER ERA
1 Inning 16 16 5 2.81
>1 Inning 22 39.66 18 4.08

56 64 35 4.92

Looks like Tonkin's main problem isn't when he goes over an inning, it mainly been when he pitched and inning or less.

I think you're misinterpreting the point. It's about the cumulative wear that this kind of unfamiliar usage has on him. 

[Jham]

 

It looks to me like facts are being used to support opinions.  You disagree with one fraction of the opinion (Tonkin) and have chosen to die on that sword here.  I'd argue the person you're really talking to about glazing over the forest for the trees is yourself.  

 

No one on a message board filled with opinions is going to be able to post anything that will reach universal agreement.  There will always be those that feel there were "unnecessary attacks" somewhere in the post.  You don't like the point on Tonkin.  Ok, state your case with facts that counter the point.  I don't think I've seen you do that.  

You see, it's difficult to quote stats regarding whether there was any plan (my original post) or whether a decision is "bone-headed" (your post).  So I'll state again, be as critical of the results as you want, but don't assume causation.  People assume that every decision regarding the team was Terry's.  They assume that the reason Tonkin has had little success was his usage.  They assume May's back was injured due to relief pitching.  They assume Sano's "struggles", if you want to argue he's struggled this year, have been RF related.  I'm not arguing stats, which is why I haven't quoted stats.  I'm arguing using those stats in order to outline an agenda.  

So, for example, Sano hit 11 HR in 38 games, 159 PA in right, 5 in in 30 games, 138 PA at 3rd.  .864 OPS compared to .795 OPS.  Those are facts via Fangraphs.  I could say, hey we should move him back to right field.  I could also say moving him out of the OF to 3rd messed with his hitting.  I could go further and say that moving him to 3rd was a bone-head move.  But alas, the stats don't tell the whole story.  So I won't infer the causation.  There are a multitude of arguments in both directions, and I sure to God hope our new GM isn't as quick make judgments as Leviathon, no offense.  I just prefer a more cautioned approach, but I appreciate your fire and resolve.  

And if you think I'm relying to much on the Tonkin thing, I don't think you've read any of my posts.  My beef is with the pitching in general.  I think any other criticism threatens to distract from the enormous issue we have with the rotation and lesser extent bull pen.  I've challenged the impact of May's relief appearance on his health, I've challenged whether Park or Plouffe changed the needle in either direction at all.  So I'm not cherry picking Tonkin.  I used Tonkin to point out that the article seems to be searching out additional reasons to bash the team, when what I perceive as actual problems lay right there in front of us.  Last post about Tonkin.  Promise.
 

[Nick Nelson]

Remember when the Twins gave a combined 124 relief appearances to Tim Stauffer, J.R. Graham, Matt Guerrier and Anthony Swarzak over the last two years? And we've got people talking about how Tonkin proved his worthlessness by failing to flat-out dominate in his limited opportunities. Unreal. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't understand why people are so upset about the Tonkin piece of this article.

 

Whether you believe Tonkin to be a decent middle reliever piece or not, he's playing out of position and that's an all-too-common theme around Twins Territory over the past several seasons.

 

Maybe Tonkin isn't a great example of the problematic thinking behind this franchise but it doesn't really matter because he's one example of many.

 

Put guys into the role where they are most likely to succeed. It's not as if the Twins have such bullpen talent that they can't find room for Tonkin. How many aggravating mediocre vets has this team rolled into close games over the past 4+ seasons? They put Tonkin into long relief because they wanted to put him in long relief, even though he has pitched 2+ innings in less than 10% of his career appearances.

 

All of this points back to Nick's primary point: the Twins do not appear to have a plan. With too great a frequency, it appears they move a player around the diamond or change his role with a "let's see what happens" approach.

 

Miguel Sano, Danny Santana, Trevor May, Michael Tonkin, Alex Meyer. It's a long bloody list.

 

Occasionally, "let's see what happens" is an acceptable approach when you're in a pinch or backed into a corner. It should never, and I repeat never, be the first option. Hell, it shouldn't be the second or third option, either.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You see, it's difficult to quote stats regarding whether there was any plan (my original post) or whether a decision is "bone-headed" (your post).  So I'll state again, be as critical of the results as you want, but don't assume causation.  People assume that every decision regarding the team was Terry's.  They assume that the reason Tonkin has had little success was his usage.  They assume May's back was injured due to relief pitching.  They assume Sano's "struggles", if you want to argue he's struggled this year, have been RF related.  I'm not arguing stats, which is why I haven't quoted stats.  I'm arguing using those stats in order to outline an agenda.  

So, for example, Sano hit 11 HR in 38 games, 159 PA in right, 5 in in 30 games, 138 PA at 3rd.  .864 OPS compared to .795 OPS.  Those are facts via Fangraphs.  I could say, hey we should move him back to right field.  I could also say moving him out of the OF to 3rd messed with his hitting.  I could go further and say that moving him to 3rd was a bone-head move.  But alas, the stats don't tell the whole story.  So I won't infer the causation.  There are a multitude of arguments in both directions, and I sure to God hope our new GM isn't as quick make judgments as Leviathon, no offense.  I just prefer a more cautioned approach, but I appreciate your fire and resolve.  

And if you think I'm relying to much on the Tonkin thing, I don't think you've read any of my posts.  My beef is with the pitching in general.  I think any other criticism threatens to distract from the enormous issue we have with the rotation and lesser extent bull pen.  I've challenged the impact of May's relief appearance on his health, I've challenged whether Park or Plouffe changed the needle in either direction at all.  So I'm not cherry picking Tonkin.  I used Tonkin to point out that the article seems to be searching out additional reasons to bash the team, when what I perceive as actual problems lay right there in front of us.  Last post about Tonkin.  Promise.
 

 

Sure, Tonkin may not be the top of the list, but in order to look at the larger issues/patterns we need to identify the data points that are creating the trend.  Tonkin or even Sano, in and of themselves, might just be mistakes, but when all those mistakes are taken as a whole then we can start to formulate opinions about the larger causes.

 

Will we ever know with 100% certainty what the inner workings were?  No, but if we're waiting on that kind of certainty we might as well shut this puppy down.  Hell, even on what you assert as a fact we can all agree on (the pitching) I could make a pretty valid argument that we can't really judge our pitching all that clearly given the defense we've put behind them this year. Or, at the very least, they are only part of the problem but are receiving full blame.  

 

But parsing out those differences and arguing our case one way or the other is what the message board is for.  Including developing theories and opinions about what is going on that is leading to so many mistakes.

[Jham]

 

Where was any opinion stated as a fact in this article? Seriously, show me one example. The opening portion was phrased as a question to the reader. The conclusions states that it "seems" the Twins have been operating without a plan, at least without a half-decent one. This is how you express opinions. Not sure what else you want.

Re: Tonkin. In 60 MLB appearances over the last 3 years he had a 3.35 ERA, 1.32 WHIP. Those are fine numbers from a young reliever learning his way in the majors, so your third point (which, I MUST SAY, appears to be an opinion stated as a fact!) isn't very accurate. He has done ok when given the chance but that has happened infrequently because the Twins have continually shown a preference for low-upside vets (Stauffer, Fien, Boyer, Burton, etc etc)

Nick, I appreciate your well written article and thought you put into it.  But you can see the issue with framing we have.  3.35 ERA, 1.32 WHIP are fine numbers for a young reliever.  Well then what did the Twins do wrong?  That's the difference between my statement and the premise of your article.  We can disagree as to whether Tonkin is successful or unsuccessful (see my Sano numbers above).  But there's a big jump from saying Tonkin is or isn't successful, AND the team is to blame!  I offered an opinion (opinion as fact if you want to take it that way), but I didn't draw any even broader conclusion based on that opinion.  Perhaps that's my issue more than opinion stated as fact.  It's opinions drawn based on other arguable opinions...  It just makes the arguments incredibly cumbersome and unwieldy.  We can cite stats regarding whether Tonkin is good or bad, but you can't cite stats to combat an opinion of the Twins made a mistake making Tonkin pitch more than an inning.
 

[KGB]

I think you're misinterpreting the point. It's about the cumulative wear that this kind of unfamiliar usage has on him.

Seems like we are just going down the AJ Achter/Anthony Slama

complaints. His usage this year is likely what his MLB role will

be if he has any future. If they had any confidence in him

preforming at a high leverage situation, they have had plenty

of opportunities to give it to him.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Nick, I appreciate your well written article and thought you put into it.  But you can see the issue with framing we have.  3.35 ERA, 1.32 WHIP are fine numbers for a young reliever.  Well then what did the Twins do wrong?  That's the difference between my statement and the premise of your article.  We can disagree as to whether Tonkin is successful or unsuccessful (see my Sano numbers above).  But there's a big jump from saying Tonkin is or isn't successful, AND the team is to blame! 

I didn't say the Twins were clearly responsible for any lack of effectiveness. I said they didn't put him in position to succeed and I stand by that. They haven't used him in the way that he found immense success in Triple-A for several years in a row. They have him out here throwing 50 pitches in an outing, something he hasn't done in many years. This is part of a larger trend. 

[Nick Nelson]

 

His usage this year is likely what his MLB role will
be if he has any future.

What do you base that on? This team's infallible ability to identify and properly utilize relief talent? 

[Kwak]

 

Games IP ER ERA
<1 Inning 18 8.33 12 12.97
1 Inning 16 16 5 2.81
>1 Inning 22 39.66 18 4.08

56 64 35 4.92

Looks like Tonkin's main problem isn't when he goes over an inning, it mainly been when he pitched and inning or less.

How misleading!

 

Tonkin's <1 inning stints--likely he was removed because he stunk, like his statistics indicate. Was Tonkin supposed to pitch longer? That might have been the original plan, also undermining your contention. I guess Molitor could have left Tonkin in the game in those <1 inning "performances", but there is clear evidence that removal was warranted in most instances.

[KGB]

What do you base that on? This team's infallible ability to identify and properly utilize relief talent?

I base it on this boards ability to judge talent, compared to the ability to

complain,see Achter/Slama.Hick/Arcia.

 

The Twins will be getting a new front office, so we'll see next year where Tonkin

fits in. But my bet is he will either be in a similar role or in the minors

somewhere instead of being a closer or 8th inning man in the majors. But everyone

will have forgotten this discussion by then.

[KGB]

How misleading!

 

Tonkin's <1 inning stints--likely he was removed because he stunk, like his statistics indicate. Was Tonkin supposed to pitch longer? That might have been the original plan, also undermining your contention. I guess Molitor could have left Tonkin in the game in those <1 inning "performances", but there is clear evidence that removal was warranted in most instances.

Maybe, but isn't also hard to say he needs to be a short relief specialist when he

has 18 games of less than an inning and a 12.97 ERA? Was he pacing himself for

a long outing?

[beckmt]

Twins will be difficult to fix and time is short.  They have yet to hire a GM or president of baseball operations.  Let us look at the timeline(assuming they are waiting to interview candidates until the teams they work for season has ended.)

By mid November(shortly after the end of the World Series, you have to have your 40 man roster set, and players waived, added, and lists made up.  This was usually done in the front office meetings in early November.  Now most of you posters expect a new president of baseball operations and GM to have absorbed this in less than 2 weeks(worst case scenario).

If I am an opposing GM, I love this prospect.  I would not give the Twins anything for any of their players unless my people told me I am winning the trade.  I would have a list drawn up by my people of the players our organization would want and good rule 5 draft picks from the Twins.  Unless you intend to DFA about 20 of the Twins current roster, I should have plenty of opportunities here.  This could be a bigger mess than most of you believe.

Pohlad was probably too loyal and too nice to either make a change early in the year(though I would have fired Molitor rather than removed TR).  Given his choice, I would have waited until the end of the year or slightly later and than fired TR  Do any of you have confidence in Rob Anthony to make the correct choices, or just maintain the ship knowing he is also not going forward with the organization(at least in any personal role).  I dread the next 3 months, guessing how many mistakes will be made in the transition and how many will come back to bite the Twins in the next few years.

You just do not DFA useful major league players, but that is what it may come to with this roster construction and numbers of minor leaguers needed to protect.   

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm curious why everyone is rushing to say Park's problem in the majors was his injury.  Did he not have the same injury while posting an OPS in the .820s in the minors?

 

Possibly... but it sidelined him almost immediately after his demotion at which point some rest really seemed to help him... it came back again later... not sure if it affected his numbers the second time around, but there was a point in the season where his OPS was much higher than .820, so I'm guessing so...

 

whether it did or it didn't, Park's season this year shouldn't be graded an F in my opinion, or the move to sign him. It's quite possible he is the guy we saw in April... and that's a steal. The real issue is Park/Vargas/Mauer, with none having much value to anyone else.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Planning to fail.

 

Failing to plan.  

 

I'm not quite sure it's either of these. I highly doubt they didn't have a plan. The issue is whether or not they had a good plan.

 

To be fair to this front office though, if you look back at what most of the writers here and those of us who put together our own plans, I'm not quite certain the end result would have been too much different.  There might be a few extra Ws, but I suspect that most of us 'experts' would have had them competing with the #4 overall draft pick instead of #1... at best... and at worst... well... I'd rather not think about that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

1) Do you even really believe that?  

2) For a third time, my problem with the article is the stating of IMO ridiculous or at least arguable opinions as facts.  

3) You have to pitch at least 1 inning to pitch multiple innings.  Tonkin has had 3+ years to prove he's anything more than Jason Kubel's brother-in-law.  He hasn't succeeded in any role.  

 

To be fair to Tonkin, he never really got a chance when he had options. That I'm not sure what to think about, but he was kind of the definition of the Chargois treatment the last few seasons getting only a few reps before being sent down.

 

That said, up until recently, he had been pretty good. This may have more to do with the fact that he and all his other peers have been pretty overworked. I'm not sure he's the savior, but he isn't a bad option for 2017.  He's been dominant in all stops at the minors. Let's see if he can figure out the majors... just don't slot him in as the 7th, 8th, or 9th inning guy.