My thought on what is happening.  The reason for the 13 pitchers is because they are going to give Hughes a start.  If he gets lit up, he will go to the DL.  The team will then promote Park, and move one of the bullpen arms to the rotation, Duffey most likely.  

 

They could do similar things with Park on the opening day roster while moving guys up and down between AAA and Minnesota but depending on who the moving pieces are could be out of options and doing it this way preserves that.

 

Just my thought.

 

They could've had Duffey start in Rochester on the same day Hughes starts in MN, if that were the plan.  And have a DH (Park) and a pinch hit option (Grossman) on the roster to start the year

 

My thought on what is happening.  The reason for the 13 pitchers is because they are going to give Hughes a start.  If he gets lit up, he will go to the DL.  The team will then promote Park, and move one of the bullpen arms to the rotation, Duffey most likely.  

 

They could do similar things with Park on the opening day roster while moving guys up and down between AAA and Minnesota but depending on who the moving pieces are could be out of options and doing it this way preserves that.

 

Just my thought.

 

1 start? wow. that would be the shortest leash ever....

I keep bouncing back and forth between two ideas, but I think it's possible to agree with both:

 

1. Opening day rosters really don't matter very much.  It will most likely only be a matter of days before the first change is made due to injury, trade, etc.

2. This roster doesn't make any sense.  D Santana and Haley over Park?  13 Pitchers with a bunch of early off days?  Whaaaaaaat?????

 

I think it's possible to acknowledge that #1 is true but still be frustrated with #2.  These roster decisions reek of group-think.  It's like there was a committee (perhaps Falvey, Levine, Molitor, and someone else), that talked themselves in circles until they made decisions that don't make any sense unless you were there for the whole conversation. 

 

 

 

I don't really care who the GM is, 

 

I owe you a big apology, Mike. All these years I've been under the false impression that you cared who the GM is.   Just ribbing you, but you know that.

 

I owe you a big apology, Mike. All these years I've been under the false impression that you cared who the GM is.   Just ribbing you, but you know that.

 

admittedly, I only care because I want the team to be good. It's a root cause, but what I actually care about is the outcomes.

 

but yes, you are correct, that's why I care, so I guess I do. 

 

How is the bullpen built for 30-35 guys, if you sign 36 year olds that can't be sent down? I have been trying to figure this out for two days now, and I can't. Hopefully someone smarter than me can explain how having a bullpen full of guys you can't send down is building a team for 30-35 guys. cutting them doesn't help, that still leaves you with less guys...so I'm really trying to figure this out.

 

Easy. Because stuff is messy, not black and white. Because sometimes you aren't quite there with your goal of having a 30-35 deep "roster". Because you're not going to cut 7 guys and reduce your depth by 7 guys. Because it's fluid. Injuries happen. Players return from the DL.

 

Having the bullpen part right is a function of Chargois, Burdi, Bard, Melotakis, Hildenberger, Wimmers, Reed, Jay, Rosario, etc. They must garner the confidence of the team. All of these guys show promise. We may disagree, but for this week, they probably think the 7 guys they have starting out are in fact better options. This will change in some way next week. Why? Probably injury. But if it's a performance reason, who gives a rip about options and the like? Who cares if Breslow gets straight out released if he sucks? Someone will retort that Chargois is a better current option than Haley. The team disagrees with you apparently. Some might be 100% sure it's strictly a Rule 5 decision.  They might be right and they might be wrong. If you want to argue that one of these prospects is a better option right this minute than one of those 7 guys, fine, but apparently the team thinks otherwise. 

 

Thanks for requesting the answer from someone smarter than you. 

Edited March 31, 20179 yr by birdwatcher

Dunno if posted already but here's the link:

https://www.iheart.com/show/139-Paul-Allen-KFAN-FM-1003/

 

 

Vargas/Park is really about Haley, right? Seems so pointless.

 

 

I'm not sure it's strictly this. It could be that they have remaining skepticism. About both of them. Maybe they see a benefit in having Park compete for a few games against another team's versions of Berrios and Gonsalves, and they weighed the possible benefit of that against some other possibility that might be better executed in a few days rather than today. I'd wring my hands about it a lot more if my rotation wasn't Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Santiago, and Mejia.

Edited March 31, 20179 yr by birdwatcher

I'm not sure it's strictly this. It could be that they have remaining skepticism. About both of them. Maybe they see a benefit in having Park compete for a few games against another team's versions of Berrios and Gonsalves, and they weighed the possible benefit of that against some other possibility that might be better executed in a few days rather than today. I'd wring my hands about it a lot more if my rotation wasn't Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Santiago, and Mejia.

I think that's fair. I'm not especially high on Park, but he probably earned a chance. And they really only have 13 pitchers because of Haley, even with the questions in the rotation.

 

It is not Danny Santana per se, it is the lack of anyone performing head and shoulders above him.  Unscientifically, Park seemed to be having great at bats against the second tier pitching. .

 

I wish you were running the White Sox last spring because one of their starters had an ERA in the spring of a high 6 variety. You might have thought the pitcher was washed up and got rid of him for nothing. Quintana.  Samardjiza (sic) has poor spring numbers as do many other starters. Many phenoms have great numbers in spring (Serafini comes to mind) to fade away later. You really do not have much to base your rant on.  If Grossman fails, then Park will get his chance. If a AAA outfielder shows some skill with a bat and a glove, Danny will be gone and you can break out the bubbly to celebrate.  If Twins starters show the ability to go longer than a few  innings consistently there will not be 2 long relievers in the bullpen.. Which future do care about? 2020 or next week? In the end it is unlikely that anyone who would be up in place of the players you dislike is part of the future plan.

 

Chief and I do disagree a little on this. However.. He still has plenty to base his rant on. 

 

why in the Heck isn't Hughes starting the season on the DL? I gotta think Duffy starts the season in the Pen to be the assigned second starter to Hughes' 2 inning "starts".

 

I'm guessing it's because he can throw 75 MPH healthily. 

 

Hopefully someone smarter than me can explain how having a bullpen full of guys you can't send down is building a team for 30-35 guys. 

 

I was going to give it a try.

 

But you already disqualified me with this sentence. 

 

It's definitely a bad roster. Not sure Park moves the needle that much.

It could be worse, Ricky Nolasco could be our opening day starter.

 

 

 

Keeping Santana. Somebody likes him. Whoever it is... he obviously doesn't post on TD  but somebody likes him. 

 

 

Hey, do you really think that if Danny Santana was my favorite player, and he is, that I'd admit it?

 

I was going to give it a try.

 

But you already disqualified me with this sentence. 

 

 

Dang, I wish I could spread a little of my brainpower around. So much of it just goes to waste.

Why can't this new "30-35" man roster include guys like Melotakis, Reed, Gonsalves and Vielma? I mean if you have to turn to Nick Tepesch or Danny Santana what's the point in accumulating "depth"?

 

This team doesn't have 30-35 MLB caliber players, I'm not sure they have 20. Saying they are constructing the roster this way to preserve depth isn't an honest assessment of this club.

 

I get that they don't like to make irrevocable decisions, who does? But they're just kicking the can down the road hoping circumstances beyond their control make the decisions for them. Just get it over with, rip the band-aid off, after it's done you'll be free of the consternation and see that it wasn't all that painful of a baseball decision. They can say it's about depth but it's not, this organization just doesn't have that luxury at the moment; it's just about delaying the inevitable.

Why can't this new "30-35" man roster include guys like Melotakis, Reed, Gonsalves and Vielma? I mean if you have to turn to Nick Tepesch or Danny Santana what's the point in accumulating "depth"?

 

This team doesn't have 30-35 MLB caliber players, I'm not sure they have 20. Saying they are constructing the roster this way to preserve depth isn't an honest assessment of this club.

 

I get that they don't like to make irrevocable decisions, who does? But they're just kicking the can down the road hoping circumstances beyond their control make the decisions for them. Just get it over with, rip the band-aid off, after it's done you'll be free of the consternation and see that it wasn't all that painful of a baseball decision. They can say it's about depth but it's not, this organization just doesn't have that luxury at the moment; it's just about delaying the inevitable.

I would argue it likely does include those 4, especially Melotakis. But we won't know for sure until later in the year.

 

Why can't this new "30-35" man roster include guys like Melotakis, Reed, Gonsalves and Vielma? I mean if you have to turn to Nick Tepesch or Danny Santana what's the point in accumulating "depth"?

This team doesn't have 30-35 MLB caliber players, I'm not sure they have 20. Saying they are constructing the roster this way to preserve depth isn't an honest assessment of this club.

I get that they don't like to make irrevocable decisions, who does? But they're just kicking the can down the road hoping circumstances beyond their control make the decisions for them. Just get it over with, rip the band-aid off, after it's done you'll be free of the consternation and see that it wasn't all that painful of a baseball decision. They can say it's about depth but it's not, this organization just doesn't have that luxury at the moment; it's just about delaying the inevitable.

 

 

The organization thinks it has the "right" 25 guys of their current 35-player roster breaking with the club, so they simply disagree with you. As for which AAA and AA prospects count as part of the 35? It's always a bit fluid, especially because of injuries. For example, neither May or Perkins are now on that roster.

 

And that roster is a little light on position players. I doubt they consider Vielma as one of them. There are probably some assessments on him within the organization that say he won't make it. I'd suggest they consider Adriana, Park, and Vargas, perhaps Granite.

 

They are in better shape when it comes to pitching, although we all know they may have numbers and they do lack quality. But I think we can easily count ten pitchers who could step up in a pinch, Gonsalves and Berrios, and then Burdi, Chargois, Bard, Hildenberger, Reed, Melotakis, Wimmers, and Slegers. There's ten

 

So, the questions are not about depth really. We question who got the MLB slots for Monday's game, and we lament the fact that the quality (and readiness ) of the roster overall won't get us in the chase in 2017.

 

I know this sounds like a broken record, especially to my pal Mike, and I know I'm in the minority here. But I contend that we don't have a depth problem, and outside of the rotation perhaps (depending on the unknown ceilings of May, Mejia, Duffey, Berrios, Gonsalves), we don't have a massive quality issue with our 35. The biggest problem is readiness. Readiness to compete at the highest level on the part of Sano, Kepler, Park, Buxton, Rosario, Polanco, Vargas, and readiness to take the next step on the part of Berrios, Gonsalves, Mejia, Chargois, Burdi, Melotakis, Jay, Duffey, Gordon. And maybe I have an inflated idea of how much quality is there with these names. Probably.

Edited April 1, 20179 yr by birdwatcher

Why can't this new "30-35" man roster include guys like Melotakis, Reed, Gonsalves and Vielma? I mean if you have to turn to Nick Tepesch or Danny Santana what's the point in accumulating "depth"?

This team doesn't have 30-35 MLB caliber players, I'm not sure they have 20. Saying they are constructing the roster this way to preserve depth isn't an honest assessment of this club.

I get that they don't like to make irrevocable decisions, who does? But they're just kicking the can down the road hoping circumstances beyond their control make the decisions for them. Just get it over with, rip the band-aid off, after it's done you'll be free of the consternation and see that it wasn't all that painful of a baseball decision. They can say it's about depth but it's not, this organization just doesn't have that luxury at the moment; it's just about delaying the inevitable.

Every word.

 

Hey, do you really think that if Danny Santana was my favorite player, and he is, that I'd admit it?

I promise we won't hold it against you.

 

Yes, today is April 1st.  Plus my fingers were crossed when I typed that.

Gonsalves in AA, so he is not so close, I would guess. Not sure why?

Why can't this new "30-35" man roster include guys like Melotakis, Reed, Gonsalves and Vielma? I mean if you have to turn to Nick Tepesch or Danny Santana what's the point in accumulating "depth"?

 

This team doesn't have 30-35 MLB caliber players, I'm not sure they have 20. Saying they are constructing the roster this way to preserve depth isn't an honest assessment of this club.

 

I get that they don't like to make irrevocable decisions, who does? But they're just kicking the can down the road hoping circumstances beyond their control make the decisions for them. Just get it over with, rip the band-aid off, after it's done you'll be free of the consternation and see that it wasn't all that painful of a baseball decision. They can say it's about depth but it's not, this organization just doesn't have that luxury at the moment; it's just about delaying the inevitable.

the depth part isn't Berrios or Melotakis, it's that there's no guys behind them. They'll use 17-20 pitchers this year. In the zombie apocalypse you always leave a round in the mag so if you get overrun by the hoard you can do yourself in.

Gonsalves in AA, so he is not so close, I would guess. Not sure why?

He only has 13 AA starts. Makes sense to start him there. He can jump up if any of the AAA guys move.

 

He could still break in to the bigs some time in the second half. Not sure what people are looking for.

 

He only has 13 AA starts. Makes sense to start him there. He can jump up if any of the AAA guys move.

He could still break in to the bigs some time in the second half. Not sure what people are looking for.

 

I'm looking for him to be in AAA. Why not? I'm looking for the new regime to be aggressive with promotions, since the pitching roster is largely old (and will have to be turned over in the next year or two). 

I'm looking for him to be in AAA. Why not? I'm looking for the new regime to be aggressive with promotions, since the pitching roster is largely old (and will have to be turned over in the next year or two).

I wouldn't count on more aggressive promotions. Neither come from orgs that would suggest much of an aggressive change from what the Twins were doing before. That is especially true this year, they are not in a hurry.

 

And starting Gonsalves at AA puts him perfectly on the timetable of turning over the pitching staff.

 

I wouldn't count on more aggressive promotions. Neither come from orgs that would suggest much of an aggressive change from what the Twins were doing before. That is especially true this year, they are not in a hurry.

And starting Gonsalves at AA puts him perfectly on the timetable of turning over the pitching staff.

 

Fair enough. I just hope he's healthy right now.

 

Gonsalves in AA, so he is not so close, I would guess. Not sure why?

 

 

It probably has something to do with him coming back from his shoulder issues and being 3-4 starts behind in terms of preparation for the season, maybe with comfort level of getting up to speed in a familiar environment instead of being thrust into a new one. Whatever the reason, I don't think we should read anything into it. This initial placement doesn't tell us a thing about how "close" he is.

 

It probably has something to do with him coming back from his shoulder issues and being 3-4 starts behind in terms of preparation for the season, maybe with comfort level of getting up to speed in a familiar environment instead of being thrust into a new one. Whatever the reason, I don't think we should read anything into it. This initial placement doesn't tell us a thing about how "close" he is.

Yeah, I'm not sure we should assume pitchers will take the "put 'em in AAA for 120 starts" strategy the old front office employed.

 

Just to be clear, is it Haley or Hughes that you are comparing to Jose Quintana, the pitcher I've seen picked by a few to win AL Cy Young this year.

Just a reminder that spring training numbers, good and bad, really do not mean that much. Quintana has had some bad springs as have many others, put up decent numbers through the season. Quintana is the more extreme end of things.  Did somewhere I say Haley and Hughes will have great seasons?  No words said anything about Hughes.

The great numbers for Park,  how many games was he facing the second tier pitching?