Article: DET 5, MIN 3: Is There Anything Left?

[ND-Fan]

What did he say that was so terrible it was fact and if you could get true Front Office opinion is they do not care if they win the more losses the better there draft selection for next year. They have given the fans very little reason to go watch this team unless your baseball loving person. Santana is being pitched with hopes they can still trade him by August 31 deadline which I wouldn't be surprised they do. Morrison should have been released at least two months ago or paid somebody to have taken him in a trade. The core of this team is Sano and Buxton if this fails were looking at another 3 to 4 year rebuild for this team. The question is can this Front Office fix these players or are we going to see them fix by another organization my guess is that latter is true for one of them and maybe both of them. Kepler is other core piece and I am afraid were going trade him and he will become super star some where else. The Twins should have called up number prospects from the minors but because of business side and team control that doesn't happen anymore. So were basically stuck with group to play out the season. The good part is only month and half left of this year.

[Doomtints]

Ervin said the same thing Johan said at about this point in his last season here.

[Doomtints]

 

Santana isn’t healthy, and since we are not in any races we might as well do Santana a favor and shut him down and bring up Gonsalves or Romero (and give Thorpe a taste of AAA) a spot in the rotation. If we aren’t in contention there’s no reason to keep an injured 36 year old starting pitcher who has nothing in our rotation for the rest of the season.

 

Without multiple doctors signing off on something saying he's injured, him and the player's union would sue the Twins so fast your head would spin.

[USAFChief]

(And how pathetic is it, if 44-53 followed by 48-53, followed by 48-56, constitutes differences in how the team's chances at post-season play are viewed?)

The front office essentially did exactly that last year. Added, then sold, in the space of a week.

 

And they turned out to be wrong, BTW.

[mattk]

After listening to the interview with Ervin, it sounds like they called him up too early. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

This is a very fair counterpoint to 48-56. The die was not cast, until the moment Escobar was traded.

 

(And how pathetic is it, if trading your super-sub utility infielder is what constitutes raising the white flag of surrender?)

 

But trades don't happen overnight, and decisions to raise that white flag even less so. Escobar's trade on July 27 happened to come at an awkward moment, following a four game winning streak. But, on July 22 the team's record was 44-53, and I'm going to infer that it was on this date or shortly afterward that the front office put their stake in the ground and decided the plug was to be pulled. Several trade discussions no doubt had to be put into high gear before the first one was signed. We fans can't look at July 27 as a simple go/no-go date. 44-53 looms large, to me.

 

(And how pathetic is it, if 44-53 followed by 48-53, followed by 48-56, constitutes differences in how the team's chances at post-season play are viewed?)

I don't thibk the ordering of the wins and losses mattered much by that point -- you picked a date where they just lost 3 in a row, the Escobar trade came when the followed that with 4 wins in a row. They could have gone WLWLWLW over those 7 games and it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

I actually think the "die was cast" even earlier, the trade market just wasn't going to develop until late July. I don't think there was a precise date. Probably no later than the Milwaukee sweep at the beginning of July. Maybe even earlier if you think the Belisle addition was a sign the FO was prepping for trade deadline departures.

 

I think by the time the team was swept in Milwaukee, we needed something like a 15 game win streak, or a 15 game losing streak by Cleveland, for the front office to change their mind from selling. And we actually did pretty well after that -- 13-5, making up 5 games in the standings up until the Escobar trade -- although I understand if it wasn't enough.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Near as I recall, I don't remember Falvey or Levine stinking it up during any games on their way to being 8 games under .500.  

 

I love all these people "rah rah"ing a guy who is passing the blame.  Yeah, he was candid, but he refused to take accountability like an adult.  You want candid?  

 

Don't suck your way to a 48-56 record and maybe your FO doesn't sell.  That's candid and it also has the benefit to be truth rather than sour grapes.

I think we can appreciate a moment of honesty even if we don't agree with the sentiment.

 

I also think if we're going after Erv based on only the context of this game we're missing his point entirely. 

 

As a fan I agreed with the sale. If I'm a player near the end of time on a MLB roster and I've watched this FO sell during a season a WC berth was achieved and then again before a glut of games with the team I'm chasing then yeah, I'm probably not happy. I don't think he's really passing the buck here. I didn't read his comments as blaming the FO or new teammates for his performance, or the Twin's record to date. I read them as him venting frustration over the timing of the sale. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I think we can appreciate a moment of honesty even if we don't agree with the sentiment.

 

I also think if we're going after Erv based on only the context of this game we're missing his point entirely.

 

As a fan I agreed with the sale. If I'm a player near the end of time on a MLB roster and I've watched this FO sell during a season a WC berth was achieved and then again before a glut of games with the team I'm chasing then yeah, I'm probably not happy. I don't think he's really passing the buck here. I didn't read his comments as blaming the FO or new teammates for his performance, or the Twin's record to date. I read them as him venting frustration over the timing of the sale.

I'm also not upset by his comments. But, to defend Tom a little, you'll notice that nowhere did Ervin say that if he'd been on the field and performing, the FO might not have been in a situation to sell on his friend Rodney.

I think that is where the lack of accountability comes into play.

One half of the coin may be that the FO "gave up". The other half of the coin is that through injuries, suspension, and poor play, the key players on the roster put them in that situation.

Santana only pointed out the one side of the coin, perhaps conveniently.

[Danchat]

 

The front office essentially did exactly that last year. Added, then sold, in the space of a week.

And they turned out to be wrong, BTW.

Alright, fine, that did happen last year. And they were promptly crushed in the playoffs.

 

That wasn't going to happen this year. This team clearly isn't ready to compete for anything. I know in hindsight it's frustrating that they didn't go for it, but the 2017 squad didn't have the foresight to see the 2018 being a massive disappointment. The FO did what they had to do at the 2018 deadline even if they may have done the wrong thing at the 2017 deadline.

[KirbyDome89]

 

He absolutely deserves it. Ervin Santana should be grateful he has an opportunity to keep pitching in the major leagues right now. 

That seems a little heavy handed. 

 

He signed a contract to provide services, and the Twins still deem those services worthwhile. When they don't pick up his option it'll be a business decision, and that's fine, but in the meantime he doesn't owe this organization anything, gratuity included. 

[Fritzderkat]

 

Pitching is about ability and pure stuff, at the end of the day. It's also about experience and knowledge. How many dynamic arms, over the years, have we all just seen flame out due to the inability to throw secondary stuff, or learn "how to pitch"? And how many guys have we seen that weren't flamethrowers but had that secondary stuff to succeed? And how many guys have we seen who used knowledge and command to offset a loss of velocity over time?

Your answer would undoubtedly depend on age and how long you've been a baseball fan. The ultimate example, IMO, would be Greg Maddux, who began his career with dominate stuff, and finished with dominate stuff based on said control and pitchability.

So where does Santana fit in this conversation? He's had a long and great career. He's been mostly steady his whole career. If you look at his numbers, his brief Twins career he has performed about as well as he ever has. I would never diminish a pitcher, or any athlete, undergoing surgery. Something is wrong/hurt, and you are attempting to correct it. But physically, Santana has always been in shape. Mentally, he's always been strong. I've heard rumors and whispers for some time now that age will catch up, and that he has a tendon just waiting to give out.

A pitcher doesn't just need a healthy shoulder and elbow...along with hips, knees, etc...but something as simple as a wrist and fingers to control the ball and snap off his stuff. Considering his career, and his season last year...not to dimish surgery...but is it possible the velocity and such are still there waiting for a normal prep time?
 

I can't speak for anyone's tendon or lack of velocity because of it, but I can lend my personal experience, modest as it may be. In the Navy, I 'threw out my arm' so to speak, developing what later was diagnosed as rotator cuff tendonitis. The result, as a catcher, is that I no longer could throw farther than second base, not with any zip, anyway. It pained me and in fact would stiffen up between innings so that with my first few warm-up throws back to the pitcher I had to 'toss like a girl', if you will. I played another 10 years with it, and fortunately had enough strength so that throws to second base to catch would-be stealers would land smack on top of the bag.

Okay, so what?

Wahl, in addition at the age of around 40 I developed what is called Dupytren's Contracture in both hands, which for the sake of abbreviation means hard, cartilege-like growths impeding the flow of the tendons in fingers, six in my case, so that the digits curl, at exteme, fist-like,i into the palms of the hands. It can be modified to a degree by surgeries, of which I've had seven, or enzyme injections, of which I've had three. As I type this, it's on a extra large keyboard which allows ,better than not. the crippled digits to function.

Again, so what?

So what is that I'm saying in the case of Ervin Santana there is no overestimating the impact of a weakened, surgically compared finger, especially one in the middle, for a major league pitcher. The same may be said for a weakened tendon. 

In that, I'd give the guy a break. He may be done, may never return to the level of skill he has produced over many years, but if I am correct, for good reason. Given what he has done in his brief stint with the Twins, especially last year, I for one would fall far short of saying "he sucks." 

 

[ashbury]

The front office essentially did exactly that last year.

Since I pointed to July 22 as a date where buy/sell decisions might start to get serious as opposed to contingency planning, note that last year the Twins record after the game on that date was 49-47. Garcia was acquired two days later.

 

I'm not bothered by different FO responses to different scenarios.

 

 

 

I actually think the "die was cast" even earlier, the trade market just wasn't going to develop until late July. I don't think there was a precise date.

We're probably using "die is cast" in different senses. Until late July, I look at it as only contingency planning. There's no hard and fast date - it's until the paperwork for a first trade is signed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

With all due respect spycake, I think you're spinning this way too positively. Given the question he was asked, he had no sound basis to say the FO "gave up on them". I especially love the line of "We were only 10 games back".

 

That comes off as willfully ignorant.

 

Ervin Santana is an adult who, by now, should know that the game he plays is also a business. He is absolutely welcome to feel upset that many of his teammates and friends were traded away, but he should also understand the context. He had many avenues to answer that question candidly while also understanding the predicament the FO was in at the deadline. He chose instead to use that question as a sounding board to unfairly attack the FO.

Before I bow out of this conversation, I will ask again for you to consider the context.

 

This was the very end of a post game interview, after a disappointing loss, where Ervin just finished answering a series of questions about his own dimished stuff. Then he gets asked for his feelings about the trade of his friend and fellow countryman, following a couple walk-off losses against our chief rival that the trade possibly impacted.

 

Obviously that's no excuse to take shots at anybody -- but my point is Ervin's "they gave up on us" response was so brief and generic that it hardly constitutes "taking a shot" at anyone given this context.

 

Do you agree with Tom that Ervin should be traded/released immediately in part due to this comment, and its offensive nature to his teammates and the FO? I don't.

 

I can't imagine any reaction to this from the front office or his teammates other than, he cares about winning. It's a players job to care about winning, all the time. Sometimes the business of baseball is at odds with that, and it can be challenging for all involved.

 

If you don't like his comments as a fan, that is absolutely your right too. But Tom seemed to be going beyond that, and it is that I objected to.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I'm also not upset by his comments. But, to defend Tom a little, you'll notice that nowhere did Ervin say that if he'd been on the field and performing, the FO might not have been in a situation to sell on his friend Rodney.
I think that is where the lack of accountability comes into play.
One half of the coin may be that the FO "gave up". The other half of the coin is that through injuries, suspension, and poor play, the key players on the roster put them in that situation.
Santana only pointed out the one side of the coin, perhaps conveniently.

I'm almost certain that Erv would acknowledge that poor play and an inability to stay on the field got the team to the point of being sellers. His finger injury played a part, but it's hard to "blame," him for that.  

 

That's why I said it has to do with the timing of the sale. I'm sure a lot of players in that clubhouse had the glut of games with Cleveland circled. In their mind they still had a chance, albeit slim, to catch the Indians. That was how I interpreted his comments; not as shrugging off blame for the struggles through the end of July, but rather frustration with selling before they believed they were dead in the water. 

[Tom Froemming]

 

Tom, respectfully, I can't disagree with this enough.

I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. I don't hear it as him placing undue blame on the front office, or even saying they necessarily did anything wrong. It is really just an acknowledgement of the fact that the front office and players are in very different roles. The front office can sell assets when they feel it is strategically wise to do so, and they can send a letter to season ticket holders explaining themselves. But the players can't do any of that. They have to keep playing. They have to keep working toward the same goal of winning games (and divisions), same as always.

And sometimes these different roles will come into conflict. Like right around a trade deadline when we were a long shot but not quite a "no shot" and we we were coming up on a bunch of games with our chief rival (the most recent two having been walk-off losses where perhaps Rodney was unavailable due to trade talks/agreements).

If the front office addressed the team right now, I am 100% sure they would acknowledged responses like Ervin's as perfectly valid. I bet his teammates would too, they are all caught up in the same conflict.

I get what you're saying, but to me it depends on who the message comes from. If this would have come from Eddie Rosario, Jose Berrios, Kyle Gibson, Max Kepler or any of the other guys who've been around this year and will be around in the future, I think I'd feel the same way as you do.

 

Ervin Santana has contributed zilch this season, it's not looking very promising that he'll contribute much the rest of the year and seems highly unlikely to me that he'll be around next season. He's basically Matt Belisle. The main reason to keep Ervin around is for leadership/an example to the younger guys of how to prepare/conduct yourself as a major leaguer. If he's not even doing that well, then he's just in the way.

[Fritzderkat]

Who can possibly argue with the statement, "The pieces aren't there"?

When's the last time for the Twins they've had the right pieces?

Fact is, the Twins, like practically every franchise in the majors besides Boston, New York, Houston, the Cubs and the Dodgers are jokes. Once in a while,a different squirrel will find a nut, but not very often.

Beyond those, there is no competition, and for fans like "ours" to sit around and bellyache is a joke in itself. 

Whoever keeps saying the only goal of the Twins is to put fannies in the seats and turn a profit pretty much says it all.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I get what you're saying, but to me it depends on who the message comes from. If this would have come from Eddie Rosario, Jose Berrios, Kyle Gibson, Max Kepler or any of the other guys who've been around this year and will be around in the future, I think I'd feel the same way as you do.

 

Ervin Santana has contributed zilch this season, it's not looking very promising that he'll contribute much the rest of the year and seems highly unlikely to me that he'll be around next season. He's basically Matt Belisle. The main reason to keep Ervin around is for leadership/an example to the younger guys of how to prepare/conduct yourself as a major leaguer. If he's not even doing that well, then he's just in the way.

So in the same post, you say Ervin's comment is setting a bad example for the younger players -- but you also say that you could better understand the same comment coming from one of the younger players instead?

 

For all I know, Ervin busted his butt in rehab to come back to try to help his team. (Maybe he needs to go on the DL again for a busted butt )

 

Also, Ervin's lack of contract after this year cuts both ways. He can't really defer to 2019 or beyond like the front office or his younger teammates.

 

He came back in July for a sweep in Toronto, then saw a cool win in Boston and was probably in the mindset of making a run, especially head to head vs Cleveland. Then recall how Molitor and the team saw the news of Escobar's trade on the clubhouse TV the next day. I don't know what, if anything, the front office told the team prior to that, but it probably came as a bit of a punch in the gut, especially for Ervin who just got back for his last contract year. This was all just 2 weeks ago.

 

Recall then the first game vs Cleveland the following week, Ervin battles, we win a walk-off, Rodney notches the W. Then the next day another guy was traded. This was less than 2 weeks ago.

 

I think we forget how easy it is to be rational and detached as fans or even as executives, and how hard it is for players to do the same. Again, that doesn't excuse bad behavior, but I don't see this comment, in its context, reaching anywhere near that level anyway.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm almost certain that Erv would acknowledge that poor play and an inability to stay on the field got the team to the point of being sellers. His finger injury played a part, but it's hard to "blame," him for that.

 

That's why I said it has to do with the timing of the sale. I'm sure a lot of players in that clubhouse had the glut of games with Cleveland circled. In their mind they still had a chance, albeit slim, to catch the Indians. That was how I interpreted his comments; not as shrugging off blame for the struggles through the end of July, but rather frustration with selling before they believed they were dead in the water.

But he didn't acknowledge any of those things. He chose to only acknowledge the side of the coin that points the finger at the FO.

 

Blaming the FO for selling at 10 games back is just as unreasonable as blaming Santana for his injury timeline.

 

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Tom, because I don't expect a guy to use ration over emotion when talking about his friend, but I can see where Tom is coming from, absolutely.

[Tom Froemming]

 

So in the same post, you say Ervin's comment is setting a bad example for the younger players -- but you also say that you could better understand the same comment coming from one of the younger players instead?

Not young vs. old, I could understand the comment coming from a player who has actually been contributing to the team. I wouldn't have been pleased if someone like Jorge Polanco or Trevor May would have said what Ervin said. You don't show up in the second half and then throw the front office under the bus.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not young vs. old, I could understand the comment coming from a player who has actually been contributing to the team. I wouldn't have been pleased if someone like Jorge Polanco or Trevor May would have said what Ervin said. You don't show up in the second half and then throw the front office under the bus.

You really think the front office is going to view Ervin Santana as some "Johnny come lately"? The biggest free agent contract in franchise history, our staff ace for the previous 3 years, who spent the first half this year rehabbing from surgery? In his 4th year here and looking for his 3rd pennant race in a Twins uniform? (Maybe in the last season of his career?)

 

Honestly, can we stop assuming the front office is offended by this? It is not hard to imagine they understand and even endorse the competitive spirit that drives Ervin Santana, even in making a comment like that. And they probably understand that such feelings don't always have to be accompanied in public by self-reflection on the player's own limitations and failings.

[USAFChief]

Alright, fine, that did happen last year. And they were promptly crushed in the playoffs.

 

That wasn't going to happen this year. This team clearly isn't ready to compete for anything. I know in hindsight it's frustrating that they didn't go for it, but the 2017 squad didn't have the foresight to see the 2018 being a massive disappointment. The FO did what they had to do at the 2018 deadline even if they may have done the wrong thing at the 2017 deadline.

Well they clearly aren’t ready today, after dropping 20 percent from the top of their roster.

 

“That wasn’t going to happen this year” is more opinion than fact, however. I’m willing to bet I can find the same posts from the same posters last year, confidently proclaiming the Twins had no shot.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Wow, lots of vitriol over a player venting. I support the FO in selling. I don’t expect Erv to like it. If I were in either of their shoes i’d feel the same way.

 

It’s time to move on from Erv. He’s hurting his value by playing hurt. It’s a lost year for him and the Twins. Time to bring up the kids.

[jimmer]

 

Wow, lots of vitriol over a player venting. I support the FO in selling. I don’t expect Erv to like it. If I were in either of their shoes i’d feel the same way.

It’s time to move on from Erv. He’s hurting his value by playing hurt. It’s a lost year for him and the Twins. Time to bring up the kids.

Very nice post.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Do you agree with Tom that Ervin should be traded/released immediately in part due to this comment, and its offensive nature to his teammates and the FO? I don't.

 

No, I don't feel that strongly either.  However, when you said this:

 

I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. I don't hear it as him placing undue blame on the front office, or even saying they necessarily did anything wrong.

 

 

I don't see how you can possibly reframe "They gave up on us" as anything other than placing blame on them.  There was no "we", it was "they".  And, I'm sorry, but that isn't being candid - it's being emotional.  He's entitled to that and the frustration that comes with it, but let's avoid sugar-coating what it is.  He said something that lacks the context to be a fair criticism.  

 

That venting string of comments was then used by several posters to go after the FO in much the same vein as Ervin was.  It was lauded as "candid".  It was even called "professional".  It was nothing of the sort.  He blamed the FO for the sense of a lost season out of frustration.  That's what it was.

 

And what really bugs me about this (and about 18 other threads on this forum right now) is that a bunch of posters who are usually rational, data-driven posters who provide good justifications for their opinions,  have resorted to some absolute nonsense over the last few weeks.  I was thinking about this today and let me throw a (deliberately) silly scenario at you to consider:

 

The 2018 Twins finish the season on a mind-bending run and carry it into the playoffs.  So far that they make it to Game 7 against the Dodgers in the World Series.  Kershaw dominates the game into the ninth as the Dodgers lead 1-0 but the Twins scratch a single and a double against him with two outs. So the World Series winning run might be sitting at 2nd base.....but Bobby Wilson is up.  Now, because of Kershaw, the Twins sat Mauer so he's there, on the bench, ready to pinch hit as the Dodgers call in Jansen.

 

But Molitor decides in Scenario A that against all odds, data, and good sense that he's going to roll with Bobby Wilson because he (as he says post-game) "doesn't want Bobby to think I gave up on him" or that "he was due" or some other hope-driven reasoning.  Wilson grounds out meekly and the Twins lose.

 

In Scenario B, Molitor pinch hits Mauer because by all rational thinking and data he has, the chances of winning are much better with Mauer at the plate.  The Twins still lose, but at least they lose making good decisions.

 

I'd like you to consider which of those scenarios you would typically endorse of the team's decision makers.  And now consider which scenario you (and several other prominent posters) have been casting your die for about three weeks now.  

 

Sometimes we have to separate our fandom from the decisions that are made by a business.  And that can be hard, but we'd do it in virtually every other scenario with this team.  Even in a scenario in which our entire season would hilariously boil down to Bobby Wilson. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

With all due respect spycake, I think you're spinning this way too positively.  Given the question he was asked, he had no sound basis to say the FO "gave up on them".  I especially love the line of "We were only 10 games back".

 

That comes off as willfully ignorant.

 

Ervin Santana is an adult who, by now, should know that the game he plays is also a business.  He is absolutely welcome to feel upset that many of his teammates and friends were traded away, but he should also understand the context.  He had many avenues to answer that question candidly while also understanding the predicament the FO was in at the deadline.  He chose instead to use that question as a sounding board to unfairly attack the FO.  

 

Are you sure he didn't understand the context? He didn't acknowledge it in his statement, but that's a far cry from not understanding it. 

[bird]

 

I'm ok with him being pissed.

 

I guess I would've preferred the team had gotten this upset about their fate back in May.  It would've been nice if Dozier hadn't been a hole in the lineup for the entire year.  Or if Buxton could stay on the field.  Or if Sano could've been better prepared to help.  Or if LoMo or Lynn would've justified their signing.  I could go on.

 

Being mad at the FO for selling at 48-56?  That's just ridiculous.  It really is.  

 

 

This is kind of how I see it. I'm critical of the FO, but it's a mild sentiment to begin with, and it's tied to NOT giving up on underperforming players. With NOT making adjustments like bringing in a catcher from outside the organization. With NOT taking corrective action sooner, such as shipping Sano off to the Ft. Myers complex. Some actions are perplexing (Belisle, etc.) But I think a focus on the FO's behavior needs to be on the fact that all kinds of disappointing player performances caused them to see that the season was shot. Should they have given up on some players early on instead of giving up on the season later on? Who "gave up", really? Lynn? Sano? Dozier? LoMo?

 

I brush Ervin the Cheater's comments aside as understandable and basically superfluous. But when the door smacks him in the behind as he exits, I wonder if it will ever dawn on him how forgiving and supportive this organization was when he disappointed all of us with such devastating effect by cheating with PEDs.

Edited August 11, 2018 by birdwatcher

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't see how you can possibly reframe "They gave up on us" as anything other than placing blame on them. There was no "we", it was "they". And, I'm sorry, but that isn't being candid - it's being emotional. He's entitled to that and the frustration that comes with it, but let's avoid sugar-coating what it is. He said something that lacks the context to be a fair criticism.

 

What do you want, Ervin to break down the whole season when Berardino asks him about losing Rodney, at the conclusion of a short postgame interview in front of his locker? You keep treating it like "they gave up on us" was the premise of Ervin's manifesto nailed to the clubhouse door.

 

I think Ervin has every right to express disappointment in the sell-off like he did. I think fans have every right to do the same. I think fans like Tom have every right to express their disappointment in players like Ervin too. (And I think the front office would empathize will all of those takes, seasons like this are tough for everyone.) I don't think any of it rises to the level of offense or dismissal, though -- that's what really struck me about Tom's write-up last night.

 

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post, so I will bow out now. This forum would be a better place if I had Ervin's brevity.

[bird]

 

That seems a little heavy handed. 

 

He signed a contract to provide services, and the Twins still deem those services worthwhile. When they don't pick up his option it'll be a business decision, and that's fine, but in the meantime he doesn't owe this organization anything, gratuity included. 

 

 

You're right that the organization and the fans aren't entitled to a debt of gratitude from Ervin. Although I'd have a higher opinion of him if he was extremely careful with his words in light of his own damaging past actions.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What do you want, Ervin to break down the whole season when Berardino asks him about losing Rodney, at the conclusion of a short postgame interview in front of his locker? You keep treating it like "they gave up on us" was the premise of Ervin's manifesto nailed to the clubhouse door.

 

"This sucks"

 

Took less than three seconds to think of and is honest, doesn't pass the blame, and accounts for his emotions.

 

This isn't rocket science.  He chose to go down the road of "us" and "them".  Maybe Tom is being too harsh, but you're being too forgiving.

[Squirrel]

I didn't read/hear Erv's comments so seriously or pointed as what some are suggesting. I read them as he's sorry to see his friends go. Yeah, it's not exactly what he said and the exact words he used seem to imply some kind of finger pointing, but Erv knows how this goes. He's not new to baseball nor new to teams struggling and shaking things up. He certainly knows that this is the business end of the game. But ... the teammates and friends who he has relied on over the past few years, are no longer here. Whether it was right or wrong, the FO made a decision and I think Erv's response was more of a personal one rather than a business one.