Should the Twins cut Burrows?

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

It's pretty hard to blame Baldelli for having no good options on his roster. He's not immune from blame this season but a bad roster definitely isn't under his purview.

I would imagine that Baldelli plays a role in offseason acquisitions.  Will the FO sign whomever he wants?  No.  Will they not sign someone if Baldelli tells them not to?  No.  But to pretend that Baldelli had no role in what players currently appear on our roster is probably not based in reality.

[ashbury]

I look forward to the day when our front office thinks they've spotted something in a player that doesn't show up in his stats, and the acquisition turns out to be worth the effort, more than once every season or two.

Otherwise, they're in the position of having clowns like me look at the stats of the latest acquisition and say, why did they bother. And be right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I would imagine that Baldelli plays a role in offseason acquisitions.  Will the FO sign whomever he wants?  No.  Will they not sign someone if Baldelli tells them not to?  No.  But to pretend that Baldelli had no role in what players currently appear on our roster is probably not based in reality.

Actually from what I've read in the modern game managers have less and less influence over this kind of thing. I suspect Baldelli has little to no real input on acquisitions. Sure, he could probably say "I hate that dude, do not sign him" and the front office would listen but I suspect the front office would listen to anyone who speaks that loudly against the character of any potential acquisition.

It's a very different game than it was in the age of TK or even Gardenhire. From everything I've read, the scope of a manager's role continues to narrow because the game continues to get bigger, forcing everyone to specialize in what they know best and leave the rest to others more qualified.

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I would have preferred the front office looked at his low strikeout numbers instead of his high draft position for evaluation.

In my opinion, draft position should carry next to no weight after a guy has a full year or two of playing pro ball. I'm all for taking a flyer on guys at this point in the season, but do it with guys with upside.

Definitely agree!  I would love to have a more analytical FO that looks at stats, and doesn't just rely on scouting and draft position.

Or, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here, the FO saw something that they thought the Tigers overlooked that they could emphasize.  Or perhaps they looked at his perfectly acceptable k numbers from 2019 and prior, and thought that perhaps the Tigers had messed him up over the last couple of years, and they could rectify that.

I called out draft position not because I think that on it's own warrants a big league spot, but because it speaks to the idea that there is undeniable talent that, at least once upon a time, existed in Burrows.  If the FO thinks they can bring that out, why not take a flyer, in a lost season, when there is no downside to what happens with Burrows anyways?  If he succeeds?  Fantastic, we found a piece moving forward, and it cost us essentially nothing.  If he fails, he helps us lose games so we can get better draft positioning.  Win-win.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Actually from what I've read in the modern game managers have less and less influence over this kind of thing. I suspect Baldelli has little to no real input on acquisitions. Sure, he could probably say "I hate that dude, do not sign him" and the front office would listen but I suspect the front office would listen to anyone who speaks that loudly against the character of any potential acquisition.

It's a very different game than it was in the age of TK or even Gardenhire. From everything I've read, the scope of a manager's role continues to narrow because the game continues to get bigger, forcing everyone to specialize in what they know best and leave the rest to others more qualified.

That's fair, I'm not that interested in the behind the scenes nuts-and-bolts of team operation, so my previous post was speculation on my part, but based on logical assumptions.  I will say that some of the issue this year is players not living up to their previous performance, and that does have to fall, to some degree, on Baldelli.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, Cap'n Piranha said:

That's fair, I'm not that interested in the behind the scenes nuts-and-bolts of team operation, so my previous post was speculation on my part, but based on logical assumptions.  I will say that some of the issue this year is players not living up to their previous performance, and that does have to fall, to some degree, on Baldelli.

Without a doubt. One of Baldelli's jobs is to make the players under him the best version of themselves. How much responsibility does he take for player failure? Don't know. It's not the majority of the blame but it's a portion.

[LA VIkes Fan]

Is he still on the 26 man roster? Really? Seriously, he isn't ready. DFA him and chances are no one will pick him up. The send him to AAA or even AA and work with him. If you're afraid someone else will pick him up you can just send him down but I have to say that it doesn't seem likely nor does losing him seem like a big loss. 

I prefer the DFA but can  live with either approach. I can't abide keeping him on the roster. He's now used up for the next few days. Move him off and bring up Hamilton or Moran. If we need a 40 man spot, DFA Burrows or move Law to the 60 day DL. 

 

[LA VIkes Fan]

Well, I looked online and amazingly enough, Burrows appears to still be on the team.  I thought for sure last night was the "Shoemaker sendoff" when he threw 64 pages in two innings. You know, beat him like a rented mule, DFA him the next day, hope nobody claims him, and then send him to AAA. I guess the last chapter of the Shoemaker sendoff would be for him to complain about how he was used by the Twins and then get released for "baseball reasons" so he could explore "other opportunities", not because he complained about management. Oh well, the day is still young here in California. Hope springs eternal.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm really shocked at this point. He's not pitching for days and days. Send him down, whatever.......and call up someone.....

[Seth Stohs]

Beau Burrows optioned.

Nick Vincent's contract purchased.

Alex Kirilloff to the 60-Day IL. 

[Mike Sixel]

Nick Vincent? Not Cano? Not Moran? Not Hamilton? 

[LA VIkes Fan]

Nick Vincent? 35 year old Nick Vincent? I would understand if the goal was to remain competitive. although he doesn't have a particularly good ERA in AAA, but this does nothing for evaluating players for the 2022 roster. No matter what happens, he ain't on it. 

All I can think of is the issue is putting guys on the 40 man roster and/or bringing guys up and losing a year of control. If either of those are the reason, that's just not smart. Wrong guy, wrong message to the team and the fans.  

[gunnarthor]

14 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Nick Vincent? 35 year old Nick Vincent? I would understand if the goal was to remain competitive. although he doesn't have a particularly good ERA in AAA, but this does nothing for evaluating players for the 2022 roster. No matter what happens, he ain't on it. 

All I can think of is the issue is putting guys on the 40 man roster and/or bringing guys up and losing a year of control. If either of those are the reason, that's just not smart. Wrong guy, wrong message to the team and the fans.  

They can't possibly be worrying about service time, can they? Right now, they should be wondering if they have guys who will even have a six year ML career.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

They can't possibly be worrying about service time, can they? Right now, they should be wondering if they have guys who will even have a six year ML career.

Esp for RPs in their mid to late 20s.......(really, any RP).