Hendriks to Rochester

[Brock Beauchamp]

but getting rid of the guy who took the gold, while they are keeping the rest, says something. No?

 

Putting any stock in the first two starts of the season is folly. Hendriks got out of a few scrapes (pretty luckily in some cases) but he never looked dominant. Gardenhire obviously has issues with his pitch selection and attitude out there and frankly, I don't blame him for it. I want to see Hendriks succeed but damn, he just looks lost out there. He's just flailing away on the mound and doesn't appear to have any sort of plan on how to attack the hitter.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This organization is never going to turn it around as long as they continue to give full scholarships to players who have never done anything to deserve them.

 

Are you listening to yourself? Worley is one year older than Hendriks. That's it.

 

How on earth can you justify benching a 25 year old pitcher with a pretty good track record of MLB success for a guy who has been absolutely awful every time he's been called up to the Majors? That's not a "scholorship" (a word I am sick to death of seeing typed on this forum), that's common damned sense.

 

Jesus. This isn't a Ramon Ortiz situation. Worley has pitched in the majors and pitched well. Hendriks looks completely freakin' lost nearly every time he has taken the mound. Stat lines only show so much in these situations. Hendriks, despite getting out of a couple of jams relatively unscathed (mostly through sheer luck), has looked completely hittable in his starts and thus far looks like pretty much the same pitcher he was in 2012 (meaning he's not learning a damned thing from his mistakes).

 

Worley has been awful this season but he's the type of guy you stick with because he's barely older than Hendriks and has a track record of being able to take the mound in consecutive starts without embarrassing himself or his team.

 

If you want to argue about Pelfrey and "scholarships", at least you have a toehold on which to stand, but even that doesn't make any sense... You let Pelfrey pitch because, again, he has a track record that can be described in a sentence that doesn't use the word "awful".

[Mr. Brooks]

Are you listening to yourself? Worley is one year older than Hendriks. That's it.

 

How on earth can you justify benching a 25 year old pitcher with a pretty good track record of MLB success for a guy who has been absolutely awful every time he's been called up to the Majors? That's not a "scholorship" (a word I am sick to death of seeing typed on this forum), that's common damned sense.

 

Jesus. This isn't a Ramon Ortiz situation. Worley has pitched in the majors and pitched well. Hendriks looks completely freakin' lost nearly every time he has taken the mound. Stat lines only show so much in these situations. Hendriks, despite getting out of a couple of jams relatively unscathed (mostly through sheer luck), has looked completely hittable in his starts and thus, far looks like pretty much the same pitcher he was in 2012 (meaning he's not learning a damned thing from his mistakes).

 

Worley has been awful this season but he's the type of guy you stick with because he's barely older than Hendriks and has a track record of being able to take the mound in consecutive starts without embarrassing himself or his team.

 

Worley had one good season, and one bad season, IN THE NL. His good season was fairly fluky when you look at the secondary numbers.

Get back to me at the end of the year and see where his numbers are.

 

It's not about Hendriks for me. Send them both down if you want, thats fine. This isn't defending Hendriks.

This team should be sending the message that roster spots have to be earned. We are both entitled to our opinons, but in mine 1 good (but somewhat fluky) season in the NL is not enough of a track record to say that a guy is guaranteed a roster spot no matter what.

[Mr. Brooks]

Putting any stock in the first two starts of the season is folly. Hendriks got out of a few scrapes (pretty luckily in some cases) but he never looked dominant. Gardenhire obviously has issues with his pitch selection and attitude out there and frankly, I don't blame him for it. I want to see Hendriks succeed but damn, he just looks lost out there. He's just flailing away on the mound and doesn't appear to have any sort of plan on how to attack the hitter.

 

You want to talk about attitude, look at Worley's comments after the Mets game.

Go ahead and rip me, I don't give a crap, but I was disgusted by those comments. This guy has no accountability.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Worley had one good season, and one bad season, IN THE NL. His good season was fairly fluky when you look at the secondary numbers.

Get back to me at the end of the year and see where his numbers are.

 

It's not about Hendriks for me. Send them both down if you want, thats fine. This isn't defending Hendriks.

This team should be sending the message that roster spots have to be earned. We are both entitled to our opinons, but in mine 1 good (but somewhat fluky) season in the NL is not enough of a track record to say that a guy is guaranteed a roster spot no matter what.

 

One good season is one more good season than Hendriks has pitched anywhere in Major League Baseball.

 

Worley's "bad season" last year was still head and shoulders above anything Hendriks has done above AAA.

 

And "one good year in the NL" isn't what this is about and this isn't about guaranteeing anything to anyone... It's about giving a guy with a track record more than three starts in favor of a guy who has been awful for 1+ seasons. Worley has proven to be a competent Major League starter, something Hendriks hasn't even come close to doing. He hasn't even posted a bad season. He's been 100% downright awful in the Majors.

 

And to put so much stock in 2-3 starts in cold weather, well... I just...

 

*bashes face into desk*

[Riverbrian]

I like Worley and I like Hendriks... i hope they are both a big part of our future.

 

Why do we have to beat the crap out of one player in order to defend another player?

 

Hendriks being sent down and Worley staying... Who would be surprised by this? Worley was given the ball on opening day!!!

 

If you think Hendriks is better than Worley... OK... 11 games into 2013. I can see some possible logic. Not much but I won't argue.

 

If you think Hendriks is a ton better than Worley and worth being angry over? I'm speechless.

 

Diamond is up now... Someone has to go down... It was never going to be Worley, Correia or Pelfrey.

 

Hendriks only travelled North because DeVries and Diamond were hurt.

[Mr. Brooks]

One good season is one more good season than Hendriks has pitched anywhere in Major League Baseball.

 

Worley's "bad season" last year was still head and shoulders above anything Hendriks has done above AAA.

 

And "one good year in the NL" isn't what this is about and this isn't about guaranteeing anything to anyone... It's about giving a guy with a track record more than three starts in favor of a guy who has been awful for 1+ seasons. Worley has proven to be a competent Major League starter, something Hendriks hasn't even come close to doing. He hasn't even posted a bad season. He's been 100% downright awful in the Majors.

 

And to put so much stock in 2-3 starts in cold weather, well... I just...

 

*bashes face into desk*

 

Again, this isnt about Hendriks to me. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.

Send them both down, that's fine.

 

And again, we disagree on how "track record" is defined. To me, Worley's record is way too small and inconclusive to call a proven track record. We disagree on that, which is fine, but it explains why we disagree on our stance.

 

Finally, I'm FAR more disappointed in his comments then I am his actual pitching performances. His comments tell you everything you need to know about this guy.

[Mr. Brooks]

I like Worley and I like Hendriks... i hope they are both a big part of our future.

 

Why do we have to beat the crap out of one player in order to defend another player?

 

Hendriks being sent down and Worley staying... Who would be surprised by this? Worley was given the ball on opening day!!!

 

If you think Hendriks is better than Worley... OK... 11 games into 2013. I can see some possible logic. Not much but I won't argue.

If you think Hendriks is a ton better than Worley and worth being angry over? I'm speechless.

 

Diamond is up now... Someone has to go down... It was never going to be Worley, Correia or Pelfrey.

 

Hendriks only travelled North because DeVries and Diamond were hurt.

 

For the 6,552nd time. I'm not defending Hendriks over Worley!! Send them both down, I don't care!!

I'd be a TON more forgiving of Worley's performance if it wasn't for his attitude. His comments and attitude sealed the deal for me.

[Mr. Brooks]

One good season is one more good season than Hendriks has pitched anywhere in Major League Baseball.

 

Worley's "bad season" last year was still head and shoulders above anything Hendriks has done above AAA.

 

And "one good year in the NL" isn't what this is about and this isn't about guaranteeing anything to anyone... It's about giving a guy with a track record more than three starts in favor of a guy who has been awful for 1+ seasons. Worley has proven to be a competent Major League starter, something Hendriks hasn't even come close to doing. He hasn't even posted a bad season. He's been 100% downright awful in the Majors.

 

And to put so much stock in 2-3 starts in cold weather, well... I just...

 

*bashes face into desk*

 

Funny how the weather doesn't seem to affect the other team. I'm so tired of this excuse.

If you want to say you are not going to put much stock into 2 weeks, that's fine. But I don't see what the weather has to do with it? If anything cold weather traditionally gives the advantage to the pitcher.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Again, this isnt about Hendriks to me. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.

Send them both down, that's fine.

 

The Twins only needed to send down one pitcher. They chose the right one.

 

And again, we disagree on how "track record" is defined. To me, Worley's record is way too small and inconclusive to call a proven track record. We disagree on that, which is fine, but it explains why we disagree on our stance.

 

47 starts of 100 ERA+ pitching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 starts of 70 ERA+ pitching. That's all there is to it.

 

Finally, I'm FAR more disappointed in his comments then I am his actual pitching performances. His comments tell you everything you need to know about this guy.

 

Eh, I didn't even hear his comment but given the guy's record and the fact that he's known to be a bit of a loudmouth, chances are I'm not going to care much.

[raindog]

Mr. Brooks,

 

What was Worley supposed to say after his bad start?

 

"Dog-gone-it, I sure did suck out there. It's not good enough. I'm just gonna have to get better, make them adjustments. Put the team on my back."

[Brock Beauchamp]

Mr. Brooks,

 

What was Worley supposed to say after his bad start?

 

"Dog-gone-it, I sure did suck out there. It's not good enough. I'm just gonna have to get better, make them adjustments. Put the team on my back."

 

What were his comments? I can't seem to find them anywhere.

[Riverbrian]

For the 6,552nd time. I'm not defending Hendriks over Worley!! Send them both down, I don't care!!

I'd be a TON more forgiving of Worley's performance if it wasn't for his attitude. His comments and attitude sealed the deal for me.

 

1. You only have 513 posts and I've read posts from you about other stuff so The 6,552 number is a little high.

 

2. If you are anti Worley because of post game comments. So much so... that you express it on a Hendriks being sent down thread. You'll have to forgive our (my) confusion as to the level of how much care.

[Mr. Brooks]

Mr. Brooks,

 

What was Worley supposed to say after his bad start?

 

"Dog-gone-it, I sure did suck out there. It's not good enough. I'm just gonna have to get better, make them adjustments. Put the team on my back."

 

He could say the same thing most pitchers say when they have a horrible start, something along the lines of:

"Yeah, I just didn't have it today. But I'm going to work hard to make the adjustments, and do a better job next time."

What he said was downright laughable after that game.

[Brock Beauchamp]

He could say the same thing most pitchers say when they have a horrible start, something along the lines of:

"Yeah, I just didn't have it today. But I'm going to work hard to make the adjustments, and do a better job next time."

What he said was downright laughable after that game.

 

You mean the part where he said this in the postgame?

 

"It's frustrating," Worley said. "Nobody likes to have that happen to them. So I'll have to make some adjustments this week so that I'm ready to go."

MLB.com Gameday | twinsbaseball.com: Gameday

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the 6,552nd time. I'm not defending Hendriks over Worley!! Send them both down, I don't care!!

 

Then you probably shouldn't bring up Worley in a thread about Hendriks being sent back to AAA, even going so far as to refer to Worley's spot in the rotation as a "scholarship".

[Mr. Brooks]

What were his comments? I can't seem to find them anywhere.

 

I don't know if they are printed anywhere. He was interviewed in the locker room post game.

He basically said that he thought he pitched great and got unlucky.

I'll paraphrase, but the one comment that bothered me the most was:

"Not sure I could have thrown the ball any better, nothing was hit hard. If anything my stuff was TOO good. Maybe next time I'll throw it right down the middle and hope it's hit hard right at someone."

 

Zero accountability. Even Coomer had a hard time keeping a straight face when they cut straight from that interview to the studio.

[Mr. Brooks]

You mean the part where he said this in the postgame?

 

"It's frustrating," Worley said. "Nobody likes to have that happen to them. So I'll have to make some adjustments this week so that I'm ready to go."

MLB.com Gameday | twinsbaseball.com: Gameday

 

Find the rest of his comments. You'll see that what he meant by "nobody likes to have that happen" is that nobody likes pitching great and getting unlucky.

[Mr. Brooks]

Then you probably shouldn't bring up Worley in a thread about Hendriks being sent back to AAA, even going so far as to refer to Worley's spot in the rotation as a "scholarship".

 

True.

 

And, he does have a scholarship. You even admit he does, the difference in our opinion is that you think he deserves to have one, while I don't.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Find the rest of his comments. You'll see that what he meant by "nobody likes to have that happen" is that nobody likes pitching great and getting unlucky.

 

If he truly thought it was nothing more than luck, he wouldn't need to make adjustments.

 

So the guy has a bit of an ego. He's a professional athlete. Is that such a bad thing? You're reading way too much into the comments in one post-game interview.

[Mr. Brooks]

If he truly thought it was nothing more than luck, he wouldn't need to make adjustments.

 

So the guy has a bit of an ego. He's a professional athlete. Is that such a bad thing? You're reading way too much into the comments in one post-game interview.

 

He was being a smart ass and saying that his "adjustment" was going to be to throw the ball right over the plate and hope it gets hit hard at someone.

 

There is a difference between ego and not being accountable.

 

Read Adam Jones' comments after he cost the O's a game the other night. That is accountability.

[Mr. Brooks]

If he truly thought it was nothing more than luck, he wouldn't need to make adjustments.

 

So the guy has a bit of an ego. He's a professional athlete. Is that such a bad thing? You're reading way too much into the comments in one post-game interview.

 

When you combine those comments with his laissez faire attitude about his weight issues and his secondary pitches a common theme starts to develop about his attitude.

[Brock Beauchamp]

True.

 

And, he does have a scholarship. You even admit he does, the difference in our opinion is that you think he deserves to have one, while I don't.

 

Ugh. The word "scholarship" needs to just go away. You were using it in a pejorative capacity... You weren't suggesting that Worley has earned the right to fight through his troubles, you were using it in place of the word "entitlement" or something of that ilk. Something that one hasn't earned instead of something of merit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When you combine those comments with his laissez faire attitude about his weight issues and his secondary pitches a common theme starts to develop about his attitude.

 

Sure, if you completely ignore the comments where he said he needed to make adjustments.

 

You're looking for the negative here and ignoring the positive.

[Mr. Brooks]

Ugh. The word "scholarship" needs to just go away. You were using it in a pejorative capacity... You weren't suggesting that Worley has earned the right to fight through his troubles, you were using it in place of the word "entitlement" or something of that ilk. Something that one hasn't earned instead of something of merit.

 

That is how I feel.

I don't think he's earned a thing.

Again, you and I just disagree on how distinguished Worley's track record is.

I don't see why we can't just agree to disagree. Certainly I'm entitled to my opinion.

You don't see me bashing yours.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sure, if you completely ignore the comments where he said he needed to make adjustments.

 

You're looking for the negative here and ignoring the positive.

 

You havent even heard or read the entire interview.

His "adjustments" comments were said sarcastically.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That is how I feel.

I don't think he's earned a thing.

Again, you and I just disagree on how distinguished Worley's track record is.

I don't see why we can't just agree to disagree. Certainly I'm entitled to my opinion.

You don't see me bashing yours.

 

Why on Earth would you send down Worley and keep up Hendriks? Are you really arguing that three starts should weigh so heavily in comparison to ~50 decent starts for Worley and ~20 absolutely putrid starts for Hendriks? Are you really arguing that Hendriks deserved to stay in Minnesota because he had one mediocre start? Is that what we're arguing here?

 

And if you're not arguing that, why did you bring up Worley in the first place and use that blasted word "scholarship" to describe his spot in the rotation? You claim that you're not advocating Worley being sent down but you suggest that's exactly what you believe in nearly every post.

[Mr. Brooks]

Why on Earth would you send down Worley and keep up Hendriks? Are you really arguing that three starts should weigh so heavily in comparison to ~50 decent starts for Worley and ~20 absolutely putrid starts for Hendriks? Are you really arguing that Hendriks deserved to stay in Minnesota because he had one mediocre start? Is that what we're arguing here?

 

And if you're not arguing that, why did you bring up Worley in the first place and use that blasted word "scholarship" to describe his spot in the rotation? You claim that you're not advocating Worley being sent down but you suggest that's exactly what you believe in nearly every post.

 

When did I claim that?!?!

That is exactly what i AM advocating.

 

I already agreed this probably wasn't the proper thread for this, I'm not defending Hendriks.

 

I'm saying Worley should be sent down because he's pitching awful right now. Let him make some adjustments in AAA and be better for it.

Give someone else a shot, we can't keep having these short starts where the game is lost before it even starts.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When did I claim that?!?!

That is exactly what i AM advocating.

 

I already agreed this probably wasn't the proper thread for this, I'm not defending Hendriks.

 

I'm saying Worley should be sent down because he's pitching awful right now. Let him make some adjustments in AAA and be better for it.

Give someone else a shot, we can't keep having these short starts where the game is lost before it even starts.

 

So you're basing this entire opinion (and advocating Worley's demotion) on one start.

 

Remove Worley's last start and his ERA is around 5.50. Hendriks, in two starts, has a 4.66 ERA.

 

Really? That's your argument? One bad start and you send a guy to the minors who has proven to be a capable starter over 2 1/2 seasons in favor of a guy whose MLB career to this point is best described as "OMG AWFUL WORST PITCHER IN BASEBALL!!!1!!!1eleven"?

 

Do you see why I can't take your argument even a little bit seriously? It's absolutely ludicrous to throw out career numbers when one guy has been decent and another awful in favor of weighing a demotion on one baseball game.

 

I just can't wrap my head around the ridiculosity of that argument.

[Oxtung]

When you combine those comments with his laissez faire attitude about his weight issues and his secondary pitches a common theme starts to develop about his attitude.

 

You misunderstood Worley's weight comments three weeks ago and you're misrepresenting them now. He admits he has a problem. He has tried several techniques to solve it. He hasnt' been entirely successful. He hasn't given up. He keeps trying. This is anything but "laissez faire" as you put it.

 

This is my full reply to you three weeks ago if you're interested:

http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5602-berardino-vance-worley-trying-shed-weight.html#post91041

 

 

It seems to me you've pre-judged Worley and now you're looking for any opportunity you can to rip on him. The guy has a track record to show he can succeed in MLB. If you think Worley is on scholarship then who ISN'T from the Twins starting pitchers?