Rocco Baldelli's future

[Doctor Gast]

We had this discussion before but I don't think it hurts to rehash it. It's very hard to distinquish who's responsible for all the wrong mindsets, probably most of the blame rests on FO. I disagree w/ them on a few items but one thing I do agree with the management is to give the players plenty of rest and don't play them when they are hurt or overextended. Many players that have thrived here (recent exs. - Cruz, Rogers & Garver) under those perameters when they go to other teams they fail.

I've criticized Baldelli a lot & think his coaches (Sheldon, Rowson, Johnson etc) deserves the most credit and would prefer all of them over him. But where Baldelli gets the most flack,  is that  he doesnt extend his rotation enough, I think he's overextended his rotation far too much over using long relief.

 

 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

This is the true crux of the matter. It's easy to fire a manager. It's far more difficult to hire one.

I don't see that as the case, at all.  There are a ton of qualified candidates to sift through.  Start with 30 bench coaches, each of whom believes he deserves a promotion, and each of whom has been vetted to one degree or another by their current team.  30 AAA managers, likewise.  A bunch of over-qualified batting coaches and pitching coaches.

If the aim is to identify the next Walter Alston or Bobby Cox who wins year in and year out, well, that's the task that is difficult, and we haven't done that with the incumbent either.  But you don't have to have one of those, to win a pennant or two, and then move on to the next candidate when that one wears out his welcome.

The disconnect here is that most seem to see a manager as an unchanging entity, and I see managers as mainly of short-term value and duration.  It's great if you find a keeper for a decade, but those talents are rare and difficult to detect except by trying them.

[dxpavelka]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:44 AM, chpettit19 said:

If there's a Francona level manager that they could get here instead I'd move on from Rocco in a heartbeat. I don't consider Maddon to be on that level any longer, and don't think there are any of those guys available right now.

If the FO gets the feeling that Rocco has maxed out what he can do with the roster they should move on. Have no idea what their feelings about that are, but if they feel that now they should've fired him mid-season to try to salvage 2022 and not wait until the offseason.

I'll be ok with whatever they decide to do with Rocco, but I'd like to see someone who doesn't seem to be so inline with the FO in the clubhouse/dugout. I have no insider info, but it feels like they all seem to view things darn near the exact same way and I think that hinders creativity and the ability to adjust on the fly. If they're in as much of lockstep as it feels I'd like them to move on to someone who will push back more, but don't expect them to.

Overall I think Rocco is just another manager. Nothing great, nothing awful. And I think that's pretty much 95% of managers so I don't see it as that huge of a thing if they keep him or not as the next guy likely won't do anything to significantly raise the level of performance on his own. I just don't think managers have that type of influence on Ws and Ls.

Even if there were a Francona level manager available or even if you liked Maddon it wouldn't matter cuz this FO would never go in that direction.  They'd simply bring in Rocco 2.0

[LastOnePicked]

2 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

So if you think Baldelli should be fired, that's fine. But it's an empty opinion unless you have a specific replacement in mind

Absolutely not. The thread calls for opinions on Rocco's future here. Every opinion on whether he should stay or go has equal value and weight. It is never a fan's job to find a replacement manager - it is the fan's job to clarify what is and is not acceptable in terms of performance. Many here think this team's performance over the recent postseason and the last two years is acceptable. I and others do not agree. I believe that if you don't expect and demand better from an organization, you rarely ever get it.

[Squirrel]

48 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I don't see that as the case, at all.  There are a ton of qualified candidates to sift through.  Start with 30 bench coaches, each of whom believes he deserves a promotion, and each of whom has been vetted to one degree or another by their current team.  30 AAA managers, likewise.  A bunch of over-qualified batting coaches and pitching coaches.

If the aim is to identify the next Walter Alston or Bobby Cox who wins year in and year out, well, that's the task that is difficult, and we haven't done that with the incumbent either.  But you don't have to have one of those, to win a pennant or two, and then move on to the next candidate when that one wears out his welcome.

The disconnect here is that most seem to see a manager as an unchanging entity, and I see managers as mainly of short-term value and duration.  It's great if you find a keeper for a decade, but those talents are rare and difficult to detect except by trying them.

I don’t think that’s what people think at all. I think the disconnect is in not realizing if not Baldelli, it will be someone who manages very similarly. I don’t think a change in manager means a change in philosophy. Most seem to want a manager who manages the way managers did 20-30 years ago, for a game they long for that isn’t really where the game is today. When Baldelli was hired, the one point that was made was how there was a similar mindset as the FO, that they all were of one mind. My post, which was quoted by the poster you quoted, didn’t capture that part of my comment. I don’t want someone’s list of who, because of course there are options out there, but the realization that seems to be missing, and the actual disconnect, isn’t that most think the manager is an unchanging entity, but that with this FO, we will likely get someone who manages very similarly. I further said, that I don’t think it matters greatly, and that I won’t be surprised if he stays or if he goes. Your comment almost implies that change for change’s sake is a good thing. Not sure that I agree with that, but change can be good, if it’s the right change.

[Squirrel]

31 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

Absolutely not. The thread calls for opinions on Rocco's future here. Every opinion on whether he should stay or go has equal value and weight. It is never a fan's job to find a replacement manager - it is the fan's job to clarify what is and is not acceptable in terms of performance. Many here think this team's performance over the recent postseason and the last two years is acceptable. I and others do not agree. I believe that if you don't expect and demand better from an organization, you rarely ever get it.

I don’t think that’s correct at all. I don’t know anyone who thinks our performance in the recent post seasons is acceptable. I haven’t found it acceptable since we beat the A’s in 2002. And most every time it was because of what the FO didn’t provide, or the players under-performing, and it’s still the case. I also don’t think a different manager necessarily brings different results. And I think everyone wants better, we just have different opinions how to get there. Just because some of us aren’t calling for Baldelli’s head doesn’t mean we don’t want better and thinks our post season play is acceptable. I want the FO to actually put together a shut down BP. I said that at the beginning of the season, that their inaction on that front wasn’t good, and it wasn’t. But I still want the Twins to win regardless of their weaknesses. I still want them to get to the playoffs even if they are gone after the 1st round. Doesn’t mean I find it acceptable. It means I still want them to win regardless. But I also don’t think Baldelli impacts that much of a difference. The players still have to perform

[Mark G]

14 hours ago, DocBauer said:

Going to try and say all of my thoughts clearly and succinctly, even though they might not be popular. And for MY thoughts, I have to at least touch on the FO because I think they are tied to Rocco.

I largely love and support most everything the FO has done since day one in regard to drafts and the entire revamp of the milb system. I think they've mostly made very smart trades. But I've been critical when they've made mistakes, IMO. And without re-visiting this past offseason, I didn't hate the Bundy signing, but really didn't like the Archer signing. I really liked the idea of Cueto. That's been proven to be an error. I love the Gray trade, and the trade acquisitions. I hated not brining in a RH bat and trusting in Celestino. And I really like the potential of Celestino, but I wanted someone more experienced/proven. And I absolutely hated NOT adding a proven pen arm! All of this to say....

...Rocco has had to deal with the roster presented to him and do the best he can. So, bullet points:

1] Injuries have been extremely detrimental to the club. I just don't see how that can be argued. We can forever discuss Paddack...who might turn out great in the long run...but Winder, AK, Larnach, etc, the injuries have just compiled. Ever think, for a moment, that losing Garlick would be major? He filled a certain role. Depth became obliterated in late June, early July. I mean, Sands of all people was actually looking like a potential middle inning arm and gets hit on the arm by a hard liner. What happens next? When Cave is your 7th or 8th OF, how do you even construct a viable lineup?

2] The idea of just trusting in the pen on the cheap is smart if you can do it right. But ONE addition just wasn't smart! Now, it's nobody's fault that Alcala was injured. But it IS someone's fault that Pagan was allowed to turn a potential 8-10 game lead was turned in to a 2-3 game lead. Is that on Rocco or stubbornness from the FO? And while I have disagreed at times with Rocco's choices, he can only deal with what he has on hand.

3] Managing the TEAM on a daily basis is where I have issues with Rocco. I can question a few pen moves here and there, but he might be way more right than I am. But some silly base running and defensive miscues here and there make me wonder about concentrating on the basics. It's one thing to be a player's manager, but it's another thing....especially being a former player...to NOT work on the basics and drill things in to your players to do just do things right! Is that so much to ask?

4] We can talk all day about stretching SP out. The game has changed. Late in the season, Rocco has been clear about allowing opportunity to do so. But the pitchers have to respond! Is "saving" arms worthwhile? Is that on Rocco or the FO? I understand Archer being limited and Ryan as a rookie, but is there a point earlier in the season to bridge the gap? I suppose it goes back to the pen again.

5] Rocco is a former player, and young enough to remember what it's like to play the game. And he's actually done a few more bunts and such to try and make things happen. But when you are the worst team in baseball at advancing runners from 2B with less than 2 outs, why don't you try something different? Is Leon the ONLY bunter on the team? 

6] HATE my opinion or not, I think the FO and Rocco are still "learning on the job". The FO has rebuilt the system the system, but are still in the "oh crap, we we need to look at THIS as a mistake. And Rocco needs to trust in himself more as a former player to just trust his gut as that former player to stick with a pitcher earlier in the year, or bunt to move a runner when the offense is struggling, or hit and run, etc. 

I think the best thing Rocco can do is quit being a "manager" every once in a while and just remember what it's like to be a "ballplayer". DRILL your team once in a while. You often win due to the small things. If you don't like the team you've been given, then have the guts to tell the FO what you need! It took until late July  before he stated he wanted some long relief options. Duh! Is that on Rocco or the FO?

Rocco is going nowhere for 2023. Again, as much as nobody wants to hear it, I think Rocco and the FO are learning and growing together. And if they can take everything they've seen in 2022, they have  an opportunity to build a great 2023. The FO has an opportunity to add. Rocco has the opportunity to grow from everything from pitching handling to lineups and approach. That doesn't happen? Changes will have to be made.

 

 

Agree with you on quite a bit, but I do have one beef:  no major league manager should learn "on the job".  No FO either.  We brought this FO in because they were supposed to have been successful in other organizations, and at the major league level.  They certainly shouldn't be learning on the job; they have had 6 years here alone.  And Rocco has now had 4 (almost).  The on the job training should have ended long ago.  And Rocco should never have been hired in the first place, one could argue.  The major league level is NOT the place to get your feet wet in this job.  He should have been managing in the minors first, like Toby and Doug have.  If you prove yourself you get moved up.  So the grand experiment moving a bench coach to a major league managerial job is what we are seeing in real time.  This article was designed to get us thinking has it worked or not?  And we are seeing a lot of thoughts; good thoughts all around.  I have said before, and say again, that a managers sole......SOLE job is to get the most out of the players he is given to work with.  Has he done that?  This year or in the past?  IMHO he has not the last two years.  And I do not believe he has what it takes to change and adapt, so I do not believe he will in the future.  Hence, we should look for someone who would do better.  But that is one man's opinion, and the FO stopped taking my calls a while back, so my opinion hasn't registered with them.    

[Squirrel]

6 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Doug

Who? Meintkiewicz? Who is no longer in baseball anywhere? 

[Mike Sixel]

32 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I don’t think that’s what people think at all. I think the disconnect is in not realizing if not Baldelli, it will be someone who manages very similarly. I don’t think a change in manager means a change in philosophy. Most seem to want a manager who manages the way managers did 20-30 years ago, for a game they long for that isn’t really where the game is today. When Baldelli was hired, the one point that was made was how there was a similar mindset as the FO, that they all were of one mind. My post, which was quoted by the poster you quoted, didn’t capture that part of my comment. I don’t want someone’s list of who, because of course there are options out there, but the realization that seems to be missing, and the actual disconnect, isn’t that most think the manager is an unchanging entity, but that with this FO, we will likely get someone who manages very similarly. I further said, that I don’t think it matters greatly, and that I won’t be surprised if he stays or if he goes. Your comment almost implies that change for change’s sake is a good thing. Not sure that I agree with that, but change can be good, if it’s the right change.

This. Plus, even if they bring in a new FO, the game has changed. No one is going to run a team like it was thirty years ago. 

[ashbury]

40 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Your comment almost implies that change for change’s sake is a good thing.

 

30 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I don’t think that’s correct at all. I don’t know anyone who thinks our performance in the recent post seasons is acceptable. I haven’t found it acceptable since we beat the A’s in 2002. And most every time it was because of what the FO didn’t provide, and it’s still the case.

No, I wouldn't say that change for change’s sake is a good thing.  But sometimes change is called for, and that is how I see it this time around; the team is underperforming its talent level two years running.  And I wouldn't replace a low-wattage manager with one similar in that regard.  So, when Jayce Tingler was brought in, presumably compatibility with Rocco was a criterion, but when replacing Rocco that would not be a good criterion at all, even if Tingler might be a fine candidate in a different scenario.  Clearly a new manager will have to be comfortable with the FO's analytic principles, but that doesn't mean all such candidates are of the calm, cool and collected persuasion.

As for what the FO has or hasn't provided, I said earlier that my remarks here are purposely independent of the FO's right to continue in their own jobs, but I'll go ahead and stick one foot down that rabbit hole.  Not quite stated is that, if I were in their shoes, I'd be looking to make a change of manager simply to buy a year or two of time for myself.  If I were in the shoes of those above them, a change this off-season might be on the table; they are now approaching 6 years into whatever internal 5-year plan for Sustainable Success they agreed upon.

[LA VIkes Fan]

20 hours ago, Mark G said:

Depends on the readers.    

I don't think anyone is arguing about his knowledge of the game, but that simply isn't enough.  Molitor knows a crap ton more about the game than all of us combined, and he got fired a year after being named MOY.  The manager's job is to get the most out of the talent he is given to work with.  That's it.  So the question boils down to: has Rocco gotten the most out of the players he has been given to work with?  It's easy to say yes when they are hitting 307 home runs, but the last two seasons a good argument can be made he has not.  That falls on him; it is part of the job, and every manager knows it.  If the pattern continues, he has to go, but I don't think that will be this year.  

This. I have a longer post on the subject but I think a fair reading is that Rocco got as much or more out of the 2109 and 2020 teams as they had, but less than the 2021 team had to offer. This year is a little tougher to read because of all of the injuries and because the season isn't over yet. He's made mistakes for sure starting with his usage of Pagan, his refusal/failure to play small ball when needed like in 10th innings, and his failure up until now to employ a long man out of the bullpen. He's also gotten more out of Bundy than we could ever have imagined, presided over significant development of Miranda, Gordon, Ryan, and even Celestino, and kept a flawed team in the race when it had plenty of opportunities to completely melt down. Lots to dislike but also lots to like. 

The real question is how has this year's team performed versus its talent level?  If completely healthy with only the normal amount of injuries, I think this team should win 87-94 games and win this division. The problem is the Twins are far from completely healthy and have had a lot more than the normal amount of injuries.  With the guys we actually now have, this team has the look and feel of a 82-86 win team. Let's see where we land and then evaluate Rocco. Having said that, he really should be managing for his job over these last 40 games. 

[Squirrel]

20 minutes ago, ashbury said:

 

No, I wouldn't say that change for change’s sake is a good thing.  But sometimes change is called for, and that is how I see it this time around; the team is underperforming its talent level two years running.  And I wouldn't replace a low-wattage manager with one similar in that regard.  So, when Jayce Tingler was brought in, presumably compatibility with Rocco was a criterion, but when replacing Rocco that would not be a good criterion at all, even if Tingler might be a fine candidate in a different scenario.  Clearly a new manager will have to be comfortable with the FO's analytic principles, but that doesn't mean all such candidates are of the calm, cool and collected persuasion.

As for what the FO has or hasn't provided, I said earlier that my remarks here are purposely independent of the FO's right to continue in their own jobs, but I'll go ahead and stick one foot down that rabbit hole.  Not quite stated is that, if I were in their shoes, I'd be looking to make a change of manager simply to buy a year or two of time for myself.  If I were in the shoes of those above them, a change this off-season might be on the table; they are now approaching 6 years into whatever internal 5-year plan for Sustainable Success they agreed upon.

All fair. As I said, change can be good, too, but I don’t think the FO replaces Rocco with the change you think is needed. That was my point. And that is where I think the disconnect lies

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't think Rocco will be fired unless the rest of the season goes catastrophically bad, like a 10 game under .500 finish.

But if the Twins end the season at .500, should he be fired? I'm not sure. I probably lean toward "no" but it's not an easy decision.

Should the Twins finish the season strongly, he stays on for next year. It's a no-brainer at that point.

[ashbury]

2 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

All fair. As I said, change can be good, too, but I don’t think the FO replaces Rocco with the change you think is needed. That was my point. And that is where I think the disconnect lies

Okay, but the original post wasn't what the FO would or will do.  It asked, should Rocco Baldelli remain at the helm of the Twins after this season?  I, personally, would make the change, based on present status.  As is abundantly pointed by others, there still are 38 games remaining, for a miracle finish that might change my mind.

[Squirrel]

2 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Okay, but the original post wasn't what the FO would or will do.  It asked, should Rocco Baldelli remain at the helm of the Twins after this season?  I, personally, would make the change, based on present status.  As is abundantly pointed by others, there still are 38 games remaining, for a miracle finish that might change my mind.

And my opinion was, I don't think it matters and I won't be surprised either way ... not sure why that isn't an opinion that is acceptable. And many posters here were talking about needing someone 'different', who would make different decisions ... fair opinion ... but my counter is, I don't think that if Rocco goes, the replacement will be all that different and that the change called for by some will end up disappointing. I get that *you* would do something differently, but I don't think that's what happens and we aren't asking what either of us would do, but what we think his future is. And, again, I'm not invested either way because I think we will end up with the same.

[Nine of twelve]

3 hours ago, ashbury said:

 

The disconnect here is that most seem to see a manager as an unchanging entity, and I see managers as mainly of short-term value and duration.  It's great if you find a keeper for a decade, but those talents are rare and difficult to detect except by trying them.

Why would you want a manager who is of only short-term value? We Twins fans may have a slanted perspective on this with TK and Gardy having relatively long tenures, but as for me if I were hiring a manager I'd try to get someone who has potential to do a good job running the team for a decade or two. Terry Francona comes to mind. Boston let him go as a knee-jerk reaction and Cleveland swooped in and set themselves up for the long term. Finding someone like that should be the goal.

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Who? Meintkiewicz? Who is no longer in baseball anywhere? 

That's my Doug.  He was a good minor league manager, so I read, but was let go at the end of the '19 season.  There was no '20 minor league season, so it would have been tough to catch on somewhere else, and he hasn't yet.  Not sure why.

I'm just as not sure what that had to do with the idea that managers should manage before they are thrown into a major league dugout, in charge of the team and the coaching staff.  Maybe, just maybe, if Rocco had had minor league experience, especially with the kids coming up to the major league club, he would have had a much better feel for their abilities and how managing a club and staff works.  It might, jut might, have made him a better manager.  Just my extremely humble opinion.  

Just as an aside, I have read more than once that Molitor and Meintkiewicz were the finalists for the job after Gardy.  Doug was being considered for that very reason, that he had worked with the kids as they were coming up and had a good feel for their talents.  They eventually went with Molitor, and the rest is history.  Should they have gone with Doug?  We will never know.    For that matter, if Rocco were to go, should they go with Toby?  He knows half the team from having managed them already and has experience running a team and a staff.  Just thinking out loud.  

[jorgenswest]

Baldelli is a good manager. It might be wise to fire him in hopes of finding great but I think it is more likely they find mediocre.

[DocBauer]

2 hours ago, Mark G said:

 

Agree with you on quite a bit, but I do have one beef:  no major league manager should learn "on the job".  No FO either.  We brought this FO in because they were supposed to have been successful in other organizations, and at the major league level.  They certainly shouldn't be learning on the job; they have had 6 years here alone.  And Rocco has now had 4 (almost).  The on the job training should have ended long ago.  And Rocco should never have been hired in the first place, one could argue.  The major league level is NOT the place to get your feet wet in this job.  He should have been managing in the minors first, like Toby and Doug have.  If you prove yourself you get moved up.  So the grand experiment moving a bench coach to a major league managerial job is what we are seeing in real time.  This article was designed to get us thinking has it worked or not?  And we are seeing a lot of thoughts; good thoughts all around.  I have said before, and say again, that a managers sole......SOLE job is to get the most out of the players he is given to work with.  Has he done that?  This year or in the past?  IMHO he has not the last two years.  And I do not believe he has what it takes to change and adapt, so I do not believe he will in the future.  Hence, we should look for someone who would do better.  But that is one man's opinion, and the FO stopped taking my calls a while back, so my opinion hasn't registered with them.    

I don't disagree with anything you said. But to clarify, I think any first time manager will learn and adapt as things move along. If he can't learn and grow and adapt, then he shouldn't keep his job. If something doesn't work the way you intended, then you adapt and change. When you are hit with massive injuries, you also need to try something different. And that applies to the FO as well. If one approach...say too many short arms in the pen but no middle/long relief options, you crumple up the previous plan, toss it away, and change your approach.

So I think it's fair to say Rocco and the FO are still "learning as they go" and adapting. Neither has been in their exact roles before, so despite lots of good things done, not everything has worked right, so you learn, grow, and adapt. Now, I they can't or won't do that, then they shouldn't be in charge. And I guess that's more of what I meant to say.

[DocBauer]

Just to add to my previous rather lengthy post, after some more reflection, what frustrates me a tremendous amount is two things;

1] For a team that is so analytical, how can they not see that they are the best in MLB at getting a runner in from 3rd with less than 2 outs, but at the bottom of the pack advancing or scoring runners from 2B with less than 2 outs. Is that on Rocco? The hitting coach? The players? It's maddening! Other than Miranda and Arraez, nobody is "clutch" in those scenarios. You can't overcome injuries at a certain point. But when do you try something different in hopes of trying to at least scratch out a run? And how can this team, at least a month ago, tee off on SP but be so bad against bullpens? Rocco has commented before about great scouting reports that just seem to be wasted at times. Is that on him, his staff, or the players?

2] No insult to him, but the Twins brought up Beckham as an "emergency" RH bat. He's a veteran and was having a great season in St Paul. But he was a square peg for a round hole. If you're going to add someone to the roster, why not the much younger Hellman, having his best season, who can actually fill a needed role as a RH OF? Maybe, maybe Pagan actually finds a successful role as a solid middle guy. But really, he should have been gone a month ago based on just how bad he's been. Almost anyone could have been as bad, hopefully better, but at least you'd be looking at upside. Now, is that Rocco or the FO?

When decimated by injury, even depth pieces injured, there is only so much you can do as a manager. When you're having to play roulette in the rotation and OF, I'm not sure what to expect or who to blame. 

I'm not happy with some fundamental errors I see. I'm not happy with a few pitching moves here and there. I'm not happy with not trying some different things from the lineup during games. But I also think Rocco has been playing poker with a short hand. I do see him back barring a complete collapse this season. But I do believe he's potentially on the hot seat in 2023 if we don't see more production out of the team he should have in place.

[mikelink45]

The FO is from Cleveland, he will continue for as long as they are in charge.  I see not change coming. 

[Squirrel]

Let's stay on topic. We aren't talking about Mientkiewicz let alone bringing up hearsay issues where he is concerned. He is no longer in baseball. Wanting a manager in the major leagues who has managerial experience is a legitimate suggestion, but let's not take the thread off topic talking about Mientkiewicz.

[Bradfoot]

Comparing this season to what preseason expectation were, I would say this is pretty much what we should have been expecting.   Fangraphs had a preseason prediction of 82 Wins for the Twins and a 40.4% chance of making the playoffs.  Pretty much right on the nose with where we are now.  That would still be a 9 game improvement from last season.

[SanoMustGo]

17 minutes ago, Bradfoot said:

Comparing this season to what preseason expectation were, I would say this is pretty much what we should have been expecting.   Fangraphs had a preseason prediction of 82 Wins for the Twins and a 40.4% chance of making the playoffs.  Pretty much right on the nose with where we are now.  That would still be a 9 game improvement from last season.

Yes, but unless the trend over the last 80+ games changes, they won't win 82 games, more like 76-78.  Not all the manager's fault, but I think his seat should be warm starting next season.

[USAFChief]

After watching Megill slog through a 2nd inning in the 9th, changing a 1-0 deficit to 2-0, while Duran and Lopez spit sunflower seeds in the bullpen, I've made up my mind. 

Fire him. Tonight.

[einkleinerknabe]

Will Baldelli be fired after this season? Very unlikely.

Should Baldelli be fired? I wouldn't miss him. I'm not a fan of his management of the pitching staff, but I blame the front office for the team's situation more than I do Baldelli.

However, if ownership or the front office wants to show fans that they are doing something to right the ship, replacing the manager is a lot cheaper than signing high profile free agents.

[Mike h]

The reason Baldelli stays is because he and the FO are tight, from what I've heard. Apparently they think alike. Which in any employer/employee relationship is usually desired.  So firing Baldelli would be an indictment on the FO themselves. Instead, I can see them blaming and firing all the coaches if the Twins don't win the division.

The reason Baldelli goes is because you can't can't fire the whole team, as the expression goes. This team seems to lack passion or a will to win, IMO. The team is looking for someone to inspire them, to lead them....could that be.....a manager?

Is there, or could there be, a stat to measure wins above replacement level for a manager? (OMG, why do I ask that? I HATE those kind of stats!) But maybe there might be some value in quantifying the moves/non-moves a manager makes. Then our subjective opinions wouldn't mean so much.

Final thought: IMO, a manager does very little to contribute to a win, but can do a lot to cause a loss. So successful managing basically means just don't mess up.  An example of what I mean is if a situation calls for a pinch hitter, who comes in and delivers a hit, who gets the credit, the player or the manager? But if no PH was inserted, who gets the blame? Or when a struggling pitcher is left in the game and gets out of the jam, who gets the credit? The pitcher of course. But if the pitcher falters, who gets the blame? The manager, for not pulling him. 

If I am interviewing for a manager at I'd look for one with a crystal ball.

[Bradfoot]

11 hours ago, SanoMustGo said:

Yes, but unless the trend over the last 80+ games changes, they won't win 82 games, more like 76-78.  Not all the manager's fault, but I think his seat should be warm starting next season.

It remains to be seen how the season will finish, a lot of games left against the Central division where we have a 30-20 record (13-11 since June 1st).  

 

But my overall point being that the Twins have largely outperformed the expectations up until now.  Instead of placing blame, it might be better to just realize that this was always a roughly .500 caliber team.

[Rosterman]

Rocco and his coaching staff, as well as the remake of the entire Twins minor league system, is an extension of the front office.

They are trying to do soemthing different than the norm. All the pieces have yet to gel. How much more time do they ALL get is the question.

Alot of collegiate-style coaching, heavy analytics, trying to second guess playing with strengths only rather than just playing...baseball.

You have more coahces than ever before, even in the minors. A great development staff idea, but the names aren't staying around for some reason.

Still a work in progress. I'm hoping this season ends on a very positive note. SHattered with injuries (10+ guys on the 60-day is wild........).

[Squirrel]

22 minutes ago, Rosterman said:

Rocco and his coaching staff, as well as the remake of the entire Twins minor league system, is an extension of the front office.

They are trying to do soemthing different than the norm. All the pieces have yet to gel. How much more time do they ALL get is the question.

Alot of collegiate-style coaching, heavy analytics, trying to second guess playing with strengths only rather than just playing...baseball.

You have more coahces than ever before, even in the minors. A great development staff idea, but the names aren't staying around for some reason.

Still a work in progress. I'm hoping this season ends on a very positive note. SHattered with injuries (10+ guys on the 60-day is wild........).

What norm are they going against? What the Twins were before, or all of MLB? If the former, agree to a point. It takes a while to get all the internals working as you want when it's a complete overhaul, but I'd like to see better than .500-ish teams at this point, but certainly going forward. For me, it's not the manager, but the FO and roster construction. But if the latter, I guess I don't agree that we are going against the norms ... I see us as catching up to the norms and maybe trying a thing or two differently, but they are mostly within the norms of other teams.