Gardy wants to win games. He wants to put people on the field who have shown they belong there. He has been around long enough to know that no matter how talented they appear in the minor leagues, some players don't adjust immediately to the major leagues. And even if they do eventually adjust, it can take several years. That isn't going to do him any good in the next two months when he is trying to win a pennant.

Given that the Twins have Garza, Baker and Bonser in the rotation and Slowey as the only real backup its not surprising that Gardy is nervous about his starting pitching. None of those guys have really demonstrated they can adjust to pitching in the major leagues. There is a good possibility that one or more of them will take another year to get there.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason that so many coaches pine for veterans (and this includes Rick Anderson, BTW) is that they've just less work and worry.  If a veteran struggles, you might help them, or you might just let them work it out, because "they're a veteran".  

But you have to work with kids, because you feel responsible for their success.  And the stakes with the kids are higher, and I don't mean just for the team.  I mean for the kids personally.  A veteran has had his time, made his money.  A kid is on the cusp of a dream, so the coaching takes on a lot more importance, and the worrying goes to a higher level.

That's not an excuse, but I suspect it's the same everywhere.  My experience in the business world is certainly similar.  Imagine these choices:

a)  a somewhat competent person with 10 years of experience in a technology who may not embarass themselves but isn't likely to shine or
b)  a really, really bright college grad who has little experience with the technology but could eventually become a star developer.  

A manager will choose 'a' 90% of the time.  Pesonally, I think it's usually the wrong choice, but I can understand it, because 'b' is a probably a little more risk and certainly a LOT more work.  The performance long-term is harder to embrace, while the immediate trials are right in the manager's face.  

So while I agree that the comment is pretty ludicrous, I don't think it's probably the same thought that the majority of managers have, both in baseball and outside of it.  

.  Pesonally, I think it's usually the wrong choice,

I wonder if you would feel that way if you were the customer who was the victim of the young person's "learning experience". Or the boss of the manager who failed to deliver.

In the real world people are hired and paid for what they can produce right now. You hire bright people, give them a job they can handle, and then move them to more difficult tasks as they gain the experience needed to be successful at them. There is no minor leagues.

With an oldster, you often got a track record. If they wish to keep their job, they know they have to develop new tricks, try harder, learn. If not, they get truly bypassed. If they don't want to listen to someone who could supposedly extend their career, you can quit, and often can afford to do so if willing to find the job that will allow you to operate in a manner you are accustomed to operating.

The youngster is full of himself and wants to succeed. Often, if you are in a competitive environment, you already can consider yourslef one of the better of the best. The secret in abseball is that you have to have a system on-line that will develop talent consistently and thru a process that won't create conflict.

If there is conflict in baseball, it is often moving someone thru a system too fast, which often has an upside as you see what your competition is ahead of you and can compensate. But then you always run the risk of feeling failure if you go backwards.

Garza is a perfect example. He went thru the system fast. He's good, but far from the step off the college pitching mound into the majors good. Some of it is also growing up. These are young guys who suddenly ahd a lot of $$$ thrust in their direction, are facing responsibilities like living away from home and family and travelling, and feeling a need to produce.

Slowey is another example. He ahs progressed fast, and now takes a step back and has to refine. I think he'll be doing just fine and will pitch somewhere in the majors for a long time, if not with the Twins.

Matt Moses is an example of someone who is being pushed just a tad harder that his abilities, to see if he can meet the challenge. But rather than think of it as a step back, you have to keep working (and listening) to the coaches.

I keep thinking of Pat Neshek, who was going gangbusters at New Britain and then was shipped abckwards to Ft. Myers a few years back, given the excuse that it would give him more time to work on closing skills as the Twins ahd to give time to a higher rated prospect at AA New Britain. Sure, Pat would rather be an AA middle relief guy than an a-ball closer, but it wasn't a matter of skills, just pecking order, which is something you also have toa dapt to.

Like when you apply for a job and someone else gets it. It doesn't mean they are betetr than you, just that maybe they fulfill some hidden agenda of the company(single with more time or cheaper or the company sees them as fast tracking in the company system). Hey, you may be willing to work overtime, take a pay cut, and want to work until your dying day with the company, but you can't expect the company to be looking out for you when they have their own agenda.

Part of the Twins problem right now is that they wish to win and continue to win and somehow they feel they can't do that with more than one or two rookies on the payroll. If this was a club battling Kansas City for the cellar, you'd see them running out the freshmen and sophs bigtime.

I think that's wrong, that you can open the season with up to two rookies in the line-up and at least three in the pitching staff (including bullpen) and work in a couple more during the year, if the talent is there. And still win, if the talent is there.

Mike Pelfrey, drafted number 9 the same year Garza was drafted, started last season in the FSL the same as Garza.

Brian Bogusevic, drafted immediately before Garza, ended last season in the low A Sally league.

Jacob Marceaux the next college starter selected after Garza started and ended last year in the FSL after starting his first year in the short-season New York-Penn league.

I don't think the Twins have been particularly conservative. About half the college starters taken in the first round in 2005 have reached AAA. Players who jump two levels, much less three like Garza, are rare in most systems.

Garza is also a rare pitcher and a much brighter young star than those others.

Apparently not in the eyes of most of the teams in baseball since they skipped over him in the first round of the draft. For instance, Pelfrey and Bougusevic were both drafted ahead of Garza.

Perhaps if the Twins had started him in high A ball, he would never have developed into the prospect he has. Did they treat him "conservatively" or did they put him in a position where he could have success? I think the latter.