PDA

View Full Version : Mackey: Twins owner has '100% confidence' in Gardenhire and Ryan



Parker Hageman
05-07-2012, 11:04 PM
1500ESPN.com's Phil Mackey (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Twins_owner_has_100_percent_confidence_in_Terry_Ry an_Ron_Gardenhire050712) reported that Twins owner Jim Pohlad was on the field pre-game before the Twins/Angels contest. In response to the recent requests for the firings of many staffers, the owner said:



"If we play the next 20 percent (of our games) the opposite we'll be at .500," Pohlad said. "So yes, the season is technically salvagable. ... But I suppose (calling for someone's job) would be the natural (reaction) for somebody who's not really part of the organization might say. A frustrated fan might say that."


You have to respect the owner's loyalty to his staff but you have to wonder, is it merited?

USAFChief
05-07-2012, 11:34 PM
That Pohlad even felt the need to express a dreaded vote of confidence is pretty telling in and of itself. Unless the season turns around dramatically, there are going to be more and more questions from the media, coupled with a higher and higher level of poutrage from the fan base, multiplied by empty seats at TF. It's ugly and growing uglier by the day.

righty8383
05-07-2012, 11:47 PM
That Pohlad even felt the need to express a dreaded vote of confidence is pretty telling in and of itself. Unless the season turns around dramatically, there are going to be more and more questions from the media, coupled with a higher and higher level of poutrage from the fan base, multiplied by empty seats at TF. It's ugly and growing uglier by the day.
Yes, yes and yes...its like you stole the words right out of my mouth. Or should I say keyboard.

Riverbrian
05-07-2012, 11:47 PM
I'm not a Gardy hater. I thank him for the Central Titles. He's a Twin and always will be. However, Gardy won't survive the year (or at least off season) and I have gut feeling that TR will be against a manager change and will leave on good terms as a secondary result of Gardy.

Thrylos you get can get ready to celebrate.

I won't be celebrating cuz I'm not anti.

The franchise has fallen and it will take change to resurrect it.

adjacent
05-07-2012, 11:56 PM
Yep, I am reading the same. When they say that you have all their confidence... is because you don't. It would be unfortunate that Gardy's tenure ended this way, but then, it is the nature of their jobs.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 01:15 AM
They don't call it THE DREADED VOTE OF CONFIDENCE for nothing. I'd like to believe it is what it is but I'd also like to believe it is what isn't....but I can't. Hard times for sure.

Montecore
05-08-2012, 01:57 AM
I'm not a Gardy hater. I thank him for the Central Titles. He's a Twin and always will be. However, Gardy won't survive the year (or at least off season) and I have gut feeling that TR will be against a manager change and will leave on good terms as a secondary result of Gardy.

Thrylos you get can get ready to celebrate.

I won't be celebrating cuz I'm not anti.

The franchise has fallen and it will take change to resurrect it.
Good. Been a good, loyal Twins fan a long time and I was a pretty good to very good Florida State player more than a few moons ago. I understood that TK had to move on, but over the years just got fed up with Gardenhire's monotonous stubbornness, luv of gritty subpar players and constant failure to advance in the numerous playoff chances. He just has always struck me as a bumptious near-idiot. Thought they should have bounced him five years ago. 7-21 coming off a 99 loss seaaon. They won't play for this man and why should they have to for another day?

one_eyed_jack
05-08-2012, 05:04 AM
Many a firing has come shortly after a "vote of confidence".

I've always been a Gardy supporter, but I think both he and the Twins could benefit from a change. I would be surprised if it happened during the season. There's no reason to do that unless there's a particular replacement you have in mind and you want to grab him before someone lese does.

A managerial change to save this season would be silly. That's like entering the Daytona 500 with a '73 Dodge Dart and thinking that changing drivers after a few laps will give you a chance to win.


I see a mutual parting of the ways at season's end.

gunnarthor
05-08-2012, 09:20 AM
I don't know if it's as big a deal as some think but if we finish with 120+ losses, sure, Gardy's probably gone. But I'd be pretty surprised if we did anything during the season and I think if Gardy goes, Ryan is probably gone, too.

Thrylos
05-08-2012, 09:40 AM
1500ESPN.com's Phil Mackey (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Twins_owner_has_100_percent_confidence_in_Terry_Ry an_Ron_Gardenhire050712) reported that Twins owner Jim Pohlad was on the field pre-game before the Twins/Angels contest. In response to the recent requests for the firings of many staffers, the owner said:

You have to respect the owner's loyalty to his staff but you have to wonder, is it merited?

When I heard what Pohlad said, I remembered something and double-checked with Mackey and he confirmed it over twitter, and you can check the conversation here, (https://twitter.com/#!/thrylos98/status/199635396559257600) if you care: Pohlad said that he had 100% conference on Bill Smith a bit before he fired him... So this is really not good news for the manager and the interim GM




I'm not a Gardy hater. I thank him for the Central Titles. He's a Twin and always will be. However, Gardy won't survive the year (or at least off season) and I have gut feeling that TR will be against a manager change and will leave on good terms as a secondary result of Gardy.

Thrylos you get can get ready to celebrate.

I won't be celebrating cuz I'm not anti.

The franchise has fallen and it will take change to resurrect it.

Exactly... And I will not be celebrating, until they get a new GM and a manager from outside the organization. This organization has not won a title or being competitive in the post-season for 21 years and this is a long time. Unfortunately, new fans who started following the Twins in the mid to late 90s are calling the recent years a success... It's all about perspective, memories and where you set the bar.

gunnarthor
05-08-2012, 09:52 AM
Exactly... And I will not be celebrating, until they get a new GM and a manager from outside the organization. This organization has not won a title or being competitive in the post-season for 21 years and this is a long time. Unfortunately, new fans who started following the Twins in the mid to late 90s are calling the recent years a success... It's all about perspective, memories and where you set the bar.

Well, if your bar is World Series or bust, no hire is going to make you happy.

And let's put some perspective on this. The Puckett Twins had 4 winning seasons and made the playoffs twice. I'd rather have the Twins last decade then the White Sox last decade. I suppose people can differ but I suspect most fans go away during those losing seasons and come back for the few winning seasons.

Boom Boom
05-08-2012, 09:59 AM
The Kiss of Death.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 10:27 AM
Exactly... And I will not be celebrating, until they get a new GM and a manager from outside the organization. This organization has not won a title or being competitive in the post-season for 21 years and this is a long time. Unfortunately, new fans who started following the Twins in the mid to late 90s are calling the recent years a success... It's all about perspective, memories and where you set the bar.

What bar and perspective are you referring to? I've followed the Twins since 1975 and while '87 and '91 remain the pinnacles of success that does not diminish or change the perspective of what has been accomplished recently. Tom Kelly had 2 winning seasons in the 10 years he managed the Twins after they won in "91, are those the memories you are referring to? They had 2 winning seasons in the 10 years prior to winning in '87, are those the memories you cherish? In the 10 years since Ron Gardenhire took over this team they have had 8 winning season out of 10 and finished 1st in their division 6 times.

The World Series will always be the bar for any team that has ever won it but it is not the only indicator of success. In my 27 years of being a fan of this team I have not witnessed a more consistent stretch of quality baseball but I have witnessed baseball just as bad as this, save a few more wins here and there, at that point its semantics.

In my mind winning the World Series as a manager exaggerates your ability, it's about the players at that point, not the manager. Bobby Cox won 1 World Series and 15 division titles,he was a crappy manager because he only managed to win the big one once?

I thank Ron Gardenhire for providing me with them most consistent stretch of winning baseball I have witnessed in 27 years. It's been a lot of fun.

Thrylos
05-08-2012, 11:17 AM
What bar and perspective are you referring to? .

From the bottom to the top, here are the different settings of the bar:

1- Awful - always finishing toward the bottom one of the worse teams in the majors
2- Mediocre - Hovering around .500
3- Competitive - Having a winning record and ocassionally winning divisions
4- Compatitive in the post season - Winning at least a few post season series, making in to the WS
5 - Champion - Winning the World Series.

Believe me, with the Twins being mostly at 1, a lot of people (Including yourself apparently) are happy with being at 2 and 3, like they have been the Gardenhire years. I understand and respect that opinion even though I do not feel the same way. So please understand that some of us are not ok with 2 and 3 and think that this group of people who are running the Twins are complacent and set the bar at 2 and 3 and they can only get there. Some of us want 4 and 5. You don't agree, but at least respect our opinions and perspective. Now that the organization has turned from 2 and 3 more into 1, a lot more people are unhappy... So it is all about perspective and whether you are ok with being a B and C student or you expect As (to give you another analogy)

Boom Boom
05-08-2012, 11:31 AM
In my mind winning the World Series as a manager exaggerates your ability, it's about the players at that point, not the manager. Bobby Cox won 1 World Series and 15 division titles,he was a crappy manager because he only managed to win the big one once?

I thank Ron Gardenhire for providing me with them most consistent stretch of winning baseball I have witnessed in 27 years. It's been a lot of fun.

I think this is where I disagree with you. Gardenhire was a part of those winning teams, sure, but there's a myriad of players you should also be thanking for winning divisions. Gardy himself didn't win divisions, just as Gardy himself didn't lose in the playoffs.

Either the manager has something to do with the outcome of the game, or he doesn't. And if he doesn't, then anybody can manage a playoff team.

Bill Rigney
05-08-2012, 11:58 AM
I keep hearing how the team lacks fire. Is this because Gardy is a "player's manager" who nobody fears? Or is it because the roster lacks an emotional leader who will get in your face when necessary? I keep waiting for a Twins player to take a bat to a Gatorade bucket after yet another loss, but I can't imagine who on this team might have that much emotion. It sure ain't Joe or Justin...

And, am I wrong in blaming Bill Smith for leaving the minor league cupboard bare? I've never seen the Twins with so few prospects.

nicksaviking
05-08-2012, 12:08 PM
Well, if your bar is World Series or bust, no hire is going to make you happy.

And let's put some perspective on this. The Puckett Twins had 4 winning seasons and made the playoffs twice. I'd rather have the Twins last decade then the White Sox last decade. I suppose people can differ but I suspect most fans go away during those losing seasons and come back for the few winning seasons.

But isn't it all about winning the World Series? The White sox did in this past decade. Because of that season they also get to claim resurrection credit for Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" which is probably comparable to winning a second.

JB_Iowa
05-08-2012, 12:10 PM
While I like the idea of the Twins "family", I hate the idea that they seldom bring in anybody new into the management structure. Even in real families, the dynamic changes frequently as members marry, divorceor die and children are born and grow up.

The Twins "family" has just seemed to stagnate to me. When I go back and look at the front office and management staffs, there just isn't much turnover.

And I think that has been part of what led to the current debacle. No one has been brought in with fresh ideas and energy to challenge the everyday thinking.

And, unfortunately, since the dynamics didn't change gradually over time, I think we are now in for a sea change and it won't be pretty but it is necessary.

JB_Iowa
05-08-2012, 12:13 PM
But isn't it all about winning the World Series?

I don't know if it is ALL about winning a world series but I do think it is about going into the post-season with a belief that you CAN win the world series and in performing respectably in the post-season.

drivlikejehu
05-08-2012, 12:15 PM
It's only May and already a dreaded vote of confidence. Gardy is probably going to be fired barring significant improvement. It's not his fault but that's just the way it goes in baseball.

It seemed like the original plan with TR was for him to ultimately pick a new internal successor after Smith's failure, albeit without much of a timeline. Now though I think the timeline has been accelerated and the successor will have to be external. Ryan's input will still be significant but the current situation is not tenable given the state of the organization.

zenser
05-08-2012, 12:18 PM
I think Gardy and the rest of the staff will be gone after the year. Gardy has been good for Minnesota. He has had success. With anything in life, once you achieve something, you want more. As Twins fans, reaching the playoffs is a great goal every season. With the run of division titles they have put together, that is a great accomplishment. But not advancing in the playoffs recently has stung a lot of the fans including myself. We have had the taste of the playoffs but we want more. Unfortunately for Gardy, he and the rest of the staff are still dealing with the mess Bill Smith left us. In the early 2000s when we had the core of Hunter, Koskie, Radke, Pierzynski, and so on, we had Mauer, Morneau, Santana, Bartlett, Garza in the minors at different stretches in the minors so we could see the next wave. The team had a nice bridge between those players. Now, we see Sano, Dozier, Benson, Gibson as the next wave but there is no bridge to get to those guys. That is the fault of the front office and Bill Smith. I think Terry Ryan should stay even if Gardy gets let go or moves on at the end of the year. Terry Ryan has only had a few months to try to fill the void that Bill Smith left us and he has proved in the past to stock our minor league system with future major league players. As unfortunate as it is, we are still stuck with this mess and I think Gardy and the other coaches are aslo going to have to take the fall with Bill Smith.

Did anyone else think it was very optimistic in Pohlads statement that if they play the next 20 percent of the games the opposite they will be at .500? I just don't see this group of guys able to pull of a stretch of 21-7. I am a Twins fan but I am also a realist.

JB_Iowa
05-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Did anyone else think it was very optimistic in Pohlads statement that if they play the next 20 percent of the games the opposite they will be at .500? I just don't see this group of guys able to pull of a stretch of 21-7. I am a Twins fan but I am also a realist.

LOL, I was just going to post on that. I about choked when I read that statement and to think that the owner would actually frame the current situation in that way is laughable.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 12:26 PM
From the bottom to the top, here are the different settings of the bar:

1- Awful - always finishing toward the bottom one of the worse teams in the majors
2- Mediocre - Hovering around .500
3- Competitive - Having a winning record and ocassionally winning divisions
4- Compatitive in the post season - Winning at least a few post season series, making in to the WS
5 - Champion - Winning the World Series.

Believe me, with the Twins being mostly at 1, a lot of people (Including yourself apparently) are happy with being at 2 and 3, like they have been the Gardenhire years. I understand and respect that opinion even though I do not feel the same way. So please understand that some of us are not ok with 2 and 3 and think that this group of people who are running the Twins are complacent and set the bar at 2 and 3 and they can only get there. Some of us want 4 and 5. You don't agree, but at least respect our opinions and perspective. Now that the organization has turned from 2 and 3 more into 1, a lot more people are unhappy... So it is all about perspective and whether you are ok with being a B and C student or you expect As (to give you another analogy)

I respect your opinion and as long as I follow your "perspective" chart, of course I always want to be 5, to suggest any fans desire anything else is patronizing. The Twins have only been 5, twice, when exactly have they been a 4? They've never lost a WS, did I miss something?

Just because this team hasn't had as much post season success as they would have liked does not mean they set the bar at 2-3, that is ridiculous, I'm pretty convinced their goal is to win.

By my math you've been satisfied with the philosophical direction of the team for a combined total of 2 years, most other years prior to 2002 they have been a 1 or 2.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 12:34 PM
I think this is where I disagree with you. Gardenhire was a part of those winning teams, sure, but there's a myriad of players you should also be thanking for winning divisions. Gardy himself didn't win divisions, just as Gardy himself didn't lose in the playoffs.

Either the manager has something to do with the outcome of the game, or he doesn't. And if he doesn't, then anybody can manage a playoff team.

Agreed, it's mainly about the players, as long as we were giving so much blame to the manager I went along with too much credit. I don't believe the manager has that much to do with the outcome of the game once it starts, it's overblown. I'm not saying anyone can manage a playoff team or a regular season team, I'm saying the overall impact from one good manager to the next is negligible and mainly lies with who he has playing for him.

SweetOne69
05-08-2012, 01:09 PM
I respect your opinion and as long as I follow your "perspective" chart, of course I always want to be 5, to suggest any fans desire anything else is patronizing. The Twins have only been 5, twice, when exactly have they been a 4? They've never lost a WS, did I miss something?

Just because this team hasn't had as much post season success as they would have liked does not mean they set the bar at 2-3, that is ridiculous, I'm pretty convinced their goal is to win.

By my math you've been satisfied with the philosophical direction of the team for a combined total of 2 years, most other years prior to 2002 they have been a 1 or 2.

They were a 4 in at least 1965 and 2002

DAM DC Twins Fans
05-08-2012, 01:30 PM
I keep waiting for a Twins player to take a bat to a Gatorade bucket after yet another loss, but I can't imagine who on this team might have that much emotion. It sure ain't Joe or Justin...

And, am I wrong in blaming Bill Smith for leaving the minor league cupboard bare? I've never seen the Twins with so few prospects.

Amen to that. Where is the player who would stir up this team like Cuddyer, Torii or Thome?? This should be Mauer. Maybe it will be Dozier. Somebody has to do it.

As to the current situation--we need to blame whoever has been making draft picks since 2005 or so. Unless I am missing somebody, our high draft picks over the last half dozen years are not in the majors and are not comparable to other teams. Yes Revere has been here as has Hendricks. Ramos is playing here in DC (the trade that probably got Smith fired). Garza has been around. Who else?? Anybody?? Our picks from 1995-2005 were not bad--Milton, Torii, Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer, etc. Even Casey Blake. What happened. The guy in charge of drafts since 2005 (or 6) should be canned now!! TR needs to pick a guy this year who will be starting in Target Field in 2014--not some guy who will linger in Beloit, Ft Myers and New Britain.

Gardy will be gone--I wonder if missing 3 days this weekend is a sign that he is planning to leave on his own at the end of the year.

striker_86
05-08-2012, 01:36 PM
This is definitely on Bill Smith. Gardy might be gone at the end of the year. No sense in firing him during the season. I hope they keep Ryan around, he hasnt had much time to get this team back on track since Smith left the cupboard to bare.

USAFChief
05-08-2012, 01:38 PM
I respect your opinion and as long as I follow your "perspective" chart, of course I always want to be 5, to suggest any fans desire anything else is patronizing. The Twins have only been 5, twice, when exactly have they been a 4? They've never lost a WS, did I miss something?

Just because this team hasn't had as much post season success as they would have liked does not mean they set the bar at 2-3, that is ridiculous, I'm pretty convinced their goal is to win.

By my math you've been satisfied with the philosophical direction of the team for a combined total of 2 years, most other years prior to 2002 they have been a 1 or 2.

Actually you did miss something.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 01:51 PM
They were a 4 in at least 1965 and 2002

I stand corrected, forgot about the WS loss before I was born and 2002 was under Gardy, I meant other than him. 2002 was an accident though because they originally set the bar at a 3, damn overachievers.

Thrylos
05-08-2012, 01:59 PM
The guy in charge of drafts since 2005 (or 6) should be canned now!! TR needs to pick a guy this year who will be starting in Target Field in 2014--not some guy who will linger in Beloit, Ft Myers and New Britain.


Amen; but if you can TR who was in charge for those picks from 2005-7; he cannot pick anyone this year :)

Speaking of picks who made them to the majors from 2005 on:
2005: Garza, Slowey, Duensing, Tolleson, Burnett, Yonder Alonso (DNS), Dave Herndon (DNS), Rene Tosoni
2006: Parmelee, Benson, Dinkelman, Manship, Andrew Oliver (DNS), Valencia, JD Martinez (DNS), Slama
2007: Revere (but most of those kids are 22-23 years old)

so not that horrible. Other than the facts that not many Ps made it, or they got rid of the ones who made it, and there are not any susperstars in the list

gunnarthor
05-08-2012, 02:08 PM
As to the current situation--we need to blame whoever has been making draft picks since 2005 or so. Unless I am missing somebody, our high draft picks over the last half dozen years are not in the majors and are not comparable to other teams. Yes Revere has been here as has Hendricks. Ramos is playing here in DC (the trade that probably got Smith fired). Garza has been around. Who else?? Anybody?? Our picks from 1995-2005 were not bad--Milton, Torii, Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer, etc. Even Casey Blake. What happened. The guy in charge of drafts since 2005 (or 6) should be canned now!! TR needs to pick a guy this year who will be starting in Target Field in 2014--not some guy who will linger in Beloit, Ft Myers and New Britain.

Gardy will be gone--I wonder if missing 3 days this weekend is a sign that he is planning to leave on his own at the end of the year.

Couple points - Milton wasn't drafted by us - we traded Knoublach for him (and three others).

Mike Radcliff was draft guru until Ryan resigned. Smith made Johnson draft guru. The drafts since 05 or so have been interesting. The 04 draft was widely praised at the time (BA rated it the #1 draft) but injuries to all 4 pitchers taken in the first round took the wind out of its sails. In 05, we took Garza, Slowey and Duensing. Not a bad draft. 06 was Parmelee/Benson and Valencia too. 07 was Radcliff's last draft. Generally, it was a pretty weak draft class. Revere was our top pick and he's been a pretty good pick if you compare him with the rest of that first round.

Johnson took over in 08 and his drafts have usually been well received when it happened. His first draft he took two hard throwing pitchers and Aaron Hicks in the first round. 09 saw Gibson fall to us but he also spent several more picks on flame throwers. 2010 he grabbed Wimmers, who probably won't make it now, but also grabbed Rosario and Niko Goodrum, two intriguing lowball prospects. Last year Michael slipped to us and we also grabbed a few more hard throwers and a big HS power bat in Harrison.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of these drafts. Ryan said Radcliff will be heavily involved in this years draft but, presumably, so will Johnson. I think the #2 pick is relatively hard to screw up. The other picks are going to be what makes/breaks the teams future.

John Bonnes
05-08-2012, 02:29 PM
First, it sounds like the Pohlad answered a question, not approached the subject. So for those thinking there is something telling by the subject being raised, I'd say "no, there isn't."

Second, what little I know about the Pohlads suggests that their confidence isn't going to be shaken because of the results/crowds after a decade of success from Ryan and Gardenhire, especially considering Ryan hasn't been at the helm for most of the last four years. My gawd, look how long they stuck with Ryan in the 90s with ZERO success on his GM resume.

Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

gunnarthor
05-08-2012, 03:25 PM
Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

Very good point. I know people don't like to hear small market but the Twins were the only small market team that remained competitive while bringing in a new nucleus of talent this last decade.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 03:28 PM
First, it sounds like the Pohlad answered a question, not approached the subject. So for those thinking there is something telling by the subject being raised, I'd say "no, there isn't."

Second, what little I know about the Pohlads suggests that their confidence isn't going to be shaken because of the results/crowds after a decade of success from Ryan and Gardenhire, especially considering Ryan hasn't been at the helm for most of the last four years. My gawd, look how long they stuck with Ryan in the 90s with ZERO success on his GM resume.

Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

Part of the debate in this thread centers around what constitutes success, some, if not most, seem to think the Twins haven't been successful for many years because they have not reached the WS since '91. I think that is very short-sighted.

I admire the way the Pohlads run this organization, the stability they establish is reassuring to the people who work for them and it breeds loyalty and a commitment to success. To suggest stagnation is to just make a broad assumption in the absence of any real knowledge or facts. I think the Pohlads are smart enough business people to recognize if their organization was stagnating and no longer growing, you don't get to where they are by coasting. They are also smart enough to know that there are ebbs and flows to everything and over-reacting when things ebb doesn't necessarily make things flow again any faster and perhaps comes with a heavier price.

I agree with you John, I think the Pohlads would be right to stick with them, we're not the bloody Royals after all.

Boom Boom
05-08-2012, 03:48 PM
First, it sounds like the Pohlad answered a question, not approached the subject. So for those thinking there is something telling by the subject being raised, I'd say "no, there isn't."

Second, what little I know about the Pohlads suggests that their confidence isn't going to be shaken because of the results/crowds after a decade of success from Ryan and Gardenhire, especially considering Ryan hasn't been at the helm for most of the last four years. My gawd, look how long they stuck with Ryan in the 90s with ZERO success on his GM resume.

Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

It also stings because the Twins were just built fancy new digs at taxpayer expense and don't have a major league quality team to put there.

Some fans might feel they were sold a bill of goods when they were told the Twins would be more competitive with a ballpark that could draw in more revenue.

darin617
05-08-2012, 04:57 PM
I'm not a Gardy hater. I thank him for the Central Titles. He's a Twin and always will be. However, Gardy won't survive the year (or at least off season) and I have gut feeling that TR will be against a manager change and will leave on good terms as a secondary result of Gardy.

Thrylos you get can get ready to celebrate.

I won't be celebrating cuz I'm not anti.

The franchise has fallen and it will take change to resurrect it.

Not to crush the Central Division Titles that Gardy won, but it was because the whole division stunk and we came out on top. And everyone knows what happened once those great teams entered the playoffs.

darin617
05-08-2012, 04:58 PM
I'm not a Gardy hater. I thank him for the Central Titles. He's a Twin and always will be. However, Gardy won't survive the year (or at least off season) and I have gut feeling that TR will be against a manager change and will leave on good terms as a secondary result of Gardy.

Thrylos you get can get ready to celebrate.

I won't be celebrating cuz I'm not anti.

The franchise has fallen and it will take change to resurrect it.

Can't wait to pop the champagne and celebrate the beginning of a new era in "Twins Baseball."

drivlikejehu
05-08-2012, 05:04 PM
First, it sounds like the Pohlad answered a question, not approached the subject. So for those thinking there is something telling by the subject being raised, I'd say "no, there isn't."

Second, what little I know about the Pohlads suggests that their confidence isn't going to be shaken because of the results/crowds after a decade of success from Ryan and Gardenhire, especially considering Ryan hasn't been at the helm for most of the last four years. My gawd, look how long they stuck with Ryan in the 90s with ZERO success on his GM resume.

Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

The situation now is completely different than it was in the '90s. Ownership made it clear then that payroll would be at the bottom of the league due to the stadium situation. The team is undeniably mid-market now. Ownership is in a bad position here because if they keep cutting payroll, it will only lengthen the rebuilding process and turn off fans, costing them money in the long-run. But attendance won't be good enough to support an average payroll, while also allowing for the standard amount of Pohlad profit-taking. There's also a different Pohlad in charge.

Smith's firing was already an indication of how things have changed. I don't pretend to know exactly what ownership's tolerance levels are, but I'm certain it isn't comparable to the '90s.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Can't wait to pop the champagne and celebrate the beginning of a new era in "Twins Baseball."

Classy, celebrating people losing their jobs.....classy.

Jim H
05-08-2012, 05:37 PM
A couple of points. The Twins still have a nice core of everyday players, if they are healthy. Rebuilding does not have to take years if the starting pitching can be fixed. That could take years but sometimes you add a Jack Morris, Scott Erickson has a career year, Tapani does more than most experts ever suspected he could and you win. Of course you might lose for the next ten years after that.

Mostly, I think trading out the management team would be a mistake. These guys have won before, they have a number of pieces in place that should contribute to winning and changing management doesn't guarantee anything but change. Even if they find people who are good, that doesn't guarantee much. Cleveland arguably did as good a job assembling teams during the 2000's as did the Twins they just weren't as lucky.

Right now the Twins haven't been too lucky. Injuries both to key major league regulars, and to many, many pitching prospects have derailed the Twins for now. If the Twins stay derailed for the next year or so, then yes serious changes need to be made. Now, a bit of patience is needed.

LastOnePicked
05-08-2012, 05:51 PM
"This organization has not won a title or being competitive in the post-season for 21 years and this is a long time. Unfortunately, new fans who started following the Twins in the mid to late 90s are calling the recent years a success... It's all about perspective, memories and where you set the bar."

Yup. For all the ballyhoo over the division titles (won relatively marginally over sub-par competition), 2014 will mark the longest AL pennant drought in team history. Gardy's legacy isn't as great as some think, and this organization, had it been able to shuffle the deck more wisely, had a championship core in the making. Unfortunately, the front office and the manager didn't get it done, and it's on them. I'm just hoping they won't be around to waste the nucleus that's developing in the low minors right now.

USAFChief
05-08-2012, 05:56 PM
First, it sounds like the Pohlad answered a question, not approached the subject. So for those thinking there is something telling by the subject being raised, I'd say "no, there isn't."

Second, what little I know about the Pohlads suggests that their confidence isn't going to be shaken because of the results/crowds after a decade of success from Ryan and Gardenhire, especially considering Ryan hasn't been at the helm for most of the last four years. My gawd, look how long they stuck with Ryan in the 90s with ZERO success on his GM resume.

Finally, I'll say that I think the Pohlads are right to stick with them. This franchise is in decline, not because of major mismanaging, but because of a natural cycle of success. In fact, I'd say just the opposite - that given their situation, the franchise has had much longer sustained success than we've seen by other team and their front offices. That's the reason why this stings so bad. (And possibly why the minor league coffers are so empty.) But I think they'll trust the Twins to the same management team to rebuild.

The fact the question is even raised by legitimate media IS in itself telling. The fact Pohlad felt obliged to entertain the question even more so. And that whole subject isn't going to go away until the team turns around or something changes. Tickets for tonight's game can be had on Stub hub for less than a dollar. If you don't think Pohlad is concerned by that you're incredibly naive.

Second, the idea that there is some sort of mandatory "success cycle" dictated by the laws of baseball or business is fantasy.

twinzgrl
05-08-2012, 06:36 PM
I thought 2006 was going to be our year. I was so excited when my son and I scored tickets for the first playoff game at the Dome against Oakland. Johan Santana was our starting pitcher, Oakland was the underdog team, and we were going to win the first round for sure...or so we thought. The Twins lost the series 3-0. Sometimes things just don't go the way you think they are going to go. There were many talented players on that team. I also thought last season was somewhat of a fluke with all the injuries, and hoped maybe for a .500 season this year. Even when we got off to the awful start the first week or two this season, I figured we'd turn it around, and finish about .500. I'm kind of laughing at all the WS references in this blog. Heck, I'd be happy if we just won a GAME. A winning series would put me over the moon. I don't want us to end up in multiple record books for being the worst team in history. Sometimes it's hard being a baseball fan.

darin617
05-08-2012, 07:29 PM
Classy, celebrating people losing their jobs.....classy.

Somebody would gain a job, Minnesota would get a Vikings stadium and the Twins would get another chance. Dude, are you Toby Gardenhire? This would explain why you could defend a guy with no talent. Sorry to hear your minor league dream ended...

darin617
05-08-2012, 07:33 PM
"This organization has not won a title or being competitive in the post-season for 21 years and this is a long time. Unfortunately, new fans who started following the Twins in the mid to late 90s are calling the recent years a success... It's all about perspective, memories and where you set the bar."

Yup. For all the ballyhoo over the division titles (won relatively marginally over sub-par competition), 2014 will mark the longest AL pennant drought in team history. Gardy's legacy isn't as great as some think, and this organization, had it been able to shuffle the deck more wisely, had a championship core in the making. Unfortunately, the front office and the manager didn't get it done, and it's on them. I'm just hoping they won't be around to waste the nucleus that's developing in the low minors right now.

Finally, there is a wise man joining this subject. Take a note twinsnorth49 . That it's time for a reality check.

CDog
05-08-2012, 07:45 PM
From the bottom to the top, here are the different settings of the bar:

1- Awful - always finishing toward the bottom one of the worse teams in the majors
2- Mediocre - Hovering around .500
3- Competitive - Having a winning record and ocassionally winning divisions
4- Compatitive in the post season - Winning at least a few post season series, making in to the WS
5 - Champion - Winning the World Series.

Believe me, with the Twins being mostly at 1, a lot of people (Including yourself apparently) are happy with being at 2 and 3, like they have been the Gardenhire years. I understand and respect that opinion even though I do not feel the same way. So please understand that some of us are not ok with 2 and 3 and think that this group of people who are running the Twins are complacent and set the bar at 2 and 3 and they can only get there. Some of us want 4 and 5. You don't agree, but at least respect our opinions and perspective. Now that the organization has turned from 2 and 3 more into 1, a lot more people are unhappy... So it is all about perspective and whether you are ok with being a B and C student or you expect As (to give you another analogy)

Shouldn't "Mediocre" by definition be in the middle of the scale? Especially when it's the overall average of the league (you know, cuz every game has one winner and one loser).

Secondly, describing the Gardenhire years as 2 and 3 implies there's something missing in your list. They squeaked below .500 once in the first nine years and twice in the ten. Claiming 6 titles in a 5-team division over 10 years is "occasionally" is either deliberately misleading or unrealistic about what that means. It's three times the number that they are "supposed" to get. Did the first nine years where they won more games than 25 teams happen by accident while they were shooting for just .500?

And finally, thinking that the "group of people running the Twins are complacent and set the bar at 2 and 3" as if that is their goal is simply ridiculous.

CDog
05-08-2012, 07:48 PM
The fact the question is even raised by legitimate media IS in itself telling. The fact Pohlad felt obliged to entertain the question even more so. And that whole subject isn't going to go away until the team turns around or something changes. Tickets for tonight's game can be had on Stub hub for less than a dollar. If you don't think Pohlad is concerned by that you're incredibly naive.

Second, the idea that there is some sort of mandatory "success cycle" dictated by the laws of baseball or business is fantasy.

I'm sure refusing to answer the question wouldn't have caused any speculation or interpretation at all.

DJSim22
05-08-2012, 07:55 PM
1500ESPN.com's Phil Mackey (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Twins_owner_has_100_percent_confidence_in_Terry_Ry an_Ron_Gardenhire050712) reported that Twins owner Jim Pohlad was on the field pre-game before the Twins/Angels contest. In response to the recent requests for the firings of many staffers, the owner said:



You have to respect the owner's loyalty to his staff but you have to wonder, is it merited?


I do question if it is merited as I question Gardy often, but I don't think Connie Mack could win with this groups lack of talent. The problem is we won for many years and don't have top end talent in AAA or AA. Management is either too dumb or cheap to get free agents to offset this. So, imo any manager we get with struggle with this team for the next three years.

mike wants wins
05-08-2012, 09:05 PM
Zero legit MLB players up from the minors in three years is on Ryan's drafts, not smiths. I don't get how people don't get that.

twinsnorth49
05-08-2012, 11:46 PM
Finally, there is a wise man joining this subject. Take a note twinsnorth49 . That it's time for a reality check.

Is that like a 'put that in your pipe and smoke it" type response because someone else shares your perception of reality? Whatever reality you live in is an angry one, that's for sure. Some good spin from your partner in crime there, but it's just that, spin.

Riverbrian
05-09-2012, 12:08 AM
I think the Twins need a change and I think that Gardenhire deserves our recognition for a job well done at the same time.

Thats kind of oxymoronic I realize but I'm consistently random that way. We dont need to be genuinely hypocritical... We need someone with a tradition of innovation. Include me out if Gardenhire is your least favorite. I can accept rejection as I sit in my long shorts eating some jumbo shrimp contemplating Military Intelligence.

one_eyed_jack
05-09-2012, 04:43 AM
If want to criticize Gardy for the lack of postseason success, fine.

However, it is ignorant and silly to dismiss and belittle the division titles on the grounds that the competition was weak.

First of all, it wasn't always that weak. In 2006 for example, there were 2 other teams that won at least 90 games. Also, the Twins were frequently on paper less talented than their division counterparts. They started spending in 2010, but prior to that, they were consistently outspent by the Tigers and White Sox, often by large margins. (Have we forgotten already the years of bellyaching about the team being cheap?) In some of those years, the 'experts' had the Twins finishing dead last in the division, but they didn't.

Second, even in weak divisions, getting to the postseason every year is not an easy thing to do. Gardy-haters always compare him to his predecessor, who was a great manager, but even TK wasn't able to win that consistently. In his 15 seasons, the Twins only finished better than 4th in their division 5 times. And it's not like their division was the strongest every year either.

Yes, we would all like to have seen more postseason success. But the fact that we didn't does not mean, as suggested, that the last 10 years were a complete and total failure. By that logic, Meryl Streep's acting career between 1983 and 2010 was a failure because although she earned 13 Oscar nominations in that time, she never actually won.

gunnarthor
05-09-2012, 07:45 AM
I think the Twins need a change and I think that Gardenhire deserves our recognition for a job well done at the same time.

Thats kind of oxymoronic I realize but I'm consistently random that way. We dont need to be genuinely hypocritical... We need someone with a tradition of innovation. Include me out if Gardenhire is your least favorite. I can accept rejection as I sit in my long shorts eating some jumbo shrimp contemplating Military Intelligence.

If Bill Smith was still our GM, I'd probably actually agree. Smith and Gardy never were on the same page on how to build a team. But Gardy and Ryan seem to have a similar viewpoint. I'd let this second Ryan regime a run before firing the manager.

CDog
05-09-2012, 09:06 AM
However, it is ignorant and silly to dismiss and belittle the division titles on the grounds that the competition was weak.

That belongs on my as-yet-nonexistant blog of the most common nonsense that somehow gets spoken as "fact" out here in the blogosphere. It's been coming up even more than usual lately and I keep meaning to play That Guy and dispute it, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to say it as succinctly and accurately as done in the quoted material above. So I'll just quote and give a +1. Is that how the kids are doin' it?

Boom Boom
05-09-2012, 09:23 AM
The Twins are rippable on many fronts, but the "weak division" argument isn't one of them. What are they supposed to do, move to the east coast? The Central has not been as strong as the other AL divisions during the Twins run, but the Twins can't be faulted for winning games against teams they're supposed to beat.

gunnarthor
05-09-2012, 09:34 AM
The Twins are rippable on many fronts, but the "weak division" argument isn't one of them. What are they supposed to do, move to the east coast? The Central has not been as strong as the other AL divisions during the Twins run, but the Twins can't be faulted for winning games against teams they're supposed to beat.

Yeah, the division thing is overplayed. Sometime between 06-08, the Twins had the best winning percentage in baseball against the AL East. Naturally, they had an overall losing record in 07. Someone at HBT, I think, did a study on the unbalanced schedule and found that, at best, it might be worth one extra win/loss in a season. Neyer linked it his last year at ESPN.

twinsnorth49
05-09-2012, 10:49 AM
That belongs on my as-yet-nonexistant blog of the most common nonsense that somehow gets spoken as "fact" out here in the blogosphere. It's been coming up even more than usual lately and I keep meaning to play That Guy and dispute it, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to say it as succinctly and accurately as done in the quoted material above. So I'll just quote and give a +1. Is that how the kids are doin' it?

I couldn't agree more, it might be the lamest argument out there, it's an excuse in the strong presence of actual fact.

one_eyed_jack
05-09-2012, 05:49 PM
That belongs on my as-yet-nonexistant blog of the most common nonsense that somehow gets spoken as "fact" out here in the blogosphere. It's been coming up even more than usual lately and I keep meaning to play That Guy and dispute it, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to say it as succinctly and accurately as done in the quoted material above. So I'll just quote and give a +1. Is that how the kids are doin' it?

---Now that would be an awesome blog.

YourHouseIsMyHouse
05-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Whoever makes the Pohlads the most money has their vote of confidence.

JB_Iowa
05-09-2012, 09:46 PM
Yeah, the division thing is overplayed. Sometime between 06-08, the Twins had the best winning percentage in baseball against the AL East. Naturally, they had an overall losing record in 07. Someone at HBT, I think, did a study on the unbalanced schedule and found that, at best, it might be worth one extra win/loss in a season. Neyer linked it his last year at ESPN.

You are correct in your assertion that they had a winning record against the A.L. East in 2007.

However, I don't see how anyone can be unconcerned about the way the Twins are trending against the A.L. East:

2002 15-22 40.5%
2003 17-15 53.1%
2004 19-19 50%
2005 18-14 56.26%
2006 22-10 68.8%
2007 19-17 52.8%
2008 13-16 44.9%
2009 10-20 33.3%
2010 14-17 45.2%
2011 10-25 28.6%


I understand that the East has gotten stronger overall and that there is generally more money available to those teams. But in the first half of that decade, the Twins beat up on the Rays and, to a lesser extent, the Blue Jays. They've never been good against the Yankees but held their own against Boston and Baltimore. In the 2nd half of that decade, they've had a winning record against only one team, Baltimore (19-15). I haven't had the heart to put in this year's totals yet.

I find that cause for concern regardless of the unbalanced schedule.

gunnarthor
05-09-2012, 11:08 PM
You are correct in your assertion that they had a winning record against the A.L. East in 2007.

However, I don't see how anyone can be unconcerned about the way the Twins are trending against the A.L. East:

2002 15-22 40.5%
2003 17-15 53.1%
2004 19-19 50%
2005 18-14 56.26%
2006 22-10 68.8%
2007 19-17 52.8%
2008 13-16 44.9%
2009 10-20 33.3%
2010 14-17 45.2%
2011 10-25 28.6%


I understand that the East has gotten stronger overall and that there is generally more money available to those teams. But in the first half of that decade, the Twins beat up on the Rays and, to a lesser extent, the Blue Jays. They've never been good against the Yankees but held their own against Boston and Baltimore. In the 2nd half of that decade, they've had a winning record against only one team, Baltimore (19-15). I haven't had the heart to put in this year's totals yet.

I find that cause for concern regardless of the unbalanced schedule.

The Twins played .500 against the Yanks several times. Red Sox fans complained about the dome almost as much as white sox fans. I just don't think 30 games or so really says much in an individual year.

tobynotjason
05-10-2012, 04:27 PM
So if enough Gardenhire supporters say so, the demonstrable fact that the AL Central has been the weakest division in baseball over the past decade somehow doesn't matter if you're interested in evaluating exactly how good the Twins have been over the past decade? All that matters is the titles and nyah nyah nyah nothing else matters.

There's a reason the argument against this is hard to articulate: IT DOESN'T EXIST. Good for them for winning their division a bunch. But it simply was not as difficult as winning elsewhere, and ignoring (or worse, denying) this blithely seems like saying "MLB, market to me, baby! How about 15 divisions of two teams each and I'll be overjoyed when 'we' go on a 10 year run of 8 division titles vs. the Royals."

gunnarthor
05-10-2012, 05:12 PM
So if enough Gardenhire supporters say so, the demonstrable fact that the AL Central has been the weakest division in baseball over the past decade somehow doesn't matter if you're interested in evaluating exactly how good the Twins have been over the past decade? All that matters is the titles and nyah nyah nyah nothing else matters.

There's a reason the argument against this is hard to articulate: IT DOESN'T EXIST. Good for them for winning their division a bunch. But it simply was not as difficult as winning elsewhere, and ignoring (or worse, denying) this blithely seems like saying "MLB, market to me, baby! How about 15 divisions of two teams each and I'll be overjoyed when 'we' go on a 10 year run of 8 division titles vs. the Royals."

Meh. I think the argument changes yearly. For example, our 06 team won the AL Central where the 3rd place team, the reigning WS champs, won 90 games. The 4th place team had a pyth 89 wins. We won .593 of our games overall, but .629 against the east. Toronto, who finished second in the east, would have been fourth. In 07, we won at a .488 clip but played .500 against the east. It's cyclical. For instance, the 02 West was loaded - third place team won 93 games, same number as Boston and one fewer than us. Twins went 19-17 against the west, winning all series except the Oakland one (we got that in the postseason though). Twins were 16 up during the season and had a bad little road trip to Balt/Bost (1-5), dropping them to only 13 games up. In 2000, the Yanks won the East with 87 wins, which would have finished 3rd in the central. The early part of this decade, the best teams were in the AL West, the Central took over for a few years 05-07 or so (In those four years only KC (every year) and Det (04) and Chi (07) had losing records against the East). With the Rays emergence in 08, East went on top. (And the NL was significantly worse than the AL)

It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

Shane Wahl
05-10-2012, 05:29 PM
It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

Exactly. I have a VERY hard time believing that the Twins would be constructed this way if they were in the AL East. The situation is different. Is like listening to announcers all the time remark idiocies like "if that guy wouldn't have been caught stealing, that would have been a 2-run homer" which ignores that the situation would be changed if there were still a runner on. Or when people say after X player leaves the organization and gets hurt (like Santana) that it was a good thing he left . . . which ignores that the situation can be very different with different teams. Mark Prior is probably still pitching well today if Dusty Baker didn't run him in the ground on the mound, for instance.

USAFChief
05-10-2012, 05:56 PM
Meh. I think the argument changes yearly. For example, our 06 team won the AL Central where the 3rd place team, the reigning WS champs, won 90 games. The 4th place team had a pyth 89 wins. We won .593 of our games overall, but .629 against the east. Toronto, who finished second in the east, would have been fourth. In 07, we won at a .488 clip but played .500 against the east. It's cyclical. For instance, the 02 West was loaded - third place team won 93 games, same number as Boston and one fewer than us. Twins went 19-17 against the west, winning all series except the Oakland one (we got that in the postseason though). Twins were 16 up during the season and had a bad little road trip to Balt/Bost (1-5), dropping them to only 13 games up. In 2000, the Yanks won the East with 87 wins, which would have finished 3rd in the central. The early part of this decade, the best teams were in the AL West, the Central took over for a few years 05-07 or so (In those four years only KC (every year) and Det (04) and Chi (07) had losing records against the East). With the Rays emergence in 08, East went on top. (And the NL was significantly worse than the AL)

It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

I am not one to denigrate the past decade of regular season success.

That said, you can't in the same paragraph claim the Twins WERE successful against the ALE, and then turn around and claim the Twins would have been constructed differently in order to do just that.

Not to mention, if the Twins could have so easily been better constructed, why weren't they?

gunnarthor
05-10-2012, 06:09 PM
That said, you can't in the same paragraph claim the Twins WERE successful against the ALE, and then turn around and claim the Twins would have been constructed differently in order to do just that.

Not to mention, if the Twins could have so easily been better constructed, why weren't they?

I think you missed the point - mainly that the record in 30 or so games every year (in the is case against the East) is generally unimportant. I'm claiming that their record against the AL east is unimportant and, basically, irrelevant regardless of whether or not they've "had success."