Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs

Photo

Sale to the Red Sox

  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#41 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,822 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 12:34 PM

 

I'd take the "win now at the expense of some prospects" route 100 times out of 100.

There are always more minor leaguers.

I believe that's almost exactly what Tommy Lasorda said, in his brief tenure as Dodgers GM when, in third place at midseason, 12.5 games out of first and 8 games out of the wild card spot, he traded the #2 prospect in the game (Konerko) for a half-season of closer Jeff Shaw.

 

Clearly "100 times out of 100" just doesn't make logical sense.  We all agree there are limits to "win now at the expense of prospects", it's just a matter of defining that limit, right?

 

While I've generally defended White Sox on the "win now" side of that line, they've failed at it long enough that I think it's fair to shift to the other side of the line.  If I were a White Sox fan (heaven forbid! :) ), though, I would have wanted a recent dice roll without Robin Ventura at the helm.  Maybe some new voices in the front office too -- I'm not confident they necessarily made the best deal here either.

Edited by spycake, 07 December 2016 - 12:35 PM.

  • Mike Sixel and TheLeviathan like this

#42 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 12:51 PM

Yeah, the White Sox are a good example that you can try to do what Dombrowski did and still fail miserably at it.

 

There is no one smart way other than to try and push the right pedal (brake, gas, neutral, etc.) at the right time.  

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#43 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 01:55 PM

 

Yes, I did read it. Signing FA's was always part of Dombrowski's plan in Detroit and it will be part of the Red Sox plan. And yet you keep talking about this inevitable collapse that never happened in Detroit despite it being predicted for almost a decade. If the Red Sox are able to go a decade plus before this collapse that you are predicting then Dombrowski will be considered a great GM.

Ok, so can you show me where I said that it wouldn't work? I don't think anybody was talking about the "demise," of the Tigers during their run of AL Central titles. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my post. Every team oscillates between periods of good and bad so in that sense, yes, a downfall is inevitable, as it is for every team. I don't know why the idea that Detroit won't field a good team every year is so shocking. The goal is to maximize the number of WS contention years and minimize the bad years. I think there are ways it can be accomplished that don't hurt your long term outlook as much. 

 

If you're selling the farm to bring in high level MLB talent you're maximizing your chances in the short term at the expense of the long term future of the team. Detroit could do this because they were able to supplement the roles prospects should have been filling with large contract FAs. Its a great short term strategy to make a WS run but as the core you've built ages and the window shrinks, you're stuck with an old, mediocre team loaded with costly, multi year FA contracts at the possible expense of draft picks. Its baseball purgatory, and thats where Detroit is now. They're a fringy team that might sneak into the playoffs but is unlikely to make noise if that happens. That ceiling continues to fall as the core players age and there isn't young talent available in the minors to revive or carry the team. Thats a recipe for a long rebuild. 

 

Again, I never said he wasn't a good GM. He clearly built good minor league systems in Miami and Detroit, and he played a large part in the success of both organizations. I'm allowed to disagree with the strategy and still acknowledge that Dombrowski could have a couple WS titles if a few things bounced his way.


#44 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 02:29 PM

A lot Twins fans questioned how long the Tigers could maintain their winning ways without anything resembling a minor league farm system.  They defied those questions for what feels like a decade.  That's what kab was saying.  

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Dombrowski is pretty damn good at his way.

  • Vanimal46 likes this

#45 spinowner

spinowner

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 3,995 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 04:04 PM

 

Do the Red Sox use throwback uniforms?

Every home game.


#46 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 07 December 2016 - 05:48 PM

 

Ok, so can you show me where I said that it wouldn't work? I don't think anybody was talking about the "demise," of the Tigers during their run of AL Central titles. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my post. Every team oscillates between periods of good and bad so in that sense, yes, a downfall is inevitable, as it is for every team. I don't know why the idea that Detroit won't field a good team every year is so shocking. The goal is to maximize the number of WS contention years and minimize the bad years. I think there are ways it can be accomplished that don't hurt your long term outlook as much. 

 

If you're selling the farm to bring in high level MLB talent you're maximizing your chances in the short term at the expense of the long term future of the team. Detroit could do this because they were able to supplement the roles prospects should have been filling with large contract FAs. Its a great short term strategy to make a WS run but as the core you've built ages and the window shrinks, you're stuck with an old, mediocre team loaded with costly, multi year FA contracts at the possible expense of draft picks. Its baseball purgatory, and thats where Detroit is now. They're a fringy team that might sneak into the playoffs but is unlikely to make noise if that happens. That ceiling continues to fall as the core players age and there isn't young talent available in the minors to revive or carry the team. Thats a recipe for a long rebuild. 

 

Again, I never said he wasn't a good GM. He clearly built good minor league systems in Miami and Detroit, and he played a large part in the success of both organizations. I'm allowed to disagree with the strategy and still acknowledge that Dombrowski could have a couple WS titles if a few things bounced his way.

You continue to say that it is a short term strategy and that at some point you are stuck with an old, mediocre team of costly multi-year FA contracts. Every single post you write you describe it as a short term strategy. 

You weren't part of this discussion at BYTO (long before Twins Daily was around) but this is exactly what people were saying ten years ago about the Tigers during their AL Central runs. And they just kept winning and winning and winning.

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#47 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 07:48 PM

 

You continue to say that it is a short term strategy and that at some point you are stuck with an old, mediocre team of costly multi-year FA contracts. Every single post you write you describe it as a short term strategy. 

You weren't part of this discussion at BYTO (long before Twins Daily was around) but this is exactly what people were saying ten years ago about the Tigers during their AL Central runs. And they just kept winning and winning and winning.

In the last ten years they missed the playoffs 4 straight. Then they went ALCS, WS, ALCS, ALDS, then missed the last 2 years. Yeah, I would say that gutting a farm system for a 4 year playoff run is short term. It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons. Yep, they're an old team loaded with big FA contracts. They were garbage in 2015 and pretty good last year so mediocre isn't a bad description. 


#48 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 08:05 PM

Not many "runs" accomplish 6 out of 10 years as a legit WS contender. Seems a tad flimsy as an argument.
  • biggentleben, kab21 and Vanimal46 like this

#49 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 07 December 2016 - 11:50 PM

 

In the last ten years they missed the playoffs 4 straight. Then they went ALCS, WS, ALCS, ALDS, then missed the last 2 years. Yeah, I would say that gutting a farm system for a 4 year playoff run is short term. It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons. Yep, they're an old team loaded with big FA contracts. They were garbage in 2015 and pretty good last year so mediocre isn't a bad description. 

So now you are trying to sell that the Tigers haven't been a VERY SUCCESSFUL team for the last ten years? They have 2 seasons <.500 and one year at .500 with 2 World Series appearances and they made the playoffs 6 times. That is pretty awesome for a team that 10 years ago people were saying was going to be old and mediocre in a couple of seasons.

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#50 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 01:56 AM

 

So now you are trying to sell that the Tigers haven't been a VERY SUCCESSFUL team for the last ten years? They have 2 seasons <.500 and one year at .500 with 2 World Series appearances and they made the playoffs 6 times. That is pretty awesome for a team that 10 years ago people were saying was going to be old and mediocre in a couple of seasons.

You're killing it on the straw man arguments. "It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons." That is verbatim what I said. How do you read that an infer that I think the team hasn't been successful? You set the bar at a decade so that was the reference frame I used.  Obviously including the WS appearance 11 years ago (not a decade) helps and clearly I did that when I said they had a good run with Dombrowski as GM. That would be 5 playoff appearances in 11 years. I realize people were down on them 10 years ago. I'm not one of those people from that time. I'm looking at this team, right now, and it is old and on track to mediocrity. That is a direct result of the strategy deployed. 

 

Recap: 

Yes they had a successful run. Yes I think Dombrowski is a good GM, if he wasn't he wouldn't continue to find work as one. Yes I think selling the farm for MLB talent is a path to winning a WS. No, I don't think its the best path. Yes I think their 11'-14' run was a result of putting all their chips on the table in the short term at the expense of the future. 


#51 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 01:57 AM

 

Not many "runs" accomplish 6 out of 10 years as a legit WS contender. Seems a tad flimsy as an argument.

Its a flimsy argument to point out that a 4 year playoff stretch is short term? Ok....

Not many "legit," WS contenders miss the playoffs 4 straight seasons....07' was a bad draw with Cleveland in the division, but in 2 of those 4 years they were .500 or below, that isn't WS contending material. 

 

I said it before, the run as a whole was a success but the stretch in which they were postseason fixtures and a WS threat was 4 years. That was the reason for selling the farm. 

 

 

Edited by KirbyDome89, 08 December 2016 - 02:21 AM.


#52 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 08:33 AM

 

Its a flimsy argument to point out that a 4 year playoff stretch is short term? Ok....

Not many "legit," WS contenders miss the playoffs 4 straight seasons....07' was a bad draw with Cleveland in the division, but in 2 of those 4 years they were .500 or below, that isn't WS contending material. 

 

I said it before, the run as a whole was a success but the stretch in which they were postseason fixtures and a WS threat was 4 years. That was the reason for selling the farm. 

 

How many WS winners over the last 20 years have had runs longer than 4 years?  I'd put the number less than half.

 

I'm not sure what qualifies as a worthy run for you, but I think your standard is higher than reality has shown us.


#53 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 08 December 2016 - 09:06 AM

 

You're killing it on the straw man arguments. "It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons." That is verbatim what I said. How do you read that an infer that I think the team hasn't been successful? You set the bar at a decade so that was the reference frame I used.  Obviously including the WS appearance 11 years ago (not a decade) helps and clearly I did that when I said they had a good run with Dombrowski as GM. That would be 5 playoff appearances in 11 years. I realize people were down on them 10 years ago. I'm not one of those people from that time. I'm looking at this team, right now, and it is old and on track to mediocrity. That is a direct result of the strategy deployed. 

 

Recap: 

Yes they had a successful run. Yes I think Dombrowski is a good GM, if he wasn't he wouldn't continue to find work as one. Yes I think selling the farm for MLB talent is a path to winning a WS. No, I don't think its the best path. Yes I think their 11'-14' run was a result of putting all their chips on the table in the short term at the expense of the future. 

You - they missed the playoffs 4 straight.  I did not make a straw man. They have had long term success and you contend that they haven't.

The problem is that you continue to ignore the main point that I made that you disagreed with. They did these moves for over a decade and people have been expecting them to become an aging mediocre team with overpaid contract for almost a decade. And yet they kept winning. The Red Sox very likely will also keep winning despite your concerns of getting stuck with a team of aging mediocre and overpaid players.

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#54 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 03:52 PM

 

How many WS winners over the last 20 years have had runs longer than 4 years?  I'd put the number less than half.

 

I'm not sure what qualifies as a worthy run for you, but I think your standard is higher than reality has shown us.

Lets say no teams have had a longer run. I'm still don't like selling off a farm system. There are ways to build a WS contender that doesn't completely mortgage your future. THAT is the point I've been making this whole time...


#55 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:37 PM

 

Lets say no teams have had a longer run. I'm still don't like selling off a farm system. There are ways to build a WS contender that doesn't completely mortgage your future. THAT is the point I've been making this whole time...

 

I think the counter point being made is that it's hard to say your future got mortgaged when you managed to maintain being competitive for most of a decade.

 

Many times the "future" under Dombrowski continued to be good even without young players coming up.  You seem to be making the mistake many do in tying one's prospect depth to one's future outlook.  Dombrowski proved in Detroit that there is no such tie if you know what you're doing.  It isn't necessarily burning your future if you're good at the strategy.  It'll fizzle out eventually, but all builds do.

Edited by TheLeviathan, 08 December 2016 - 04:38 PM.


#56 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:39 PM

 

You - they missed the playoffs 4 straight.  I did not make a straw man. They have had long term success and you contend that they haven't.

The problem is that you continue to ignore the main point that I made that you disagreed with. They did these moves for over a decade and people have been expecting them to become an aging mediocre team with overpaid contract for almost a decade. And yet they kept winning. The Red Sox very likely will also keep winning despite your concerns of getting stuck with a team of aging mediocre and overpaid players.

No, the straw man is you making the argument that I said they weren't a successful team when I clearly mentioned that they were. 

 

It isn't being ignored, I addressed that in the first post I made when I said they can offset the loss of the farm by signing FAs but eventually that core starts to age and the contracts build up and thats where they are now. Yeah I guess why bother to continue building and developing a farm system, all you have do is hit on a core group of players, sell all other prospects, sign FAs, sign more FAs, and apparently never worry about a decimated talent pipeline and massive overpays to players past their prime because you'll always be good. Gotcha...

 

We fundamentally disagree on the value of farm system and the best way to build a WS team. Thats it...


#57 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:53 PM

 

I think the counter point being made is that it's hard to say your future got mortgaged when you managed to maintain being competitive for most of a decade.

 

Many times the "future" under Dombrowski continued to be good even without young players coming up.  You seem to be making the mistake many do in tying one's prospect depth to one's future outlook.  Dombrowski proved in Detroit that there is no such tie if you know what you're doing.  It isn't necessarily burning your future if you're good at the strategy.  It'll fizzle out eventually, but all builds do.

Thats true. The point I made was those teams were able to be competitive because Detroit brought in FAs. Like I said, you can only sign so many high level FAs to multi year contracts. Eventually you're left with an old core, older FAs and no young talent. You're right, all teams fizzle out. If it was the team I root for fizzling out I would prefer that some young talent was in the system, that why I'm not totally into the fire sale on the farm. 


#58 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 08 December 2016 - 05:28 PM

 

No, the straw man is you making the argument that I said they weren't a successful team when I clearly mentioned that they were. 

 

It isn't being ignored, I addressed that in the first post I made when I said they can offset the loss of the farm by signing FAs but eventually that core starts to age and the contracts build up and thats where they are now. Yeah I guess why bother to continue building and developing a farm system, all you have do is hit on a core group of players, sell all other prospects, sign FAs, sign more FAs, and apparently never worry about a decimated talent pipeline and massive overpays to players past their prime because you'll always be good. Gotcha...

 

We fundamentally disagree on the value of farm system and the best way to build a WS team. Thats it...

You have always limited the Tigers success to short term. It hasn't been short term. They have been ridiculously successful for the long term with all of those aging veterans. Even now they don't have hardly any long term contracts that are dragging the team down and somehow they still have several <30 core players.

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#59 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,270 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 06:06 PM

 

Thats true. The point I made was those teams were able to be competitive because Detroit brought in FAs. Like I said, you can only sign so many high level FAs to multi year contracts. Eventually you're left with an old core, older FAs and no young talent. You're right, all teams fizzle out. If it was the team I root for fizzling out I would prefer that some young talent was in the system, that why I'm not totally into the fire sale on the farm. 

 

Sure, they supplemented, but mostly they were aggressive with trades.  And they kept being aggressive, even when their farm was supposedly depleted.

 

I think we all agree building with a young, cheap core is a smart idea.  But there are plenty of ways to skin a cat and Dombrowski is damn good at his way.

  • kab21 and Vanimal46 like this

#60 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,338 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 08 December 2016 - 08:49 PM

Thats true. The point I made was those teams were able to be competitive because Detroit brought in FAs. Like I said, you can only sign so many high level FAs to multi year contracts. Eventually you're left with an old core, older FAs and no young talent. You're right, all teams fizzle out. If it was the team I root for fizzling out I would prefer that some young talent was in the system, that why I'm not totally into the fire sale on the farm.


Shouldn't a smart GM have been able to restock the farm system by the time core gets old?

You don't stop adding players to your farm system because you traded some off.

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.