Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Beat the Rush: Fire Gardy and Terry Ryan Now!

  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#61 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,231 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:27 AM

Even number four starters would be an improvement in what has come up since Garza. Guys that had more than 1 or 2 good years, not great years, good years.

#62 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 794 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:45 AM

Ryan's actually starting to resemble Charlie Brown. Appearnces aside, Lucy would call them both wishy-washy. Ryan was just too indecisive about these matters, it often seemed he waited for a situation to present itself because he didn't want to be agressive and make a mistake. Usually he waited too long and the window closed.


Like with AJP? Seems to me that window was wide open. Teams knew that AJ was available because Mauer was the future behind the plate, yet TR still seemed to get one of the most lopsided trades in recent ML history.

TR made that trade, while Billie traded Garza for Delmon and Hardy for some minor league reliever (is it Hoey? I seriously cannot remember that is how bad that trade was).

#63 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

Like with AJP? Seems to me that window was wide open. Teams knew that AJ was available because Mauer was the future behind the plate, yet TR still seemed to get one of the most lopsided trades in recent ML history.

TR made that trade, while Billie traded Garza for Delmon and Hardy for some minor league reliever (is it Hoey? I seriously cannot remember that is how bad that trade was).


No like sitting on Hunter when he knew he needed to be traded and sitting on Santana when he knew he needed to be extended and sitting on his hands for the first two months of free agency every year to see how everything shapes out instead of being the guy who goes out and does the shaping. He's indecisive and conservative, that's not what we should be looking for if we want a winning team. Hopefully he's over his Charlie Brown phase.

#64 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 794 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:00 AM

Ryan deserves credit for the trades....but how much credit does he really deserve for buxton? Had he taken Zimmer or Gausmann, the system would rank the same. That part of the system improvement is on the team sucking at the MLB level. If you will not sign free agents, you need to be better than the other teams at drafting and developing players. You can find good MLB players in the 20s.....if you cannot, then you are not better than the other teams, you are the same or worse. So, if Ryan's strategy is to only build through the draft and trades, his choice, then they need to be better than they have been. Or, you can accept that team's have to be this bad, and live with it.....but if that is the strategy, why are Willingham and Morneau still on the roster?

I do not buy the argument that teams cannot draft good players and develop them later in round 1. Not great, but good players.


But you have to remember teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and other big spenders could take a guy who other teams wouldn't touch because of bonus demands. Those teams would take a guy who had previously stated he would need X amount of money to keep him from going to college. The Twins, in the past, could not afford to do that. Also the Yankees and Red Sox had unlimited amounts of money to spend on Free Agents and Latin American kids. If the Yankees and Red Sox had to do things the way the Twins did during most of the 2000's, they would be in the same boat. Heck, the Red Sox are in the same boat with their unlimited money.

So, my brother, do not say that "the good teams" can draft good players and develop them late in round one because it is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it. The new system which limits money spent on the draft and and on International signings will eventually sway things in favor of the Twins who develop young talent and do not spend lavishly on free agents. I would say the Twins picked the perfect time to have a few down years...don't you think Mike?

#65 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:13 AM

Like with AJP? Seems to me that window was wide open. Teams knew that AJ was available because Mauer was the future behind the plate, yet TR still seemed to get one of the most lopsided trades in recent ML history.

TR made that trade, while Billie traded Garza for Delmon and Hardy for some minor league reliever (is it Hoey? I seriously cannot remember that is how bad that trade was).


I think that trade has equalized IMO. Liriano had 1.5 good seasons and Nathan had 6 elite seasons. AJ has gone on to have 9 good seasons since the trade with 500 AB's in each and catching about 120 games. You could argue Nathan and 1.5 seasons of Liriano are better than AJ, but I wouldn't call it the more lopsided in history. Don't give me the "if" Liriano wasn't injured because the Giants traded him because they viewed him as an injury risk.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#66 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

I think that trade has equalized IMO. Liriano had 1.5 good seasons and Nathan had 6 elite seasons. AJ has gone on to have 9 good seasons since the trade with 500 AB's in each and catching about 120 games. You could argue Nathan and 1.5 seasons of Liriano are better than AJ, but I wouldn't call it the more lopsided in history. Don't give me the "if" Liriano wasn't injured because the Giants traded him because they viewed him as an injury risk.


I don't get why the eight years AJ has had after leaving San Francisco helped the Giants in any way.

#67 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:37 AM

I don't get why the eight years AJ has had after leaving San Francisco helped the Giants in any way.


That isn't part of the debate. AJ's departure is a completely different subject, and failure of the Giants. If the Twins hadn't paid Nathan he wouldn't have logged innings with the Twins either, doesn't mean much.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#68 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:52 AM

That isn't part of the debate. AJ's departure is a completely different subject, and failure of the Giants. If the Twins hadn't paid Nathan he wouldn't have logged innings with the Twins either, doesn't mean much.


So the actual fact of Liriano's getting hurt is all that matters, and not the potential of what happens if he didn't. But the actual fact of AJ's not being re-signed doesn't matter at all, but only the potential that he could have does. The Giants got one year of AJ in the trade. How does that not matter?

#69 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,231 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

No, the perfect time would have been when Strasburg and Harper were available.....I think there is no good time to have 2 or mire years with 90 loss seasons.

That first part was tongue in cheek.....

#70 PatMearesFan

PatMearesFan

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

all i am reading are baseless excuses for terry "b-but...he is elite" "b-but...he traded for liriano" "b-but...bill smith left him in bad shape"

at the end of the day the twins have had 190 mil in payroll the past two seasons and in each of the last two seasons finished in dead last, results equal results, i am sure ryan is a great guy and at one point a good owner, but the game has clearly passed him up at this point, time for fresh direction!!!!

#71 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,147 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

So the actual fact of Liriano's getting hurt is all that matters, and not the potential of what happens if he didn't. But the actual fact of AJ's not being re-signed doesn't matter at all, but only the potential that he could have does. The Giants got one year of AJ in the trade. How does that not matter?


Liriano had elbow issues before the Giants traded him. That's why they were willing to give him up.

What the Giants did with AJ after the trade has no bearing on the trade itself, just as Nathan's contract extension with the Twins doesn't have anything to do with the trade either, and just as the JJ Hardy trade has nothing to do with the Johan Santana trade.

#72 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:09 PM

all i am reading are baseless excuses for terry "b-but...he is elite" "b-but...he traded for liriano" "b-but...bill smith left him in bad shape"

at the end of the day the twins have had 190 mil in payroll the past two seasons and in each of the last two seasons finished in dead last, results equal results, i am sure ryan is a great guy and at one point a good owner, but the game has clearly passed him up at this point, time for fresh direction!!!!

The excuse for firing are of no different quality than what you accuse the supporters of.

#73 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,111 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:09 PM

Of course the Twins only had him until 2008 because Ryan might be the only GM that wouldn't love to lock up a 26-year-old left handed Cy Young award winner for more than 4 additional years at a reasonable price.


Santana is probably one of the prime examples Ryan uses when talking about the risks of multi-year deals. The Mets probably loved the contract, up through around August of the second year. After that, it got scary for a year, and then the two years following have been a virtual waste of the money.

#74 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:21 PM

Blaming the Twins draft position (bottom third of the draft order since, like, forever!) is lazy, partially incorrect, and nothing but excuse making. Other teams find good players in the bottom of the first round, not to mention the rounds after that.


Chief, I don't think you can back up this statement. Although I won't accuse you of being lazy. First of all, my statement about the Twin's draft order is in fact almost ENTIRELY correct, is it not? Excepting Mauer, Hicks, and Buxton I believe.

And what makes this excuse making and nothing else? That's a pretty unfair assessment by you. Lastly, haven't the Twins ALSO found good players in the bottom of the first round and in later rounds? It would be lazy and nothing but excuse making to argue otherwise.

#75 PatMearesFan

PatMearesFan

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

The excuse for firing are of no different quality than what you accuse the supporters of.

i just gave you all the examples you need, two straight awful years with big payrolls, no other fan base or team would accept 200 almost loses in 2 years!! how many world series titles do we have because of terry? ZERO how many world series appearances? ZERO time to make a change

#76 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:39 PM

i just gave you all the examples you need, two straight awful years with big payrolls, no other fan base or team would accept 200 almost loses in 2 years!! how many world series titles do we have because of terry? ZERO how many world series appearances? ZERO time to make a change


Using the W_L record for two years and the lack of a world series appearance as your criteria for calling for a change is completely understandable and legitimate. Other commenters use different criteria to make their assessment, and their criteria is equally understandable and legitimate. At least to some of us, PatMearesFan.

#77 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

So, I'm just curious, Chief. Who are these other organizations who had an equally poor or poorer draft order for, like forever, as you put it, that have a farm system ranked higher than the Twins? I can only think of a couple that might qualify: Cardinals, Rangers, maybe Toronto?

That's been my real point. The common tirade, almost always stated as fact, is about how crappy the Twins are at drafting and development. I want to see something substantive to back this up. Not this lazy "what about Adam Johnson" crap.

#78 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,798 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

Over time... A lot of perfectally acceptable babies have been thrown out with the bath water.

#79 LoganJones

LoganJones

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:57 PM

If he'd been small or puny or sickly or misshapen...... he would have been discarded.

spartan-babies.jpg

#80 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,257 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:07 PM

Blaming the Twins draft position (bottom third of the draft order since, like, forever!) is lazy, partially incorrect, and nothing but excuse making. Other teams find good players in the bottom of the first round, not to mention the rounds after that.


So do the Twins. Whats your point?

#81 jimbo92107

jimbo92107

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 554 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:08 PM

The Twins have gone from 90+ game winners to 90+ game losers despite going from bottom 10 payrolls to top 10 payrolls. Yes, they lost a ton of games from Mauer, Morneau, and Span in 2011, but they lost about as many in 2012 with all of them healthy, or at least in the lineup.

I have no idea who you're talking about when you cite "aging stars" as a reason for the losing seasons. None.

The lower draft positions are a good point, right up until you consider the fact that just as the drought of prized prospects should be hitting the big club, they had a massive infusion of payroll that should easily make up for the absence of a couple of fast-rising prospects due to low draft picks.

On the other hand, your description of the potential Twins pitchers as "A Tommy John encounter group" was one of the best quips I've read on this forum or any other, and would like your permission to use it in offline Twins conversations, with my assurance that I will fully credit you for coining it.


Quote me all you want, just don't make a big deal about my hair color... ;-)

#82 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

Santana is probably one of the prime examples Ryan uses when talking about the risks of multi-year deals. The Mets probably loved the contract, up through around August of the second year. After that, it got scary for a year, and then the two years following have been a virtual waste of the money.


It was September of 2010, his third year with the Mets and second year under his new deal. It would have been the time that a six year deal with the Twins would have expired had Ryan thought to extend him for a more reasonable length after the 2004 season. It would have been a logical extension length that would have worked out nearly perfectly.

#83 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,257 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

As for the payroll, the owner and GM have said repeatedly that Ryan can spend what he wants to spend. I can only take them at their word on that.


This is true. Can't really blame ownership for the entire cut, Ryan had money to work with and chose not to use it.

#84 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,111 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:28 PM

It was September of 2010, his third year with the Mets and second year under his new deal. It would have been the time that a six year deal with the Twins would have expired had Ryan thought to extend him for a more reasonable length after the 2004 season. It would have been a logical extension length that would have worked out nearly perfectly.


I was referring to 2009, when he stopped pitching after August. I assume he would have been unavailable for any post-season work, which is a prime reason for acquiring a talent like him, even if the Mets fortunes didn't work out that year. I think you're right that his 2010 season also ended early, this time with a career-interruption.

#85 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:18 PM

i just gave you all the examples you need, two straight awful years with big payrolls, no other fan base or team would accept 200 almost loses in 2 years!! how many world series titles do we have because of terry? ZERO how many world series appearances? ZERO time to make a change

Then there ought to be a lot of general manager jobs open as quite a few teams have not made the world series. Beane in Oakland come first to mind as someone who has never gotten to the world series and is long tenured. 2007-2011 losing record

#86 Physics Guy

Physics Guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 626 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:30 PM

It was September of 2010, his third year with the Mets and second year under his new deal. It would have been the time that a six year deal with the Twins would have expired had Ryan thought to extend him for a more reasonable length after the 2004 season. It would have been a logical extension length that would have worked out nearly perfectly.


I think you are missing something here. How often do players extend contracts way past their arbitration years? Young guys that are extended rarely will sign contracts more than a year into what would be their free agency years. Even if Ryan had wanted to sign him for six years (which I doubt), I'm skeptical that Santana would have signed.

#87 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:47 PM

Liriano had elbow issues before the Giants traded him. That's why they were willing to give him up.

What the Giants did with AJ after the trade has no bearing on the trade itself, just as Nathan's contract extension with the Twins doesn't have anything to do with the trade either, and just as the JJ Hardy trade has nothing to do with the Johan Santana trade.


So the "fact" that Liriano was going to get hurt (more than two and a half years later) is part of the trade, but AJ being under contract for only one year was a big surprise to both sides? I just don't get that.

#88 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,164 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

So do the Twins. Whats your point?


I thought it was pretty clear that the argument of "we had bad draft position" is a poor excuse for the farm system dipping. And contrary to the claims of some here, it clearly was dipping at the time Smith took over the role.

Again, Smith made A LOT of mistakes. But he also oversaw the drafting, signing, or developing of most of our current top 10 prospects which, by the way, makes this farm system one of the top 3-5 in the league at this point. And I'm not convinced that Ryan's track record would have been as positive if he was in charge in that stretch.

Ryan has plenty of positives he brings back to the organization, but let's not pretend Smith's aggressiveness had no payoffs. We may be about to reap those rewards.

#89 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:40 PM

I thought it was pretty clear that the argument of "we had bad draft position" is a poor excuse for the farm system dipping. And contrary to the claims of some here, it clearly was dipping at the time Smith took over the role.

Again, Smith made A LOT of mistakes. But he also oversaw the drafting, signing, or developing of most of our current top 10 prospects which, by the way, makes this farm system one of the top 3-5 in the league at this point. And I'm not convinced that Ryan's track record would have been as positive if he was in charge in that stretch.

Ryan has plenty of positives he brings back to the organization, but let's not pretend Smith's aggressiveness had no payoffs. We may be about to reap those rewards.


Actually, the argument clearly made was that "bad draft position" was nothing but an excuse, and a lazy one at that. It's a groundless argument, and perhaps a bit lazy.

Poor draft position isn't the sole reason for the farm system dipping. And a lot of factors have gone into the rise as well. I don't know anyone who believes that our draft position is the sole factor. I can find commenters on here who either ignore it as a factor or who minimize it as a factor without putting any effort into supporting their opinion with facts.

I find it interesting that people feel such a strong compulsion to finger a single individual for credit or blame. This whole drafting and development business involves a multi-million dollar annual budget. There are sixty employees involved in this part of the business. For those of you in the know, please tell me how you came to know the level of influence Billy Smith had on the signing of Sano. What information do you have that I don't have? Sure is more logical to me to think the credit (and blame) should be shared.

#90 luke829

luke829

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 318 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:51 PM

I'm sure Tubby Smith can relate to what has been said/posted.
Mastermind of the "Free Bert" sign.