Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

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

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

Percent confidence in management

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 silverslugger

silverslugger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:24 PM

I consider 88 wins a successful season. It may or may not get you a division championship depending on the year. It may or may not get you into the playoffs. It got the Twins into the playoffs in '87 and from their we all know the outcome. What percent confident are you in the following management to do their part to get the Twins to 88 wins by the end of the 2016 season?

Ryan?
Gardenhire?
Anderson?

I'd put my current confidence levels in those people at:

Ryan 50%
Gardenhire 20%
Anderson 10%

At the end of last season I would've put those confidence levels at:

Ryan 80%
Gardenhire 40%
Anderson 30%

I've lost alot of confidence over the off-season and the first six weeks of the season.

Edited by silverslugger, 23 May 2013 - 04:31 PM.


#2 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:08 PM

I want to look at your confidence levels in more concrete terms that I can relate to, let's see if we're on the same page-

I see your vote of confidence in Ryan is the same as the flip of the coin (chimpanzees can do that),

for Gardy, it's slightly better than correctly guessing the outcome of a roll of a single die,

and speaking of "dying",

for Anderson. your confidence level is equivalent to surviving lung cancer.

On these terms I would concur with your lack of a vote of confidence for the season thus far.

#3 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 696 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:18 PM

for Anderson. your confidence level is equivalent to surviving lung cancer.

On these terms I would concur with your lack of a vote of confidence for the season thus far.


Survival rate for stage 1 lung cancer is 50%.

#4 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:21 PM

Survival rate for stage 1 lung cancer is 50%.


I went with "science" for my source on this one, wise one:

Survival statistics for the most common cancers : Cancer Research UK

#5 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:26 PM

88 wins by 2016? Given the prospects in the system now, I have a high confidence that they should be able to hit that, whether the present regime is there or not. That's just me. Another really bad losing season will mean another very nice prospect at the top of the draft as well, which might very well be ready by 2016.

#6 silverslugger

silverslugger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:40 PM

88 wins by 2016? Given the prospects in the system now, I have a high confidence that they should be able to hit that, whether the present regime is there or not. That's just me. Another really bad losing season will mean another very nice prospect at the top of the draft as well, which might very well be ready by 2016.


So your confident Gardy and Anderson won't hurt and will most likely help our pitching prospects such as Gibson, Meyer, and May? I wish I had that confidence. I'm much more confident in our minor league hitters fulfilling their promise, especially with Bruno as the batting coach.

#7 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

Just out of curiosity, why are you so high on Bruno as batting coach? Our young guns aren't exactly tearing up the league right now - our veterans either, for that matter.

I'm not saying that's Bruno's fault, but merely that I haven't really seen any sign that he has made a difference yet either.

#8 silverslugger

silverslugger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:26 PM

Just out of curiosity, why are you so high on Bruno as batting coach? Our young guns aren't exactly tearing up the league right now - our veterans either, for that matter.

I'm not saying that's Bruno's fault, but merely that I haven't really seen any sign that he has made a difference yet either.


Purely based on all the positive reviews/comments about his effectiveness with our minor leaguers over the past two years. I agree, those results aren't showing up for the Twins so far this season.

#9 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 696 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:47 PM

I went with "science" for my source on this one, wise one:

Survival statistics for the most common cancers : Cancer Research UK


Yes, for stage 4 cancer. Not all lung cancer is stage 4 So why don't you stick to using examples that you know something about.

[SIZE=2]Five-year Relative Survival Rates* (%) by Stage at Diagnosis, 2002-2008
[/SIZE][SIZE=1]All Stages Local Regional Distant All Stages Local Regional Distant
[/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Breast (female) 89 98 84 24 Ovary 44 92 72 27
Colon & rectum 64 90 70 12 Pancreas 6 23 9 2
Esophagus 17 38 20 3 Prostate 99 100 100 28
Kidney[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]† [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]71 91 64 12 Stomach 27 62 28 4
Larynx 61 76 42 35 Testis 95 99 96 73
Liver[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]‡ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]15 28 10 3 Thyroid 98 100 97 54
Lung & bronchus 16 52 25 4 Urinary bladder[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]§ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]78 70 33 6
Melanoma of the skin 91 98 62 15 Uterine cervix 68 91 57 16
Oral cavity & pharynx 62 82 57 35 Uterine corpus 82 95 67 16
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]*Rates are adjusted for normal life expectancy and are based on cases diagnosed in the SEER 18 areas from 2002-2008, followed through 2009. †Includes renal pelvis. ‡Includes intrahepatic bile duct. § Rate for in situ cases is 96%.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Local: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]an invasive malignant cancer confined entirely to the organ of origin. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Regional: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that 1) has extended beyond the limits of the organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues; 2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system; or 3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Distant: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that has spread to parts of the body remote from the primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via the lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Source: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1], National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/, 2012.
American Cancer Society, Surveillance Research 2013
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Edited by The Wise One, 23 May 2013 - 06:51 PM.


#10 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:54 PM

Yes, for stage 4 cancer. Not all lung cancer is stage 4 So why don't you stick to using examples that you know something about.

[SIZE=2]Five-year Relative Survival Rates* (%) by Stage at Diagnosis, 2002-2008
[/SIZE][SIZE=1]All Stages Local Regional Distant All Stages Local Regional Distant
[/SIZE]
[FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Breast (female) 89 98 84 24 Ovary 44 92 72 27
Colon & rectum 64 90 70 12 Pancreas 6 23 9 2
Esophagus 17 38 20 3 Prostate 99 100 100 28
Kidney[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]† [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]71 91 64 12 Stomach 27 62 28 4
Larynx 61 76 42 35 Testis 95 99 96 73
Liver[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]‡ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]15 28 10 3 Thyroid 98 100 97 54
Lung & bronchus 16 52 25 4 Urinary bladder[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]§ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]78 70 33 6
Melanoma of the skin 91 98 62 15 Uterine cervix 68 91 57 16
Oral cavity & pharynx 62 82 57 35 Uterine corpus 82 95 67 16
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]*Rates are adjusted for normal life expectancy and are based on cases diagnosed in the SEER 18 areas from 2002-2008, followed through 2009. †Includes renal pelvis. ‡Includes intrahepatic bile duct. § Rate for in situ cases is 96%.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Local: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]an invasive malignant cancer confined entirely to the organ of origin. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Regional: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that 1) has extended beyond the limits of the organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues; 2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system; or 3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Distant: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that has spread to parts of the body remote from the primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via the lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Source: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1], National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/, 2012.
American Cancer Society, Surveillance Research 2013
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]


I'll probably get in trouble for this, but do you really consider this a helpful addition to the topic? Seriously?

#11 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

I'll probably get in trouble for this, but do you really consider this a helpful addition to the topic? Seriously?


Just flag it...I did.

#12 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,365 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:17 PM

Yes, for stage 4 cancer. Not all lung cancer is stage 4 So why don't you stick to using examples that you know something about.

[SIZE=2]Five-year Relative Survival Rates* (%) by Stage at Diagnosis, 2002-2008
[/SIZE][SIZE=1]All Stages Local Regional Distant All Stages Local Regional Distant
[/SIZE]
[FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Breast (female) 89 98 84 24 Ovary 44 92 72 27
Colon & rectum 64 90 70 12 Pancreas 6 23 9 2
Esophagus 17 38 20 3 Prostate 99 100 100 28
Kidney[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]† [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]71 91 64 12 Stomach 27 62 28 4
Larynx 61 76 42 35 Testis 95 99 96 73
Liver[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]‡ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]15 28 10 3 Thyroid 98 100 97 54
Lung & bronchus 16 52 25 4 Urinary bladder[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]§ [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]78 70 33 6
Melanoma of the skin 91 98 62 15 Uterine cervix 68 91 57 16
Oral cavity & pharynx 62 82 57 35 Uterine corpus 82 95 67 16
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]*Rates are adjusted for normal life expectancy and are based on cases diagnosed in the SEER 18 areas from 2002-2008, followed through 2009. †Includes renal pelvis. ‡Includes intrahepatic bile duct. § Rate for in situ cases is 96%.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Local: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]an invasive malignant cancer confined entirely to the organ of origin. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Regional: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that 1) has extended beyond the limits of the organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues; 2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system; or 3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Distant: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]a malignant cancer that has spread to parts of the body remote from the primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via the lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1]Source: [/SIZE][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1]SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][SIZE=1], National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/, 2012.
American Cancer Society, Surveillance Research 2013
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]


First, please be more respectful of each other.

Second, there may be some of us who are dealing with cancer in the real world right now who might be coming to TD to get away from thinking about cancer, and I would be personally grateful if people would try to not talk about cancer on TD.

#13 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

So, is it staying up?

I guess that's a yes...

I had more, but I had to edit...would have been deleted and I would have gotten a warning or worse...

Edited by ThePuck, 23 May 2013 - 08:41 PM.


#14 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:07 PM

I have about 75% confidence the Twins will win 88 games in 2016. This team will be pretty good then, regardless of who the coaches are. The better question is how much faith I have in them actually winning a series. Which I would respond with about 10% through the whole lot. Ryan hasn't been able to build a championship team, Gardy hasn't been able to manage in the playoffs and Anderson's pitchers have underachieved. I don't think we'll need to even talk about this after this offseason.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#15 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,762 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

The Twins could still win 88 games with incompetent leadership. They've done it before under Bill Smith no less.

#16 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

no confidence in the 3. They are the main reason that MN is the laughingstock of baseball (Hou makes no illusions about winning while Twins do)

#17 JDW

JDW

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

There should be an option for confidence in ownership. That is where my lack of confidence lies. If by chance Ryan, Gardy, etc... are let go, I feel this org will replace them with all in house candidates. And that is where the trouble lies.

#18 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,585 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:10 PM

My confidence in:

Terry Ryan - 99%
Rob Antony - 99%
Mike Radcliff - 99%
Brad Steil - 99%

Ron Gardenhire - 89% (most of this isn't up to him)

#19 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:20 PM

The Twins could still win 88 games with incompetent leadership. They've done it before under Bill Smith no less.

A
nd with an even more incompetent G.M in Terry Ryan

#20 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:23 PM

[quote name='Seth Stohs']My confidence in:

Terry Ryan - 99%
Rob Antony - 99%
Mike Radcliff - 99%
Brad Steil - 99%

Ron Gardenhire - 89% (most of this isn't up to him)[/QUOTE


99% in Rob Anthony The same guy who got drunk with Nishis agent , watched a couple of tapes and went to B Smith with a recomendation ?

#21 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,585 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:19 PM

Yup, the same guy...

#22 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

Yup, the same guy...


Before I specifically critique anyone from the front office, I'd like to hear how you support the quality of a job that a guy like Antony has done.

#23 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,267 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:21 AM

My confidence in:

Terry Ryan - 99%
Rob Antony - 99%
Mike Radcliff - 99%
Brad Steil - 99%

Ron Gardenhire - 89% (most of this isn't up to him)



Here are Ryan's major deicsions this last year:

Sign Corriea to a two year deal
Sign Pelfrey
Refuse to call up Gibson
Trade for Vance Worely and Trevor May
Trade for Alex Meyer
Not sign any position players
Trade two starting OFers, with no one ready to take their place
Call up Hicks

And you have 99% confidence? I know you know the guy, but you can't see any reason to have doubt in him?
Lighten up Francis....

#24 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 921 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:53 AM

The Twins could still win 88 games with incompetent leadership. They've done it before under Bill Smith no less.


Yes. By 2016, I'm confident our homegrown talent base will be more than capable of overcoming Gardy's "old-school" ways and TR's debatable free agent acquisitions.

On the subject of the post, I tend to have more confidence in TR than Gardy for some reason.

#25 RIP BYTO

RIP BYTO

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:48 AM

I consider 88 wins a successful season. It may or may not get you a division championship depending on the year. It may or may not get you into the playoffs. It got the Twins into the playoffs in '87 and from their we all know the outcome. What percent confident are you in the following management to do their part to get the Twins to 88 wins by the end of the 2016 season?

Ryan?
Gardenhire?
Anderson?

I'd put my current confidence levels in those people at:

Ryan 50%
Gardenhire 20%
Anderson 10%

At the end of last season I would've put those confidence levels at:

Ryan 80%
Gardenhire 40%
Anderson 30%

I've lost alot of confidence over the off-season and the first six weeks of the season.


I am 100% confident that 100% of the three guys you mention will not be with the Twins at the end of the 2016 season.

#26 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:29 AM

So your confident Gardy and Anderson won't hurt and will most likely help our pitching prospects such as Gibson, Meyer, and May? I wish I had that confidence. I'm much more confident in our minor league hitters fulfilling their promise, especially with Bruno as the batting coach.


This team won a lot of games last decade, and in my opinion, that was in spite of the coaching staff, not because of it. I'm not a Gardy supporter (though up until recently I've been a bigger fan of Anderson). I don't think Gardy is the right person for the job going forward either... but in answer to this question, regardless of who is managing, I think the 2016 team will have no problems winning 88 games. Your concern regarding Gardenhire/Anderson is quite valid.

#27 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:35 AM

Here are Ryan's major deicsions this last year:

Sign Corriea to a two year deal
Sign Pelfrey
Refuse to call up Gibson
Trade for Vance Worely and Trevor May
Trade for Alex Meyer
Not sign any position players
Trade two starting OFers, with no one ready to take their place
Call up Hicks

And you have 99% confidence? I know you know the guy, but you can't see any reason to have doubt in him?


Truth be told, these moves all scream 2015 and beyond. You might not like Ryan, but he's clearly looking out longer term. In terms of confidence, I have far more confidence in the front office than I do the field staff. You and I may not like the decision, but regardless of what the PR folks spun it as, this team is clearly taking a rebuilding approach. Why I have confidence in the front office is that they have done a great job restocking the farm system, and in the case of Ryan, he has done this before with success. The concerns I have is how he's going to augment this team come the latter half of this decade. If there's a big hole in the middle infield or on the mound, how does Ryan fill it? Another KC? If so, then that's where my confidence is gone.

#28 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,267 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:41 AM

Here are the picks after Berrios last year:

Bard, Melotakis, Chargois....and you are confident in the FO ability to draft players? May has all the problems he had last year, when experts said he was not a starter anymore. Worley has been awful. So, Meyer was maybe a good trade. And Buxton was a good pick, and maybe Berrios was a good pick (there are still experts on line saying his stuff is not as great as it appears). So what is so much better about the future than before last year? If it is Buxton, well, they had the 2nd pick in the draft. Any of hte guys taken there or a few picks later look great.....so that's not like some genius move, imo.

So, what, exactly, makes you feel they are doing a great job rebulding the system this last year?

Meyer - plus
Buxton - plus, but any of the picks right after him would be plusses
May - big question mark
Berrios - very mixed opinions on line
Next three picks - not good, or hurt (like they were in college)
Worley - awful so far

So, what did the FO really do that makes you so confident about the future also?
Lighten up Francis....

#29 silverslugger

silverslugger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:21 AM

My confidence in:

Terry Ryan - 99%
Rob Antony - 99%
Mike Radcliff - 99%
Brad Steil - 99%

Ron Gardenhire - 89% (most of this isn't up to him)


Seth,

I appreciate your insight and your certainly closer and more informed when it comes to management than most on this site. I'd like to have confidence levels that high, but it's becoming more and more difficult for me over time. Name me the last starting pitcher developed by this organization who has had a sustained run of success for the Twins? I have very little confidence in this organizations ability to develop pitching at this point.

#30 silverslugger

silverslugger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:24 AM

This team won a lot of games last decade, and in my opinion, that was in spite of the coaching staff, not because of it. I'm not a Gardy supporter (though up until recently I've been a bigger fan of Anderson). I don't think Gardy is the right person for the job going forward either... but in answer to this question, regardless of who is managing, I think the 2016 team will have no problems winning 88 games. Your concern regarding Gardenhire/Anderson is quite valid.


I like your confidence in the 2016 team, but wonder if it isn't a bit misguided. Alot of decisions will have to be made between now and then to fill out a successful 25 man roster. Also, the reality is, most teams rely on more like 3--35 players to get through a season. I'm not certain I see this organization making the right decisions to round out the roster over the next 4 years.