Jump to content

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

The Store

Photo

5 for 20

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

The Twins are just 5-15 in their last 20 games. This has been a pathetic finish to what looked like a team that made a slight improvement. I'm so thankful Sano and company didn't get to play with these guys. Does anyone think this will carry over to next year? And does anyone think we'll win another game this year?

#2 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:25 PM

There are like 2 pitchers in the rotation currently who will be a part of the opening day roster, and maybe 3-4 position players.

#3 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:59 PM

There are like 2 pitchers in the rotation currently who will be a part of the opening day roster, and maybe 3-4 position players.


A little low on the position players. Arcia, Dozier, Plouffe, Presley/Mastroianni, and Florimon will probably be back. Willingham and Doumit too if they're not traded.

#4 iastfan112

iastfan112

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:21 PM

When your best player is injured it makes a poor team even worse.

#5 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,037 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 11:43 PM

I can see a full 33% of the 40 man roster altering through release, trade, or DFA pretty easily. Much of what needs to happen involves ending the Twins tenure of Dave St. Peter, Terry Ryan, Mike Radcliff, Rob Antony, Brad Steil, Ron Gardenhire, and Rich Anderson.

This needs to be said, these people need to be named and called out, and that is that.

#6 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:13 AM

There are like 2 pitchers in the rotation currently who will be a part of the opening day roster, and maybe 3-4 position players.


Going by your numbers, the Twins simply are not going to turn over 67%-75% of their position players------> if Twins managment stays in place. I can quickly name 8 position players who almost certainly will return- Willingham, Doumit, Dozier, Florimon, Escobar, Arcia, Pinto, Presley. (And if 1 or 2 are traded or sent down, I can think of at least 3 others who would be retained to take their place(s)....ie, Hermann, Plouffe, Mastro....).

#7 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 816 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 04:23 AM

Given what the Twins have now, the following position players are sure to return if not traded,
Dozier, Mauer,Florimon, Arcia, Presley, Willingham, Plouffe. Escobar will probably make it. Some combination of the following will also be here, Pinto, Herrmann, Parmelle, Collobella. That will leave one to two positions open depending on whether the Twins carry 12 or 13 position players. Pitchers are a different story as the turnover should be bigger there. Only Correria is guaranteed a starting spot and Gibson will probably be here. Rest of starting staff is or should be an unknown. Bullpen will have Perkins, Burton, Fien, Thielbar and Swarzak. That leaves at least 6 spots open with Duensing probably filling one of them. Pressly may be in Rochester to become a starter again, he at least has some stuff.

#8 Rick Blaine

Rick Blaine

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:56 AM

I can see a full 33% of the 40 man roster altering through release, trade, or DFA pretty easily. Much of what needs to happen involves ending the Twins tenure of Dave St. Peter, Terry Ryan, Mike Radcliff, Rob Antony, Brad Steil, Ron Gardenhire, and Rich Anderson



This needs to be said, these people need to be named and called out, and that is that.


agreed!! I think this is obvious--- which makes it highly unlikely............

#9 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:38 AM

I can see a full 33% of the 40 man roster altering through release, trade, or DFA pretty easily. Much of what needs to happen involves ending the Twins tenure of Dave St. Peter, Terry Ryan, Mike Radcliff, Rob Antony, Brad Steil, Ron Gardenhire, and Rich Anderson.

This needs to be said, these people need to be named and called out, and that is that.

After 22 months of rebuilding, with only 19 months left, your blueprint for success is off with their heads? This is just lazy and a proven way to extend the rebuilding indefinitely. I would really encourage you to read the positive articles the national media is directing toward our tried, true, and proven organization.

#10 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 5,816 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:44 AM

These guys were around to cause the need for the rebuild.....it isn't only 22 months with these people. I'm not sure how that is even up for debate.
Lighten up Francis....

#11 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:56 AM

These guys were around to cause the need for the rebuild.....it isn't only 22 months with these people. I'm not sure how that is even up for debate.

Mike, in your own words, could you share with those keeping score at home, exactly how these 7 tried, true, and proven professionals caused the need for the rebuild?

#12 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,037 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:59 AM

After 22 months of rebuilding, with only 19 months left, your blueprint for success is off with their heads? This is just lazy and a proven way to extend the rebuilding indefinitely. I would really encourage you to read the positive articles the national media is directing toward our tried, true, and proven organization.


"Positive articles"? "Proven organization"? I am not sure what you are talking about. Anyway, it isn't a lazy approach. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a proactive approach to sweep out those who have caused three terrible seasons in a row, and not a single playoff series won since 2002. I would leave the scouting in place.

#13 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,037 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:00 AM

Mike, in your own words, could you share with those keeping score at home, exactly how these 7 tried, true, and proven professionals caused the need for the rebuild?


Are you related to one of them or something? I don't even know what "tried, true, and proven" is supposed to mean here. I am not saying that they shouldn't likely have jobs somewhere. I don't think they should be in this organization anymore, and that is for the health of the organization.

#14 Siehbiscuit

Siehbiscuit

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 305 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:31 AM

I have said this numerous times. Ryan has done a great job at finding talent and has made some good trades that has rebuilt our minor league system, but for some reason during this seond go round he has only assembled a AAAA quality roster. The Twins have Joe Mauer, a HOF-caliber catcher, but next to nothing else. A failed starter in Perkins, that has become an excellent closer. Willingham surprised us with a standout year in 2012. But when it comes to building the MLB club, TR continues to acquire poor talent. Pressley, Escobar and Hernandez for Morneau and Liriano? Liriano's talent (although inconsistent) alone was worth keeping him. I don't think he is the guy that will get the Twins into contention.

#15 Curt

Curt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:42 AM

When your best player is injured it makes a poor team even worse.


This. Don't forget about Morneau. As disappointing as he was, he was the 2nd best hitter on the team.

With M&M: .242/.312/.381
Without: .232/.302/.367

SP may be Twins' biggest problem but it is not the only one.

#16 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:13 AM

After 22 months of rebuilding, with only 19 months left, your blueprint for success is off with their heads? This is just lazy and a proven way to extend the rebuilding indefinitely. I would really encourage you to read the positive articles the national media is directing toward our tried, true, and proven organization.


Cleveland and Boston proved they could shorten the rebuild, not extend it.

#17 Sconnie

Sconnie

    King of his Castle

  • Members
  • 1,127 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:39 AM

After 22 months of rebuilding, with only 19 months left, your blueprint for success is off with their heads? This is just lazy and a proven way to extend the rebuilding indefinitely. I would really encourage you to read the positive articles the national media is directing toward our tried, true, and proven organization.

Jokin is dead on, The rebuild process doesn't have to be 5 full seasons of terrible baseball. Make no mistake, this rebuild started in 2011 whether we (or TR) knew it or not. At current rate the rebuild will be another 3 seasons. This team can't be a Pittsburg Pirates, it won't survive another decade of inneptitude like it did in the 90s.

#18 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:13 PM

This team can't be a Pittsburg Pirates, it won't survive another decade of inneptitude like it did in the 90s.


I'm curious why you say this. Granted, it might not be fun to watch for a while, but I highly doubt they'll go under.

#19 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:27 PM

I can see a full 33% of the 40 man roster altering through release, trade, or DFA pretty easily. Much of what needs to happen involves ending the Twins tenure of Dave St. Peter, Terry Ryan, Mike Radcliff, Rob Antony, Brad Steil, Ron Gardenhire, and Rich Anderson.

This needs to be said, these people need to be named and called out, and that is that.


Shouldn't you be aiming at Deron Johnson instead of Radcliff? Johnson took over as draft guru in 08 and Gibson was the first pitcher he drafted that made the majors. Steil? He's been farm director for one year and it's been a pretty good year for the farm system. Several of the best prospects did two levels. St. Peter? Isn't he mostly about bringing in money/revenue etc and has nothing to do with baseball ops?

I get the Gardy/Anderson hate, I don't agree but I get it. Ryan hate is ridiculous. He's a great GM, proven and has already made significant strides forward on the rebuild.

#20 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:28 PM

Jokin is dead on, The rebuild process doesn't have to be 5 full seasons of terrible baseball. Make no mistake, this rebuild started in 2011 whether we (or TR) knew it or not. At current rate the rebuild will be another 3 seasons. This team can't be a Pittsburg Pirates, it won't survive another decade of inneptitude like it did in the 90s.


TR wasn't GM in 2011.

#21 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:36 PM

Cleveland and Boston proved they could shorten the rebuild, not extend it.


Cleveland suffered through 4 straight losing seasons before this year. Boston didn't really rebuild. They had one losing season with an insane manager and a ton of injuries. They also have significant financial resources the Twins don't.

Teams that have extended rebuilds the last decade or so - Pirates, Royals, Rays, Rangers, etc - have often changed GMs and FO turnover that makes rebuilds harder.

#22 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:37 PM

I'm curious why you say this. Granted, it might not be fun to watch for a while, but I highly doubt they'll go under.


"it might not be fun to watch for a while"

Why should fans (who publicly financed a new ballpark) have to settle for this bromide? " A while" has already been 3 years, and there is already a general consensus, amongst both the pessimists and the optimists, that 2014 is already lost, making it year 4 of no fun. In the 21st Century of shorter attention spans, weak economy, increasing alternatives for the entertainment dollar and the general fickle nature of the casual fans and their relationship with a ballpark whose "new car smell" has an ever-shortening shelf life.... and most importantly, a miserly and highly disinterested and disengaged ownership that already previously has threatened to either move or kill the franchise, there have to be doubts about the long-term viability of the franchise in Minnesota if they maintain the status quo.

#23 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

"it might not be fun to watch for a while"

Why should fans (who publicly financed a new ballpark) have to settle for this bromide? " A while" has already been 3 years, and there is already a general consensus, amongst both the pessimists and the optimists, that 2014 is already lost, making it year 4 of no fun. In the 21st Century of shorter attention spans, weak economy, increasing alternatives for the entertainment dollar and the general fickle nature of the casual fans and their relationship with a ballpark whose "new car smell" has an ever-shortening shelf life.... and most importantly, a miserly and highly disinterested and disengaged ownership that already previously has threatened to either move or kill the franchise, there have to be doubts about the long-term viability of the franchise in Minnesota if they maintain the status quo.


Sure, if baseball's economics change drastically long term bad teams might fold or move but it's really, really unlikely.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and moan about bad teams but I wouldn't worry about not having a team here in 2025.

#24 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:44 PM

Cleveland suffered through 4 straight losing seasons before this year. Boston didn't really rebuild. They had one losing season with an insane manager and a ton of injuries. They also have significant financial resources the Twins don't.

Teams that have extended rebuilds the last decade or so - Pirates, Royals, Rays, Rangers, etc - have often changed GMs and FO turnover that makes rebuilds harder.


4 years in the wilderness for Cleveland, much like the Twins are about to experience, and it cost them much of their loyal fan base in the process. New management and ownership brought about immediate improvements and philosophical changes for the Indians. The Red Sox completely overhauled their roster and approach, as well as boldly correcting their personnel mistakes at the management level. The Sox actually cut their payroll in the process of making their improvements so your finance argument doesn't wash. No one has suggested that the Twins have to have an identical payroll to Boston's, just to make a full commitment to winning, by using all of the resources at their disposal- IOW, to do what ownership said they would do if the new ballpark was built for them. (Remember, the Twins told us in September of 2011 to expect several years of incremental payroll cutting, IOW, raising the "White Flag" was their stated strategy, ala the 1990s, post World Series 1991).

Edited by jokin, 26 September 2013 - 12:47 PM.


#25 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:51 PM

Sure, if baseball's economics change drastically long term bad teams might fold or move but it's really, really unlikely.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and moan about bad teams but I wouldn't worry about not having a team here in 2025.


You really think it unlikely that the Pohlad's would sell the team to out-of-town interests in a heartbeat, if it served their interests? There's still plenty of room for a relocated franchise in booming TX, OK, Canada or the Carolinas.

#26 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:53 PM

4 years in the wilderness for Cleveland, much like the Twins are about to experience, and it cost them much of their loyal fan base in the process. New management and ownership brought about immediate improvements and philosophical changes for the Indians. The Red Sox completely overhauled their roster and approach, as well as boldly correcting their personnel mistakes at the management level. The Sox actually cut their payroll in the process of making their improvements so your finance argument doesn't wash. No one has suggested that the Twins have to have an identical payroll to Boston's, just to make a full commitment to winning use all of the resources at their disposal- IOW, to do what ownership said they would do if the new ballpark was built for them.


Twins have a more loyal fanbase than Cleveland - we actually out drew them this year. Red Sox dropped some bad contracts but still had significant $$ to throw out and had players returning from injuries. The Twins problems weren't the same.

IIRC, Cleveland's former GM Shapiro (who had a great run) was promoted to President after the 09 season. Chris Antonetti (who had been Shapiro's second in command) took over. And they've had the same owner since 2000. So not really a change in ownership or new ways of thinking. Just building up from a farm system and trades.

Edited by gunnarthor, 26 September 2013 - 12:58 PM.
mixed up gm's name with owners


#27 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:53 PM

"it might not be fun to watch for a while"

Why should fans (who publicly financed a new ballpark) have to settle for this bromide? " A while" has already been 3 years, and there is already a general consensus, amongst both the pessimists and the optimists, that 2014 is already lost, making it year 4 of no fun. In the 21st Century of shorter attention spans, weak economy, increasing alternatives for the entertainment dollar and the general fickle nature of the casual fans and their relationship with a ballpark whose "new car smell" has an ever-shortening shelf life.... and most importantly, a miserly and highly disinterested and disengaged ownership that already previously has threatened to either move or kill the franchise, there have to be doubts about the long-term viability of the franchise in Minnesota if they maintain the status quo.


I'm not saying that there are no reasons for fans to be disgruntled, but I find this to be extremely unlikely. You are welcome to disagree with me, but personally I think the case you make is substantially overstated.

I'll also add one other personal note: My comment about "no fun" was relative compared to a contending club. Personally, I have enjoyed the Twins season and I'm looking forward to next year. I love baseball, and I love Twins baseball. Just like I love playing golf, even though I suck at it. Even a bad day at the ballpark is better than a day in the office.

Edited by IdahoPilgrim, 26 September 2013 - 12:56 PM.


#28 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:55 PM

You really think it unlikely that the Pohlad's would sell the team to out-of-town interests in a heartbeat, if it served their interests? There's still plenty of room for a relocated franchise in booming TX, OK, Canada or the Carolinas.


Yeah, I hate the Pohlads but if they wanted to sell, they just as likely find a rich owner that would keep the team in MN. And other teams have territorial rights that make moves that much harder to do. So yeah, the Twins will still be in MN in 2025 even if they have losing seasons every year.

#29 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,921 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

. Ryan hate is ridiculous. He's a great GM, proven and has already made significant strides forward on the rebuild.


I don't think ridiculous is right here. Ryan's strengths may no longer be the right ones for this organization. We aren't the mid 90s Twins playing in the dome and this isn't 1992 in stats, analysis, development, and drafting. I haven't seen much in the way of Ryan altering his approach to better succeed in this landscape.

There are plenty of valid reasons for criticism, even if you still might endorse him staying.

#30 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,801 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:21 PM

I'm not saying that there are no reasons for fans to be disgruntled, but I find this to be extremely unlikely. You are welcome to disagree with me, but personally I think the case you make is substantially overstated.


Look no further than Montreal for the possibilities for debacle. A very, very young, exciting and talented club with disinterested ownership and disaffected fanbase. If the Twins don't update their approach and thinking to match 21st Century baseball, even a pipeline of exciting young prospects doesn't guarantee long-term viability in Minnesota, if the ineptitude continues long-term. Does the average informed fan really feel comfortable with the level of commitment to winning of the ownership group? They have historically demonstrated that their interest in the team pretty much extends as far as the projected ROI. When potential contraction, or sale to Charlotte interests offered a possibly higher return on investment, they pursued such options with gusto, implicit blackmail to the fans to pony up in the process- a true "win-win" deal for ownership.

All of these unnecessary machinations, and all they really need to do to get 3.25M+ in attendance and soaring TV ratings is to expand the TF seating capacity to just over 40,000 and hire a forward-thinking and intrepid and dynamic- yet fiscally prudent- management group that puts a competitive product on the field in 7 years out of 10.