Article: The Twins Are Stuck In Their Comfort Zone

[DocBauer]

There's nothing wrong with having some veterans around. Bringing in Morales? Made sense although he isn't performing as well as I'd hoped.

 

Bringing in Nolasco made sense -- having a veteran inning eater who understood how to pitch and could provide some leadership to the younger pitchers on the staff. (Again, this hasn't worked out as I would have hoped).

 

And there was nothing intrinsically wrong with offering minor league deals to Bartlett, Kubel and Guerrier. It was the seeming favoritism that allowed them spots on the major league roster -- and for far too long that was the problem.

 

Could have chosen a couple other similar responses, but this encapsulated things pretty well.

 

The Burton move was a great one, the kind of move the Twins have been known for over the years. (They don't always work, of course, but they have many times) Morales and Nolasco haven't turned out yet, but were equally good moves. Get Nolasco healthy, have Morales in game shape, which is starting to happen, and then make a decision. Morales is going to hit next season too. The question is for who.

 

Kubel is still early 30's, not that far removed from a quality season, and was brought on board as a reserve/DH option. Nothing wrong there. Guerrier was unnecessary in my opinion, but also was not that far removed from success, and was a cheap insurance policy that I didn't think they'd ever use. Bartlett was a bit of a head scratcher to be sure. He had practically been out of ball for 2 years. Remember though, we had Florimon at SS to begin the year at SS and nothing else but question marks. (I know, I know, I know) But the point here isn't to defend these signings. They were all cheap, and came with a fall back/lightening strike mentality. (Though keeping Barlett for even a day just seemed like a bad choice)

 

No defense, just some perspective. But I am puzzled and frustrated when I read and re-read how any of these three signings blocked anyone. Who on earth did they block? Kubel didn't cause Parmelee to perform poorly enough that the Twins outright cut him. Did Bartlett slow anyone? Santana was never going to break with the club, and the team was unsure what they had with Escobar at the time. Should Tonkin have pitched just a little better, the G-Man probably never gets his shot. Now, maybe Tonkin should have stayed anyway, or someone else promoted, and not going to argue that one. But Guerrier wasn't on the roster initially, and wasn't blocking anyone.

 

Again, just some perspective.

[jokin]

Could have chosen a couple other similar responses, but this encapsulated things pretty well.

 

The Burton move was a great one, the kind of move the Twins have been known for over the years. (They don't always work, of course, but they have many times) Morales and Nolasco haven't turned out yet, but were equally good moves. Get Nolasco healthy, have Morales in game shape, which is starting to happen, and then make a decision. Morales is going to hit next season too. The question is for who.

 

Kubel is still early 30's, not that far removed from a quality season, and was brought on board as a reserve/DH option. Nothing wrong there. Guerrier was unnecessary in my opinion, but also was not that far removed from success, and was a cheap insurance policy that I didn't think they'd ever use. Bartlett was a bit of a head scratcher to be sure. He had practically been out of ball for 2 years. Remember though, we had Florimon at SS to begin the year at SS and nothing else but question marks. (I know, I know, I know) But the point here isn't to defend these signings. They were all cheap, and came with a fall back/lightening strike mentality. (Though keeping Barlett for even a day just seemed like a bad choice)

 

No defense, just some perspective. But I am puzzled and frustrated when I read and re-read how any of these three signings blocked anyone. Who on earth did they block? Kubel didn't cause Parmelee to perform poorly enough that the Twins outright cut him. Did Bartlett slow anyone? Santana was never going to break with the club, and the team was unsure what they had with Escobar at the time. Should Tonkin have pitched just a little better, the G-Man probably never gets his shot. Now, maybe Tonkin should have stayed anyway, or someone else promoted, and not going to argue that one. But Guerrier wasn't on the roster initially, and wasn't blocking anyone.

 

Again, just some perspective.

 

Bartlett caused the team to lose their entire rostered CF depth, plus was a huge embarrassment to the club in his short time with the team (Bartlett was the one guy in the whole deal who did the most honorable thing, he could have shut-up and taken the money, but at least he could admit that the whole thing was a colossal error).

 

Not having Santana start out the season at SS, with Escobar getting heavy utility ABs, until they knew one way or another with Florimon, has now been demonstrated to be a huge mis-assessment of talent in all three cases.

 

Guerrier definitely blocked a better, younger pitcher, take your pick, from Meyer on down the prospect list. A complete waste of a spot for the time he was here.

[Boom Boom]

I don't disagree with the importance of having some veterans on the team when there's a youth movement going on.

 

Thing is, the Twins already had a lot of veterans. They're actually middle-of-the-pack as far as average player age. Mauer, Willingham, Suzuki, Correia, Nolasco, Burton, Duensing, etc. aren't exactly cutting their teeth. What kind of leadership could be added by bringing in Bartlett, Guerrier, and Kubel seems dubious.

 

I'm not against bringing in veterans if it improves the team, but I don't want them brought in for sentimental reasons.

[Dman]

Regarding Houston, you found one pick with an injury and ignored their other top picks doing quite well. With Aiken, the 'Stros were playing a dangerous game involving trying to get 3 top prospects to sign on the cheap, a separate issue to the talent level debate in the top 5 picks. (And they get the #2 overall pick next year for losing Aiken, plus their own top pick).

 

Every team has issues, but there are track records. There are teams who develop prospects faster and to higher levels of success sooner. Regarding control issues, what you said isn't exactly true. The science of preventative injury training methodology and quicker reaction-time to symptom presentation can control injury levels in the aggregate (Twins can't do much about Buxton, but Sano's situation could possibly have been handled better).

Controlling for player's weaknesses is what minor league training is all about. Obviously, you can't make a pint-size bat into a Louisville Slugger, or a rag arm thrower into a strikeout machine, but the Twins have demonstrated that their "average prospect" takes longer to reach the majors and often looks less prepared overall than other team's players who are called up sooner.

 

 

I shouldn't pick nits but I am going to. As far as track records look at the draft over the last 10 to 20 years what percentage of those high 1st round picks pan out? I would guess easy would mean 80 to 90 percent but I think reality is more like 50 to 60 percent. I don't think that qualifies as easy.

 

As far as injury control, all of baseball must be bad at it because TJ is rampant, players are getting concussions and various other injuries all the time. I think your injury prevention theory doesn't stand up to what we see on a daily basis in baseball for any team.

 

By controlling a weakness I mean can you teach someone who bats righty to be a switch hitter? Can you teach someone big and slow to run at grade 80? Can you teach singles hitter to hit for power? Everyone comes with weaknesses in their game and no amount of coaching will change that. You live with what you have and try to find success with what you have. You don't control the skills they can develop. The player and their Talent control everything. You can teach things about approach and hope they get it and apply it but you can't do it for them.

 

I can agree with you that getting prospects up when younger makes some sense. It seems that younger players that succeed against older competition tend to be better bets to make it in IMO. But I cannot agree this FO is so inept they need to be replaced.

[TheLeviathan]

"I'm of the opinion that "fresh blood" should be infused during good times and bad times to prevent complacency.

 

This is such an astute remark. I think people get the impression that the anti-insularity vein you see in this thread is only because we've had a run of awful teams. But to me, this team has been too insular for FAR longer than that...back even when we were running off division titles.

 

Fresh ideas and perspectives should always be welcome.

 

And one last point - Burton is an example of one of Ryan's greatest strengths which is finding small signings to turn into good bullpen pieces. They find youngish talent, with team control available, and some talent to work with and they mold them. Why is the bullpen the only place we apply this strategy?!? We might do it a bit with starters, but with position players we always seem to go with the same low-upside retreads.

[Steven Buhr]

Unfortunately it is easier to build a great farm system when you have top 5 draft picks year after year for 4 years. The real test is having a solid farm system when the team is consistently winning...which the Twins were doing for 10 years prior. I contend that is the major reason the farm system had run dry 4 years ago. How do the Cardinals win year after year, and yet their farm system is consistently one of the best?

 

I feel like I'm doing this in comment sections far too often lately, but I'm going to do it again.

 

There's a legitimate point being made here, but credibility suffers when you stretch the facts.

 

The Twins have built a highly respected farm system with the help of some draft position, but they have NOT had "top 5 draft picks year after year for 4 years."

 

They've had top end picks for only the past 3 years. Next draft COULD be the 4th, but it's a bit early to say it will be a top 5 and, regardless, their current farm system rankings do not take in to account whoever they may draft next June.

 

Much of the reason the farm system is good is due to some international FA signings, trades and good draft picks beyond the 1st round (meaning all other teams passed on those guys at least once before the Twins chose them). To claim it's anything close to easy to build a top-tier farm system just because you have had 3 top 5 picks is conveniently not giving any credit whatsoever to the people whose hard work went in to gathering much of that talent.

 

And as for Nick's complaint that no outside blood has been added, I think that's ignoring the clear increased voice a guy like Jack Goin has had in the FO. On the field, I think it's a pretty good stretch to say Terry Steinbach was an "insider" just because he played a couple years with the Twins 15 years ago.

 

For that matter, do we really think Tom Brunansky didn't pick up ANY outside thoughts in the 20+ years he spent away from the Twins organization before behing hired as a minor league hitting coach?

 

I'm sorry, but I simply reject the philosophy that anyone who, at any time in the past, had any connection to the Twins is incapable of providing new ideas.

[jokin]

I shouldn't pick nits but I am going to. As far as track records look at the draft over the last 10 to 20 years what percentage of those high 1st round picks pan out? I would guess easy would mean 80 to 90 percent but I think reality is more like 50 to 60 percent. I don't think that qualifies as easy.

 

Yes, but you're confusing what I actually said. What I said was it's easy to pick high-end talent in the top picks in the draft- which is obviously true. I made no comment that the ultimate success rate is 80 or 90%- we still have to wait and see how soon and how much Buxton, Stewart, Gordon and this year's top pick ultimately make their impact. The comments currently praising the Twins' upgraded farm system (benefiting significantly overall from the lofty ratings of all three of the recent top-end picks) are making few allowances for the inevitable bust rate. As of now, in Buxton's 2012 draft year, 5 First round college players are in the majors, and there are a bunch of first-round High Schoolers in AA.

[Dman]

Yes, but you're confusing what I actually said. What I said was it's easy to pick high-end talent in the top picks in the draft- which is obviously true. I made no comment that the ultimate success rate is 80 or 90%- we still have to wait and see how soon and how much Buxton, Stewart, Gordon and this year's top pick ultimately make their impact. The comments currently praising the Twins' upgraded farm system (benefiting significantly overall from the lofty ratings of all three of the recent top-end picks) are making few allowances for the inevitable bust rate. As of now, in Buxton's 2012 draft year, 5 First round college players are in the majors, and there are a bunch of first-round High Schoolers in AA.

 

You are right I took it the wrong direction and our big prospects have not yet made it. My Apologies.

[jokin]

I can agree with you that getting prospects up when younger makes some sense. It seems that younger players that succeed against older competition tend to be better bets to make it in IMO. But I cannot agree this FO is so inept they need to be replaced.

 

I have not advocated this. I have strongly suggested in the past and recently that the general thrust of this article is a valid concern. It has been demonstrated that the notion that- new infusions of personnel and lines of thought is critical to success- to be ubiquitously true in the modern competitive information-based free market. New ideas and the rapid process, and implementation, of valuable information are the keys to success. A stale culture that avoids "creative destruction" ends up on the short end of the stick over time.

[Steven Buhr]

Yes, but you're confusing what I actually said. What I said was it's easy to pick high-end talent in the top picks in the draft- which is obviously true. I made no comment that the ultimate success rate is 80 or 90%- we still have to wait and see how soon and how much Buxton, Stewart, Gordon and this year's top pick ultimately make their impact. The comments currently praising the Twins' upgraded farm system (benefiting significantly overall from the lofty ratings of all three of the recent top-end picks) are making few allowances for the inevitable bust rate. As of now, in Buxton's 2012 draft year, 5 First round college players are in the majors, and there are a bunch of first-round High Schoolers in AA.

 

I don't know why a discussion of the relative ranking of an organization's farm system should have to take in to account an "inevitable bust rate," unless you think for some reason that said bust rate will be higher for the Twins than it will be for the other 29 organizations. Sure there will be busts, but if you assume there will be busts in other organizations, too, it leaves the rankings unchanged.

 

All teams will have busts. The Twins and others who currently have strong, deep, pools of talent can afford that attrition more so than mediocre to poor systems can, I would argue.

[jokin]

You are right I took it the wrong direction and our big prospects have not yet made it. My Apologies.

 

No problem, and I hope I haven't come on too strongly, in turn. We share as many points of agreement as contention, which usually leads to better understanding of the issue on both of our parts, and has definitely done so in this instance. (Good model for the Twins, perhaps?)

[jokin]

I don't know why a discussion of the relative ranking of an organization's farm system should have to take in to account an "inevitable bust rate," unless you think for some reason that said bust rate will be higher for the Twins than it will be for the other 29 organizations. Sure there will be busts, but if you assume there will be busts in other organizations, too, it leaves the rankings unchanged.

 

All teams will have busts. The Twins and others who currently have strong, deep, pools of talent can afford that attrition more so than mediocre to poor systems can, I would argue.

 

Well, the bust rate from the draft has been higher for the Twins before the 2012 draft. This is a diversionary issue from what has taken place since the 2012 draft, though. Directly as a result of the Twins collapse in 2011, the team has gathered up 3, and possibly 4 high-ceiling talents, all some are saying is that there is a component of on-field futility that has fueled the farm-ranking upgrade, besides the other good moves that were made (ie, the last 3 top picks are players that are listed in the Top 25 prospects, by at least one scouting service, anyway, which really ups your overall farm ranking).

[Dman]

No problem, and I hope I haven't come on too strongly, in turn. We share as many points of agreement as contention, which usually leads to better understanding of the issue on both of out parts, and has definitely done so in this instance. (Good model for the Twins, perhaps?)

 

 

You were probably more fair in your responses than I . I think I took what you had to say the wrong way. I think we do agree more than we disagree.

 

I am not as eloquent as SD Buhr but I am more in line with his thinking. I don't mind fresh faces and new ideas and I agree they can bring great advantage. I just don't like over criticism of the FO that appears to be redeeming its past failures.

 

I always enjoy what you have to say whether I agree or not.

[WLFINN]

Totally disagree. It would had been a "good strategy", if it were fruitful and the results were good. The Twins are again embarrassingly horrible this season. They were slightly better (still plenty of season left to go either way) than the pits they were the last three, but that is not because of this strategy, that is primarily because a. they signed an upper mid level free agent (Hughes; or two - Nolasco has yet to come to fruition, but I hope it is an adjustment period, and Morales came too late, imagine a Morales in shape instead of Kubel from day 1) ...

 

 

They maybe came out ahead in this deal as they would have had likely no chance at Burdi if they had signed Morales ealrier...

[JB_Iowa]

And as for Nick's complaint that no outside blood has been added, I think that's ignoring the clear increased voice a guy like Jack Goin has had in the FO. On the field, I think it's a pretty good stretch to say Terry Steinbach was an "insider" just because he played a couple years with the Twins 15 years ago.

 

For that matter, do we really think Tom Brunansky didn't pick up ANY outside thoughts in the 20+ years he spent away from the Twins organization before behing hired as a minor league hitting coach?

 

I'm sorry, but I simply reject the philosophy that anyone who, at any time in the past, had any connection to the Twins is incapable of providing new ideas.

 

Your last sentence is an overstatement of the case I (and I think others) were making. It's not that they don't bring any new ideas and its not that they are bad hires.

 

But we tend to perceive people we've known for sometime differently than we perceive people who are new in our workplace or circle of friends. Even if the long-time acquaintance and the new person say exactly the same thing, we often "hear" them differently.

 

Sometimes that long-known voice can be an advantage (e.g. in the Jack Goin case, I think there may be a real advantage to the fact that he grew the stats analysis department because the change is introduced gradually) but sometimes it means that we simply tune it out.

 

And sometimes when we've worked in an organization or in a certain way for a long time, we just keep doing the same thing (or making the same mistake) because we don't see it differently. And then along comes a fresh eye who questions what we were doing and the light bulb goes on.

 

The Twins just haven't invited those new eyes into the baseball ops department in any higher level position. It is very stagnant. (Even Jack Goin has been with the organization for 14 years).

[old nurse]

Which are not great players. But they also represent an option other than your 23 year old rookie SS playing CF.

 

The results in CF of the play of the rookie shortstop appear to be better than mastro or pressly

[DocBauer]

Bartlett caused the team to lose their entire rostered CF depth, plus was a huge embarrassment to the club in his short time with the team (Bartlett was the one guy in the whole deal who did the most honorable thing, he could have shut-up and taken the money, but at least he could admit that the whole thing was a colossal error).

 

Not having Santana start out the season at SS, with Escobar getting heavy utility ABs, until they knew one way or another with Florimon, has now been demonstrated to be a huge mis-assessment of talent in all three cases.

 

Guerrier definitely blocked a better, younger pitcher, take your pick, from Meyer on down the prospect list. A complete waste of a spot for the time he was here.

 

Going to have to agree disagree on this I'm afraid. Kubel was released as he should have been, though probably later than deserved, but never blocked anyone.

 

While Barlett never should have spent a day on the roster, he didn't block a sole, and while it could be argued about Presley and Mastro in CF, their poor play in ST and this season further indicates they were not part of a solution or the Twins plans. And also, they thought so little of either at the time they made no moves to hold on to either. The problem there is, as has been hashed and re-hashed over and over again, not providing a viable alternative to begin with. But there was, at the time, no young CF or infielder knocking on the door that Barlett pushed aside or delayed.

 

For or the past couple of months, yes, I will agree Guerrier has been blocking a younger player potentially. Absolutely. My point with him was very simple, he was AAA filler when the season started, and not blocking anyone from the ML roster.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The results in CF of the play of the rookie shortstop appear to be better than mastro or pressly

 

Well, Bartlett and Kubel were taking 25-man roster spots that could have gone to the rookie shortstop in CF earlier.

 

It's not really Mastro or Presley that's at issue for me, it's just the absence of CF, forcing Hicks to stay in MLB.

[bird]

Again: Either the Twins have talent (and the manager is to blame,) or the Twins do not have the talent (and the front office is to blame.) The Twins are not where they are (and have been since 1992) because of divine intervention...

 

How much clearer could Ryan have stated it? The front office hasn't delivered. His strategy also couldn't be more obvious, IMO, like it or not, and Nolasco and Hughes were moves made in line with the strategy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Going to have to agree disagree on this I'm afraid. Kubel was released as he should have been, though probably later than deserved, but never blocked anyone.

 

While Barlett never should have spent a day on the roster, he didn't block a sole

 

Not sure how you can believe this. Virtually every player on a roster is "blocking" someone else all the time -- most of the time they are simply better than the player(s) being blocked, of course. Sometimes, when the better player isn't clear, the one in MLB is simply cheaper, or younger, or their defensive position fits the roster better, or at least they offer more potential/upside/etc.

 

In this case, we basically reserved two roster spots for guys that looked cooked offensively and were redundant (if not also cooked) defensively, all through spring training and even into June for Kubel. We already had a glut of corner players and shortstops without adding Kubel and Bartlett to the mix. And we had basically zero confidence in either CF besides Hicks, who quite clearly deserved minor league time. But we couldn't do anything about it (add Fuld in February, open the year with Danny Santana, etc.) due to our plans for and apparent assurances made to Kubel and Bartlett.

 

End result: Hicks is the opening day starter when he shouldn't be, and is stuck on the roster for a few months because we don't even have adequate emergency depth at the position.

[bird]

One playoff series win in 16 years as GM and no playoff games won in 10 for the Manager why would anyone even bring up making changes with that track record?

 

These stats are about as meaningful as a pitcher's W-L record. We could compile a huge list of reasons for these stats, and for sure, plenty of the reasons would be attributable to mistakes of commission and omission by the GM's and the Manager. Just like with every other team in baseball with similar failings over this period.

 

My point is, go ahead and replace these guys. I think the chances of improvement above and beyond what you'd have gotten from Ryan is less than 50%. Gardy? Not so much of a risk.

[Badsmerf]

These stats are about as meaningful as a pitcher's W-L record. We could compile a huge list of reasons for these stats, and for sure, plenty of the reasons would be attributable to mistakes of commission and omission by the GM's and the Manager. Just like with every other team in baseball with similar failings over this period.

 

My point is, go ahead and replace these guys. I think the chances of improvement above and beyond what you'd have gotten from Ryan is less than 50%. Gardy? Not so much of a risk.

Because the pitcher cannot control how many runs can score and the GM cannot control.... what exactly? How is judging a GM on the success of a team or a manager on success in 7 playoff series even close to a pitcher's W/L record? I guess you could judge on the "progress" of the team, or whatever the dude from the other thread was talking about. Then you have the KC Royals. They seem to always have a great farm system. Lets be like them.

[TheLeviathan]

The results in CF of the play of the rookie shortstop appear to be better than mastro or pressly

 

Is that what's best for Santana though? I'd rather have a crappy placeholder then mess with the development of an important spec.

[bird]

I disagree. It's pretty easy to get high-end talent in the draft, you don't have to look too far when you're drafting in the top five picks year after year. OTOH, it is incumbent on the Twins, as in the case of the Cardinals and Rays, for example, to not "hope" they can perform, but to properly develop that talent and quickly get it to the major league club.

 

A little off-topic, but the Twins have had 3 top 5's now, right? Gordon, Stewart, and Buxton. Any qualms about proper development of these three? And the highest pick before them was Hicks at #14 in about 2009? How many top 10 picks have the rays had in the last 20 years? The Rays get way too much credit, the Twins not enough, and the Cards...just right, they're incomparable right now.

[Steven Buhr]

Well, the bust rate from the draft has been higher for the Twins before the 2012 draft. This is a diversionary issue from what has taken place since the 2012 draft, though. Directly as a result of the Twins collapse in 2011, the team has gathered up 3, and possibly 4 high-ceiling talents, all some are saying is that there is a component of on-field futility that has fueled the farm-ranking upgrade, besides the other good moves that were made (ie, the last 3 top picks are players that are listed in the Top 25 prospects, by at least one scouting service, anyway, which really ups your overall farm ranking).

 

There is absolutely no doubt that the Twins had draft failures in the 00's and those were certainly compounded by the fact that they were picking low due to their on-field success and could ill afford to miss with the picks once they did go on the clock. This played a significant roll in their pipeline drying up just at the time when they needed it to maintain competitiveness. No argument on that at all.

 

The 3 first round picks you refer to absolutely drive up their farm ranking, but wasn't the Twins farm club already ranked as one of best in baseball last offseason? That would have been with Stewart personally ranked below his current level and before Gordon was even selected. Just seems like the evaluators had a pretty high opinion of the system already and those two guys showing early promise this year just strengthened an already-well thought of system.

[Kwak]

Ryan's "forte" is sifting through the rosters of others seeking underappreciated "potentials" that are cheap, controlled, motivated, and likely easily obtained. While it's true a team can be assembled from the souk there are many problems under the surface: good results are generally unrepeatable, the team loses focus on developing from within, rookies can be perceived as "the enemy" as opposed to "potential saviors", and the worst problem of all is that fans get confused as to who are these guys and are they worth supporting year after year. Most teams, and not so long ago, most Twins' team had predictable line-ups comprised of familar players. Now? NO! It's not enough to put a guy in a uniform and command fan loyalty (and their money!). In entertainment people pay for stars or at the very least performers who are known and trusted by the audience. A revolving door of no-names--even worse guys who can't be projected to be future stars (which can be done by in-system rookies) simply diffuse fan loyalty. My greatest fear is that the Twins will become a team of one to three fixtures worthy of contracts and a bunch of never weres and neverwillbes because they are cheap and serve to fill the roster, keeping the payroll down.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It was a relief to hear Jim Pohlad's comments that were published right after the All Star festivities. Seems like Pohlad himself will be the one to lead us out of the Comfort Zone, which is how it should be. So let's see what actions the Twins take in the next few months.

 

To paraphrase Pohlad: "Prospects? Don't talk to me about prospects. Win baseball games."

[jokin]

It was a relief to hear Jim Pohlad's comments that were published right after the All Star festivities. Seems like Pohlad himself will be the one to lead us out of the Comfort Zone, which is how it should be. So let's see what actions the Twins take in the next few months.

 

To paraphrase Pohlad: "Prospects? Don't talk to me about prospects. Win baseball games."

 

Now we just have to have the bad cop step up to Pohlad's good cop.

[benji21]

Silly? Outside ideas? Which organization do you like and tell me if the GM did not come from within or is a retread from being fired. Feel free to tell me then about fresh outside ideas if you can find someone who never was a GM having succeess in a new organization. Fresh ideas come from promoting the brightest person possible in the organization. That is the part that those clamoring for change don't seem to get.(Sidebar I can't resist, in 2007 either they were sadly mistaken about Smith's intelligence, or he was the brightest which would explain a lot. Changing the manager doesn't mean much without changing the talent. The point is changing the manager is not the recipe for improvement. Changing the talent is. That doesn't mean keep Gardenhire. It means if they do not change the talent you will have the same outcome. From what I read in these posts, all the Twins world will be a better place when Gardenhire and Ryan are gone. That is silly.

 

Well, here we go for a stroll down GM way:

 

Dodgers: GM Ned Coletti- Took over the Dodgers from the Giants and posted the third best record in the NL since his hiring after inheriting a team that went 71-91 His team has the lowest starter ERA in the majors and he continues to use his impressive resources to acquire top flight talent.

 

Cubs: GM Theo Epstein- Took over the team after years with the Red Sox. While Chi Town has not experienced success on the major league level, he has successfully built the best minors in baseball through a combination of drafting, shrewd offseason signing that led to trades, and in-season trades. The future definitely looks bright for one of the only clubs to boast a better farm than the Twins.

 

Orioles: GM Dan Duquette- Following a successful career in several other organizations' front offices, he took over the Baltimore job in 2011. They made the postseason in 2012 after 14 consecutive season on the sidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duquette

 

Tigers: GM Dave Dombrowski- Taking over the Tigers in 2002, it took him a few years to find success, and success he did find. Consistently making bold moves and selling at the right times has led him to acquire an impressive array of talent including MVP Miguel Cabrera, Doug Fister (then not Fister), Prince Fielder (then not Prince Fielder), and Max Sherzer to name a few. After his rocky start, the Tigers have dominated the AL in recent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dombrowski

 

Giants: GM Brian Sabean- This one is a little cheatery as Sabean took over the top job after serving in a high-level FO job beforehand. However, he gets points for being pretty new to the franchise (three years in the org vs. decade+ still counts as fresh), long story short with Sabean, stars and scrubs seasons with 2 World Series Championships and several blah years. Sorry, getting lazy here.

 

Anyhoo, fresh eyes and voices help. This is a short list which could probably easily be expanded with deeper research. I know one could make a list to the contrary, but here are some success stories with fresh voices leading to fairly rapid turnarounds in some cases.

 

edit: just noticed that you wanted no retreads or previous GMs or something. Well that's not going to happen. The point is Ryan/Gardy are done here, for me anyways. What for you would be a fireable offense, or are jobs jobs for life?

[The Wise One]

Well, here we go for a stroll down GM way:

 

Dodgers: GM Ned Coletti- Took over the Dodgers from the Giants and posted the third best record in the NL since his hiring after inheriting a team that went 71-91 His team has the lowest starter ERA in the majors and he continues to use his impressive resources to acquire top flight talent.

 

Cubs: GM Theo Epstein- Took over the team after years with the Red Sox. While Chi Town has not experienced success on the major league level, he has successfully built the best minors in baseball through a combination of drafting, shrewd offseason signing that led to trades, and in-season trades. The future definitely looks bright for one of the only clubs to boast a better farm than the Twins.

 

Orioles: GM Dan Duquette- Following a successful career in several other organizations' front offices, he took over the Baltimore job in 2011. They made the postseason in 2012 after 14 consecutive season on the sidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duquette

 

Tigers: GM Dave Dombrowski- Taking over the Tigers in 2002, it took him a few years to find success, and success he did find. Consistently making bold moves and selling at the right times has led him to acquire an impressive array of talent including MVP Miguel Cabrera, Doug Fister (then not Fister), Prince Fielder (then not Prince Fielder), and Max Sherzer to name a few. After his rocky start, the Tigers have dominated the AL in recent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dombrowski

 

Giants: GM Brian Sabean- This one is a little cheatery as Sabean took over the top job after serving in a high-level FO job beforehand. However, he gets points for being pretty new to the franchise (three years in the org vs. decade+ still counts as fresh), long story short with Sabean, stars and scrubs seasons with 2 World Series Championships and several blah years. Sorry, getting lazy here.

 

Anyhoo, fresh eyes and voices help. This is a short list which could probably easily be expanded with deeper research. I know one could make a list to the contrary, but here are some success stories with fresh voices leading to fairly rapid turnarounds in some cases.

 

edit: just noticed that you wanted no retreads or previous GMs or something. Well that's not going to happen. The point is Ryan/Gardy are done here, for me anyways. What for you would be a fireable offense, or are jobs jobs for life?

 

 

Whata do you mean it is not going to happen? People are clammoring for "fresh" ideas.

 

Colletti has an unlimited budget. Ryan or anyone else should beable to win with that.

 

Epstiet took over the Cubs about the same time Ryan restarted. If only getting the minor leauge fixed and not the MLB team, then Ryan gets a fre pass

 

Sabean was hired from within the Giants, people want from outside the organization.

 

Dombroski was hired by the Tigers to be the CEO, not GM. He started with the Tigers in 2001. Also 1 playoff in the first 9 years.

That leaves Duquette that came from an outside organization to turn around a franchise. Now if you look at the people that came from within the organization to lead, you find a prettier story.