GM Rankings

[Badsmerf]

With the news of Kevin Towers being fired from the D- backs, I was curious about what he did to get the ax. His first season as GM he did a 180 with the team and made the playoffs after a terrible year prior. He then had a couple 500 seasons before this year's freefall. My off-handed assumption was that he made some pretty bad deals. Looking at those deals more closely, they weren't very good, but weren't the worst either. 

 

So I started reading a little this morning about GM rankings, firings, ect. I came across this article about GM rankings prior to the 2014 season; complete with a spreadsheet showing some of the formulas used (though, I would have preferred a better explanation for some of the values given. I thought it was strange that in a game where everything is tracked and mapped, GM success is not. 

 

For example, I would think that the net-value of WAR in a trade could be an indicator of how well that trade worked out for your team (of course, you can debate the use of WAR for this and how reliable an indicator it would be). Other factors I believe should be involved are revenue, success during regular season, success in playoffs, FA WAR, money spent on FA, players drafted success, drafting position, WAR of players after leaving organization. A few of these are covered in that article, but I believe it was a half-hearted attempt.

 

In case you don't want to click the link and read through it all (normally guilty of that), Terry Ryan is given a rank of 18. I thought it was a fair ranking. Especially coming into the season. Now, I think the rankings would be different if given now. A bunch of the GM's ranking below Terry Ryan in this article have had pretty good seasons. Since many don't know them, I'll post teams with them Michael Hill (Marlins), Dan Duquette (Orioles), Doug Melvin (Brewers), Jerry Dipoto (Angels), Jack Zduriencik (Mariners). I was actually surprised I was familiar with the GM's in the MLB after reading threw them. 

 

So, while Terry Ryan ranked 18th, a case can be made for those GM's to rise in these rankings. Maybe not necessarily passing him in all cases, but improvement for them nonetheless. At the same time, the Twins looking at another fallen season, the Twins apparent detachment from their fan base, all point to the continued demise of the ship Terry Ryan is sailing. 

 

What do you think? The Terry Ryan topic is a horse well beaten on this forum, but looking at GM rankings is kind of a different perspective and I'd love it for some of our more mathematically gifted posters to attempt it (I don't have time, sorry guys). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Linus]

"a horse well beaten".......more like beat to death, pulverized and sent to the glue factory.  Can hardly wait for the fireworks.....

[nicksaviking]

He's done well in the past, but I don't think he's an elite GM and after an awful stretch like the team has had, I think an attempt needs to be made to find a top tier GM.  It can be a crap shoot I know, but you don't get one if you don't try.

[TheLeviathan]

Clearly this formula just has it out for the Twins.

[beckmt]

There are many different ways to make a team better. The Cupboard was very bare when Bill Smith was fired after trying to get Twins management to up the payroll to help bring it back.   This offseason could be a make or break as far as the perception for 2015 and the number of season ticket holders willing to renew.  It may be you will have to spend money to get the season ticket base to commit.  Front line starting pitcher would be the first thing needed to be serious about 2015.  More an issue of whether the owner will spend the money than how good TR is.  Farm system is now rebuilt and Twins need to move forward or we will be waiting for 2016(this is what I expect).

[Brandon]

I think TR is a top 10 GM.  We were a winning team from 2001 to 2010 except for 1 79-83 season.  When he came back in 2011 the minors were terrible and are now one of the best.  There are more prospects then ever.  We will either be a winning team in 2015 or 2016 and will stay that way a long time more than likely.  Also with the talent coming up we have lots of payroll space to add the complimentary players to make us winners. 

 

There were several GMs ranked higher than TR like Dayton Moore.  That guy is a bottom feeder on the list and should be no where near the middle as his team was terrible for 7 years while ours is at 4.  Dayton spent their young talent to win now so this year is it for their window.  They do have a core to be a .500 team for a few years but no talent in their system and no money to spend in the offseason. 

[big dog]

Rankings like this are interesting, but it's kind of like those "Top Ten Places to Live" rankings.  The final evaluation depends on how you define and weight variables, and different surveys by different smart, thoughtful people will find different answers.  It's easy to do, mathematically, it's defining the variables and weights that's hard (and arbitrary).

 

Being a GM is a big job, with a lot of things you can control and a lot of things you can't.  Dayton Moore's team looks good this year, but this is his 9th year as GM- how should you control for that?  Is there an average amount of time to turn things around, so you should beat that?  Etc.

[Badsmerf]

There are many different ways to make a team better. The Cupboard was very bare when Bill Smith was fired after trying to get Twins management to up the payroll to help bring it back.   This offseason could be a make or break as far as the perception for 2015 and the number of season ticket holders willing to renew.  It may be you will have to spend money to get the season ticket base to commit.  Front line starting pitcher would be the first thing needed to be serious about 2015.  More an issue of whether the owner will spend the money than how good TR is.  Farm system is now rebuilt and Twins need to move forward or we will be waiting for 2016(this is what I expect).

Very bare? Like top prospects going into 2012 weren't Sano, Rosario, Arcia, Hicks, Harrison, Dozier, Gibson, Kepler, Santana. Of which the only prospects that were from Terry Ryan are Dozier, Arcia and Santana. Weird.

 

Lets look at the MLB. Plouffe, Morneau, Mauer, Perkins, Pavano, Liriano, Baker, Revere, Span, Willingham. Not that great, but there was plenty of money available to get some pieces to add for the short term and long term.

[drjim]

Would the current perception of Ryan (and to a lesser extent Gardy) be better right now if his words matched his actions? As in, his actions have clearly shown he is rebuilding the talent of the organization while using some cash to cover holes and try to remain somewhat competitive. But his words have always been about trying to win.

 

I thought a Twitter exchange with Reusse summed it up best:

 

Someone asked - Are the Twins trying to win and did they think they could compete this year? Answer was yes and they knew better.

[diehardtwinsfan]

ooooooooooooh boy... not one of these threads again Let's try to keep it respectful please, which it has been so far. I know this is hot button topic for people...

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Rankings like this are interesting, but it's kind of like those "Top Ten Places to Live" rankings. The final evaluation depends on how you define and weight variables, and different surveys by different smart, thoughtful people will find different answers. It's easy to do, mathematically, it's defining the variables and weights that's hard (and arbitrary).

 

Being a GM is a big job, with a lot of things you can control and a lot of things you can't. Dayton Moore's team looks good this year, but this is his 9th year as GM- how should you control for that? Is there an average amount of time to turn things around, so you should beat that? Etc.

I think this sums up a lot of it for me. Right now, the Twins need diferent qualities out of their GM and those qualities are going to change over the next couple of years, and those same needs are going to differ from a team like say Oakland, who is clearly in a win-now mode.

 

I'd say since 2011, they needed someone good at building a farm and schrewd at plucking talent out of other systems for what few major league parts they had. They needed someone who could spot decent 1 year reclamation projects and flip them for useful pieces at the deadline. I'd say for most of those tasks, Ryan was the guy for the job. He definitely does some better than others, but you cannot deny the job he's done overseeing the stocking of the farm since he's taken over.

 

Now that said, those values are going to start changing, and I'm not sure that change is going to play into his strengths. In the shorter term, he's going to have to start dealing with contract extensions (something he's not a fan of) for guys like Dozier, Plouffe, and maybe Arcia. As more guys come up, this need is going to become more pressing. Likewise, he's going to have to start using FA to plug holes where the farm system hasn't provided talent. That also is an area that I think there's good evidence to remain skeptical.

[bird]

I think Terry Ryan is the absolute best GM in all of baseball. This is cut and dried. There is no room for argument.

[70charger]

I think Terry Ryan is the absolute best GM in all of baseball. This is cut and dried. There is no room for argument.

 

 

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/216904/resized_dwight-schrute-meme-generator-question-which-bear-is-best-false-black-bear-ea360e.jpg

[bird]

After reading the whole article, i came away with these cursory observations and thoughts about it:

 

1. It's a good idea to come up with some set criteria by which to help fans make judgments about how good their GM is. But in the three years the author intermittently worked on the project, I wonder if he researched common practices boards of companies use to establish performance measurements for corporate management. His criteria, while obvious and logical areas of measurement, lack even the most rudimentary means of adjusting and discounting outside variables.

 

2. His credibility for me was weakened considerably by his descriptive prose of each GM. It all sounds like subjective observations to me. 

 

3. And when the author does in fact talk about his statistics, it behooves his argument to at least have the facts straight. In his very first one, he starts with hyperbolic praise in his first sentence, and then backs it up in the next sentence by saying the Cards had the highest-ranked farm system in baseball last year (2013, I presume, since the article was penned this year). I looked around, and find the ranking of their system to be no better than #6.

[nicksaviking]

With no malignant intentions, I have a question for those that are Ryan/Gardenhire supporters.  I think it's fair to say that very few people would object if the Twins looked to replace Trevor Plouffe at 3B or Kyle Gibson as a #3 starter.  Heck, even if this team had Andrew McCutchen in CF, we'd all be thrilled if rumors started swirling that they were going after Mike Trout.

 

Honestly, I'm curious why does the front office and coaching staff often get much more loyalty than the players?

[bird]

With no malignant intentions, I have a question for those that are Ryan/Gardenhire supporters.  I think it's fair to say that very few people would object if the Twins looked to replace Trevor Plouffe at 3B or Kyle Gibson as a #3 starter.  Heck, even if this team had Andrew McCutchen in CF, we'd all be thrilled if rumors started swirling that they were going after Mike Trout.

 

Honestly, I'm curious why does the front office and coaching staff often get much more loyalty than the players?

The one thing I can think of off the top of my head, Nick, is that it's easy to attribute loyalty as the reason someone supports Ryan or Gardy when in actuality its a judgment based on entirely different factors.

 

And that's one of those things that sours a good discussion, when a non-supporter gets called a whiner or a supporter gets called blindly loyal. Personally, that fries my behind.

[gunnarthor]

I trust Ryan b/c he's shown the ability to build a solid foundation before.  He's also shown the ability to change the nucleus of his team on the go (something Beane had trouble doing).  When he came back as GM the Twins weren't going to be a quick fix - they were old and had a bad farm system.  

 

Since he's been back I haven't seen anything that indicates he's out of his depth.  Ryan has made some very good trades - getting Escobar for Liriano, May/Worley for Revere, Meyer for Span, Nunez for (one step removed) Buetera.  He's made some solid waiver wire pick ups, draft choices and even some good FA pick ups.  If you compare him to Lunhow and Hoyer (who were both hired at roughly the same time), Ryan has done just as well, if not better.  

 

I like that Ryan, ownership and Gardy all seem to be on the same page.  I like that Ryan isn't making short term moves at the expense of the long term.  I think he has a plan and is implementing it on his schedule.  

[Badsmerf]

What are some things you would want to factor into grading/ranking GM's? I listed a bunch already (net-value of WAR in a trade could be an indicator of how well that trade worked out for your team (of course, you can debate the use of WAR for this and how reliable an indicator it would be). Other factors I believe should be involved are revenue, success during regular season, success in playoffs, FA WAR, money spent on FA, players drafted success, drafting position, WAR of players after leaving organization).

 

So what of those is the most important and how do you weigh them?

[nicksaviking]

The one thing I can think of off the top of my head, Nick, is that it's easy to attribute loyalty as the reason someone supports Ryan or Gardy when in actuality its a judgment based on entirely different factors.

 

And that's one of those things that sours a good discussion, when a non-supporter gets called a whiner or a supporter gets called blindly loyal. Personally, that fries my behind.

 

I didn't mean to use the word loyalty as an insult, it seems like a positive trait to me, and nowhere did I refer to it as blind.  I was asking an honest question, and if one single word in the post is going to obfuscate the point, substitute the hot-button word loyalty for "favorable judgment" instead.  My point is that many people seem to stand behind/stand up for non-field personell more than the players.  I tend to be much more loyal to the players, often long after they have proven to be replacable, and I think it's because these are the guys I watch everyday and have grown accustomed to knowing, at least through my TV.  I'm simply curious what drives others to be more inclined to have these sentiments more strongly for managers and front office employees.

[LaBombo]

I think Terry Ryan is the absolute best GM in all of baseball. This is cut and dried. There is no room for argument.

With a running four year average of 95 losses and 25 games out of first, it kinda makes you wonder how many losses they would've managed with an average GM instead of the best in baseball...

[biggentleben]

Towers did one major, major piece of the GM job horribly - the PR end of things.  He did in San Diego as well, but that's a team that seems to be overjoyed to win and not horribly after a GM if they don't, so his poor PR stuff was let slide more there.  It cost them their franchise player at the time, multiple manager options who refused to talk with them before Gibson was hired, and players who felt put off completely in meeting with Towers (Trevor Bauer was the most vocal, but Towers has reportedly got a rep of being horrible in negotiations with his draft picks and his arbitration guys).

[gunnarthor]

  My point is that many people seem to stand behind/stand up for non-field personell more than the players.  

Perhaps you've missed some of the Mauer threads.

[drjim]

With no malignant intentions, I have a question for those that are Ryan/Gardenhire supporters.  I think it's fair to say that very few people would object if the Twins looked to replace Trevor Plouffe at 3B or Kyle Gibson as a #3 starter.  Heck, even if this team had Andrew McCutchen in CF, we'd all be thrilled if rumors started swirling that they were going after Mike Trout.

 

Honestly, I'm curious why does the front office and coaching staff often get much more loyalty than the players?

 

I think Gardy should be gone two seasons ago, so I won't touch that half of it.

 

For Ryan, I believe him to be one of the best GMs in baseball, so I would like to stick with him. He has weaknesses, but strengths that surpass them. Much harder to quantify the performance of a GM compared to a player.

[Kwak]

I've lived in several major sports markets.  Often there has been "blind loyalty" to a head coach/ manager--but I have never encountered said feelings about a GM or Front Office (the management team).  Many of these "sports teams" have had even more success than the Twins--yet nowhere near the "love" expressed like is for the Twins Front Office/GM.  Perhaps there are many who are personal friends of said people or at least have some relationship that is/was not impacted by baseball.  In that case I can certainly understand that these individuals would "rise to their defense", but strangers?  It just doesn't happen elsewhere.  The "management types" (suits) are generally viewed as machine components--not as people and entirely replaceable.  They have a job to do, if they "do it", they stay (generally with a juicy raise), but if they "don't do it"--out they go and maybe with a few crocodile tears splashed. 

Management is (basically everyone else too!) is viewed by the mantra "what have you done for me lately?".  Success in the previous decade?--they received their reward for that performance.  The stew that this team is in had many cooks--and basically, they are all still in place.

[Badsmerf]

I think Gardy should be gone two seasons ago, so I won't touch that half of it.

 

For Ryan, I believe him to be one of the best GMs in baseball, so I would like to stick with him. He has weaknesses, but strengths that surpass them. Much harder to quantify the performance of a GM compared to a player.

Can you quantify that opinion? I believe green is the best color in the world, but I have hazel eyes and it just suits me well. 

[Craig Arko]

GM? What about Ford? Or Hyundai? Or Volkswagen?

 

Seems like a very small sample size.

[drjim]

Can you quantify that opinion? I believe green is the best color in the world, but I have hazel eyes and it just suits me well. 

 

I would cite the teams he built in the aughts and the way he rebuilt the entire franchise from the mess left by Bill Smith.

 

I know both of these points have been debated to death and many people don't agree. I'm comfortable with that.

[old nurse]

 

 

Honestly, I'm curious why does the front office and coaching staff often get much more loyalty than the players?

All in fun,the following players say hi  Anybody who pitched other than Hughes, Gibson or Deduno. Also saying hello  are Mauer, Plouffe, Parmalee, Fryer, Kubel, Bartlett .....

Many comments for the FO (really Ryan) are not made so much out of loyalty but as a reaction to something that is, for the lack of a better word ,unreasonable or untenable.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I didn't mean to use the word loyalty as an insult, it seems like a positive trait to me, and nowhere did I refer to it as blind.  I was asking an honest question, and if one single word in the post is going to obfuscate the point, substitute the hot-button word loyalty for "favorable judgment" instead.  My point is that many people seem to stand behind/stand up for non-field personell more than the players.  I tend to be much more loyal to the players, often long after they have proven to be replacable, and I think it's because these are the guys I watch everyday and have grown accustomed to knowing, at least through my TV.  I'm simply curious what drives others to be more inclined to have these sentiments more strongly for managers and front office employees.

I think this is perception more than reality. I'll speak for myself here. I think Ryan is the right guy for the job right now. I don't think that Gardenhire is the right guy for the job right now. I'm not sure why this team would want to get rid of, to use your example, Plouffe or Gibson (minus being blown away in a trade) at the moment given that both of them are young, cheap, average to above players, and have a pretty good chance of improving. Matter of fact, there aren't many personnel I think should be gotten rid of (though some I think are played too much, some not enough, and some out of position) as the team right now is very young and has a lot of high ceiling talent working its way up. The only ones who are candidates to go aren't going anywhere due to contracts.

 

That's just what it is. So in the end, I'm for Ryan, against Gardy, and for most of the guys currently on the roster, not exactly loyal to Ryan/Gardy and against the other players... maybe that's just me, but I really think this is a perception, not the reality for most of us.

[Kwak]

I would cite the teams he built in the aughts and the way he rebuilt the entire franchise from the mess left by Bill Smith.

 

I know both of these points have been debated to death and many people don't agree. I'm comfortable with that.

Mess left by Smith?  Whoa partner, you make it sound as if Smith undid every good thing Ryan did and replaced things with junk--HE DIDN'T.

 

A)  Smith was a company man. Given Smith's  lack of player personnel experience it is clear he wasn't AGM to help Ryan build a baseball team.  I liken Smith to being the Asst. Principal in the High School--he is there to do mgmt's dirty work.  There was a clear division between Player Personnel Manager n Ryan as GM.  More than once Ryan emark that didn't get "involved" in he draft past the first round--he considered the draft "a crap shoot".  Ryan trusted his own ability to scout players and properly evaluate their potential.  This is why Ryan so frequently "shopped in the basement"  seeking under-appreciated players thinking that they could help the Twins.  Sometimes he was right, even very right.  Do you honestly think Ryan would give any credence to Smith's player/personnel evaluations given Smith lack of experience in that area I sure don't--and I bet the rest of the organization didn't either.

 

Smith's tenure was to "fill orders"--not give them!  The Santana trade?  Do you believe that Smith placed the highest priority for a CF himself?--Or perhaps from the combination of Gardenhire and Dir. of Player Personnel? [i forget his name].  The trade with Tampa for Delmon Young?  Not Smith but far more likely the "real pros" in player evaluation in the FO and of course Gardenhire.  The Rule 4 Drafts?  Again no reason to think he was calling the shots when Ryan didn't.  How about the lack of talent in the system?  Smith, the org guy?-- or how about the player/personnel guys whose job actually was to stock the team with talent?  I think Smith generally wasn't respected by the others in the FO (well Smith wasn't a BB guy was he?)  It's just way too easy to blame the guy is gone (and since nobody in the org has ever come to his defense ) probably not all that liked. 

 

Smith clearly stated that his was just the last signature on the paper for the Nishioka "acquisition".  I find it hard to believe that he could ram that down everybody's throat when two years earlier Gardenhire so clearly informrd everyone that re-signing Punto (as SS) was the team's #1 priority.  I don't believe for a second that Smith had Napoleanic power and unilaterally made all of these player decisions.  The whole Front Office (including the Executive committee) is to blame for this mess--and yes, that also includes Ryan.  It wasn't just one guy (Smith)--it was everybody.