Does Terry Ryan have what it takes to lead the Twins in 2015?

[jimmer]

 

When did Ryan ever find that fill in guy to get us over the hump?

I wondered the same thing when I read that.

[tobi0040]

 

(Memories are a fickle thing, so I hope my thoughts haven't been too tarnished by the passage of time..)

 

I was surprised that it was a one-for-one deal. I liked the acquisition of Meyer, but he is a very high-risk, potentially high-reward prospect, and I expected another player or two of the low-risk, low-ceiling variety to be thrown in. I have strong memory of reading Dave Cameron's analysis and being convinced it that the Nats got the better end of the deal. So immediately after the deal, I thought it was okay, but not a great deal. 

 

However, based on what I've learned over the past 2 years, I now think it was a poor decision. And I'm not talking about the subsequent results of this deal, but rather new information and research has changed my opinion on this deal. As examples:

 

1) A lot of research has been done to determine the expected value of prospect rankings. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-to-expect-from-baseball-americas-top-100-prospects/

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=cmc_theses

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/6/3/4386214/how-well-does-the-baseball-america-prospect-top-100-estimate-the-top

These all show that a prospect in the 60-80 range (where Meyer was at the time of the trade) has an expected value of ~5 WAR. Span, by most projection systems, was expected to contribute ~9 WAR over the last 3 years on his deal. 

 

I find this WAR analysis flawed.  For one, we gave up 3 years of a guy we likely knew would have a WAR near 9.  We did so because that was Span's cap on WAR with the Twins.  We were not going to be good during that stretch anyway.

 

Meyer on the other hand. Had he turned out, we would have had him under control during his prime for six years.  So he would only need to average 1.5 WAR per season for that deal to be a wash.  Everyone would agree that his upside even to this day is more than 9 career WAR.

 

Now, if he turned out to be a 4-5 WAR a season pitcher, under control for 6 years?  We would get 24-30 WAR and pay about $30M for it. With the potential to trade him at the end of that deal and get more prospects back.

 

To point #3.  You need arms to compete. You just do and it is the most expensive thing to acquire.  A team like the Twins will never be players on the FA market.  So we need to stockpile as many Meyers, May's, Berrios, and Kohl Stewart's and hope half of them turn out.

 

 

[chopper0080]

 

When we are not going to be competitive for at least two or three years, moving a guy for a top prospect and clearing a spot for a prospect to see what you have is a great move in my eyes. Especially since Span was going to be past his prime when we were going to be good again and a vast majority of his trade value was his contract.  When you take a step back, we were completely devoid of power, upside arms and the Twins will never, ever sign one on the free agent market.  So this deal, to acquire one of the best 30 prospects coming off a great year in high A was a fantastic move. These are the types of arms you need to compete. The Span for Meyer deal was a typical rebuilding move that most on these boards skewer Ryan for not doing. I wish we had made more of these deals.

 

Now, fast forward a year and Hicks falls completely on his face, I agree. We needed to move on, bring in MLB talent and bring him back to AAA and work his way back up.  But those are separate issues

See, I view Hicks as part of that whole siutation because I believe that filling roster spots is the main part of a roster rebuild.   You can't create holes by trading assets and then not fill them...that makes the overall move bad.  Trading Span and Revere were rebuild moves.  Moving Hicks up quickly to fill the void was a rebuild move.  Never addressing the CF position after Hicks initially failed is the problem because now our roster just has a big fat hole in it.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but IMO, rebuilding is about filling the holes on your roster, especially those which you create by trading assets.  Also, I'm leery about trading for starting pitchers who can't throw strikes.  I have yet to see that move work out.

[Mike Sixel]

One of the reasons "we were not going to be good anyway" was because instead of trying to be good by signing 1-2 legit MLB players a year in FA.....they didn't.

 

What if instead of dealing Span, they sign a big time elite FA pitcher? What if Buxton and Sano are healthy, and Span and that pitcher are still here? And, they sign one more elite player last year or the year before? That team is good, potentially. Instead, they half committed to the rebuild, didn't sign big time FAs to fill likely holes (LF, C, SP) in the last two years......

[chopper0080]

 

First of all, every team has resource limits, even teams like Detroit and the Yankees. If it's not cash assets (payroll budget), it's roster assets (most teams have a shortage, not a surplus), or prospects (not fully appreciated). And while you have partially described what is a continual process of managing assets for a baseball team, you've done so in extremely simplistic terms. For example, while the Twins had some "moveable" assets on the roster, they did not have great value, certainly not enough to convert the team back into a contender, not given the lack of prospects ready to step in. And to acquire assets for cash? They did that to an extent, but every team, including the Yankees, is coming to grips with the reality that it's not a sustainable model. Even the Yankees are building a better prospect pipeline. Detroit is one of the few teams attempting to sustain its success by exchanging cash and prospects for roster assets, and they've made it work beautifully for a nice length of time. However, when the roster assets get injured or depreciate, they're finally out of prospects to deal. The Twin's Taylor Rogers, Jason Wheeler, and Tyler Duffey probably have more value than the Tiger's top three prospects, and none of these guys makes our top ten. Like it or not, that's how the Twins are going about the asset management process. And it's certainly OK to take issue with it. They could choose to increase the payroll budget even more and acquire a frontline player or two via FA, for example. But even then, I'm hearing critical comments about length of contracts as if that is simply a choice instead of a market factor. It's not a simple business.

The Twins determine their own ability to sign top of the market players.  I'm not going to say that I don't believe a consistent winning franchise doesn't depend on a solid farm system.  I do.  But you can't rely on that alone because the prospect train is difficult to depend on.  Signing free agents is a great way to build up movable assets in your franchise.  Generally you want to target buy low players, and then an occasional high impact player.  Willingham was a nice buy low option...but we never traded him.  Suzuki was a nice buy low option, but we never traded him.  Ryan Doumit.  Hughes was a nice buy low option, and I believe you can make an argument that the Twins should trade him.  Perkins should have been traded when his value was high.   You say that the process is complex, and it is, but you can't acquire and hit on players and then not move them while rebuilding.

 

The same thing applies with signing higher cost free agents.  Why pay money for fringe players who are probably at peak value.  Nolasco...peak value.  Sanatana...peak value.  Hunter...peak value.  Pelfrey...I have no idea.  None of these players were recently dominant players, none are young, and none are going to gain value over time.  They are just plain bad signings as a whole. 

 

My point is that most GMs for teams who are losing have a tough job.  The problem is that Terry Ryan has botched it up at almost every turn.

[tobi0040]

 

What if instead of dealing Span, they sign a big time elite FA pitcher? What if Buxton and Sano are healthy, and Span and that pitcher are still here? And, they sign one more elite player last year or the year before? That team is good, potentially. Instead, they half committed to the rebuild, didn't sign big time FAs to fill likely holes (LF, C, SP) in the last two years......

 

The biggest FA signing in 2013 was Greinke.  He signed a 6 year deal for $147M.  Let's just throw out the fact that he would have chosen the Dodgers over the Twins anyway for a second.

 

Had we signed Greinke and Kept Span, and not signed KC.

 

2013 - Greinke 3.9 WAR + Span 2.2 WAR - KC's 1.6 WAR = 4.5.  Add 4.5 wins to the 63 we had in 2013 and you have 67.5 wins.

 

2014 - Grinke 4.3 WAR + Span 3.6 WAR - KC's WAR = .2 = 7.7     We won 70 games, now you have a 77 win team.

 

Span is sitting in his last year of his deal.  He is 31 and probably is looking at 12-13M a year on a multi year deal to keep him here.  Greinke is 31.5 and owed $100M over the next four years.  And people are complaining that we are not rebuilding.

[tobi0040]

 

The Twins determine their own ability to sign top of the market players.  I'm not going to say that I don't believe a consistent winning franchise doesn't depend on a solid farm system.  I do.  But you can't rely on that alone because the prospect train is difficult to depend on.  Signing free agents is a great way to build up movable assets in your franchise.  Generally you want to target buy low players, and then an occasional high impact player.  Willingham was a nice buy low option...but we never traded him.  Suzuki was a nice buy low option, but we never traded him.  Ryan Doumit.  Hughes was a nice buy low option, and I believe you can make an argument that the Twins should trade him.  Perkins should have been traded when his value was high.   You say that the process is complex, and it is, but you can't acquire and hit on players and then not move them while rebuilding.

 

The same thing applies with signing higher cost free agents.  Why pay money for fringe players who are probably at peak value.  Nolasco...peak value.  Sanatana...peak value.  Hunter...peak value.  Pelfrey...I have no idea.  None of these players were recently dominant players, none are young, and none are going to gain value over time.  They are just plain bad signings as a whole. 

 

My point is that most GMs for teams who are losing have a tough job.  The problem is that Terry Ryan has botched it up at almost every turn.

 

Had the Twins made you GM after the 2011 season.  Can you outline your plan to contention? You have the beneift of hindsight.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The biggest FA signing in 2013 was Greinke.  He signed a 6 year deal for $147M.  Let's just throw out the fact that he would have chosen the Dodgers over the Twins anyway for a second.

 

Had we signed Greinke and Kept Span, and not signed KC.

 

2013 - Greinke 3.9 WAR + Span 2.2 WAR - KC's 1.6 WAR = 4.5.  Add 4.5 wins to the 63 we had in 2013 and you have 67.5 wins.

 

2014 - Grinke 4.3 WAR + Span 3.6 WAR - KC's WAR = .2 = 7.7     We won 70 games, now you have a 77 win team.

 

Span is sitting in his last year of his deal.  He is 31 and probably is looking at 12-13M a year on a multi year deal to keep him here.  Greinke is 31.5 and owed $100M over the next four years.  And people are complaining that we are not rebuilding.

 

you left off signing another guy the following year......and the fact that they expected Sano up last year, and maybe Buxton. You left off signing a good player in 2012.......that's my point, add 1 good/legit player every year. Or not, just keep waiting for the prospects to work out. That's also an option. 

[tobi0040]

 

you left off signing another guy the following year......and the fact that they expected Sano up last year, and maybe Buxton. You left off signing a good player in 2012.......that's my point, add 1 good/legit player every year. Or not, just keep waiting for the prospects to work out. That's also an option. 

 

Done.  Add Masahiro Tanaka.  At the time unproven guy for $155M.  He adds 3.3 WAR in 2014.  We are up to 80 wins.  That deal looked good for about 3-4 months.   Now we owe $120M to a guy that has elbow issues.

 

What is the payroll number we are targeting with this strategy?  Do we have any history that suggests adding one free agent signing every off-season is a good strategy over time? I would argue this is what the Yankees have done and have a payroll cap some $60M more than ours, yet this strategy still hasn't worked for them. 

 

I mean, don't you usually buy guys in the 30-36 age range at max price?  I would contend the Nolasco and Ervin signings that we all hate  now is about what you get on the FA market unless you drop a lot of money and years on aging players (in most cases).  Not to mention this strategy would have had the best benefit in years in which we were not going to be good.  So when you get Sano and Buxton up here, 1-2 years in their careers these guys are washed up and we are all complaining about those signings as well.

[jokin]

 

The Twins determine their own ability to sign top of the market players.  I'm not going to say that I don't believe a consistent winning franchise doesn't depend on a solid farm system.  I do.  But you can't rely on that alone because the prospect train is difficult to depend on.  Signing free agents is a great way to build up movable assets in your franchise.  Generally you want to target buy low players, and then an occasional high impact player.  Willingham was a nice buy low option...but we never traded him.  Suzuki was a nice buy low option, but we never traded him.  Ryan Doumit.  Hughes was a nice buy low option, and I believe you can make an argument that the Twins should trade him.  Perkins should have been traded when his value was high.   You say that the process is complex, and it is, but you can't acquire and hit on players and then not move them while rebuilding.

 

The same thing applies with signing higher cost free agents.  Why pay money for fringe players who are probably at peak value.  Nolasco...peak value.  Sanatana...peak value.  Hunter...peak value.  Pelfrey...I have no idea.  None of these players were recently dominant players, none are young, and none are going to gain value over time.  They are just plain bad signings as a whole. 

 

My point is that most GMs for teams who are losing have a tough job.  The problem is that Terry Ryan has botched it up at almost every turn.

 

I have openly stated I don't think TR is the guy that should lead our team.  But I also believe a few other things, that when I bring up people say I am defending him.

 

 

 

-I completley agree with people that say we should have been like the Marlins or Astros regarding a rebuild.  I just think that given the owners and the stadium, TR never had that ability. Personally, I think he would have preferred it that way.

 

 

"Preferred it that way?"  Of course he would have.  In the midst of his own scorched-earth, first Twins dismantling, he still publicly regards that his greatest move ever as a GM was trading Scott Erickson for Klingenbeck and ultimately for the PTBNL- holding out/holding up the Orioles for Kimera Bartee.

 

That was 20 years ago, and into his 13th year after becoming GM, in his resignation speech, he said he was the wrong person to be a GM in modern baseball.  Following the logic here, it's all Target Field's fault----   but blaming the inanimate object is still just a deflection that ultimately reflects right back on management.

[jokin]

 

Done.  Add Masahiro Tanaka.  At the time unproven guy for $155M.  He adds 3.3 WAR in 2014.  We are up to 80 wins.  That deal looked good for about 3-4 months.   Now we owe $120M to a guy that has elbow issues.

 

What is the payroll number we are targeting with this strategy?  Do we have any history that suggests adding one free agent signing every off-season is a good strategy over time? I would argue this is what the Yankees have done and have a payroll cap some $60M more than ours, yet this strategy still hasn't worked for them. 

 

I mean, don't you usually buy guys in the 30-36 age range at max price?  I would contend the Nolasco and Ervin signings that we all hate  now is about what you get on the FA market unless you drop a lot of money and years on aging players (in most cases).  Not to mention this strategy would have had the best benefit in years in which we were not going to be good.  So when you get Sano and Buxton up here, 1-2 years in their careers these guys are washed up and we are all complaining about those signings as well.

 

There have also been plenty of guys to sign on hole-flling one-year deals to flip or gain the comp pick from, to augment the premier FA signings.

[tobi0040]

 

There have also been plenty of guys to sign on hole-flling one-year deals to flip or gain the comp pick from, to augment the premier FA signings.

 

Can you walk me through an alternative plan from 2012 to 2014.  With the benefit of hindsight?  I can't get the math to work to us being meaningfully better.  I also question whether the $110-$120M payroll in 2013 to 2015 makes a ton of sense, especially since the pitchers we could have signed are all now 30-32, declining as our other players come up. 

[jimmer]

 

The Twins determine their own ability to sign top of the market players.  I'm not going to say that I don't believe a consistent winning franchise doesn't depend on a solid farm system.  I do.  But you can't rely on that alone because the prospect train is difficult to depend on.  Signing free agents is a great way to build up movable assets in your franchise.  Generally you want to target buy low players, and then an occasional high impact player.  Willingham was a nice buy low option...but we never traded him.  Suzuki was a nice buy low option, but we never traded him.  Ryan Doumit.  Hughes was a nice buy low option, and I believe you can make an argument that the Twins should trade him.  Perkins should have been traded when his value was high.   You say that the process is complex, and it is, but you can't acquire and hit on players and then not move them while rebuilding.

 

The same thing applies with signing higher cost free agents.  Why pay money for fringe players who are probably at peak value.  Nolasco...peak value.  Sanatana...peak value.  Hunter...peak value.  Pelfrey...I have no idea.  None of these players were recently dominant players, none are young, and none are going to gain value over time.  They are just plain bad signings as a whole. 

 

My point is that most GMs for teams who are losing have a tough job.  The problem is that Terry Ryan has botched it up at almost every turn.

I really like this post.

[tobi0040]

 

The Twins determine their own ability to sign top of the market players.  I'm not going to say that I don't believe a consistent winning franchise doesn't depend on a solid farm system.  I do.  But you can't rely on that alone because the prospect train is difficult to depend on.  Signing free agents is a great way to build up movable assets in your franchise.  Generally you want to target buy low players, and then an occasional high impact player.  Willingham was a nice buy low option...but we never traded him.  Suzuki was a nice buy low option, but we never traded him.  Ryan Doumit.  Hughes was a nice buy low option, and I believe you can make an argument that the Twins should trade him.  Perkins should have been traded when his value was high.   You say that the process is complex, and it is, but you can't acquire and hit on players and then not move them while rebuilding.

 

The same thing applies with signing higher cost free agents.  Why pay money for fringe players who are probably at peak value.  Nolasco...peak value.  Sanatana...peak value.  Hunter...peak value.  Pelfrey...I have no idea.  None of these players were recently dominant players, none are young, and none are going to gain value over time.  They are just plain bad signings as a whole. 

 

My point is that most GMs for teams who are losing have a tough job.  The problem is that Terry Ryan has botched it up at almost every turn.

 

 

Two pages ago, you were criticizing the Twins for trading Span for Meyer, because Meyer has not produced yet and because we didn't have a suitable replacement.   Meyer didn't pan out and Hicks failed, therefore it was a bad trade.

 

 

 

Now you are advocating that we should have traded Suzuki, Perkins, Hughes, Doumit, and Willingham.  That begs the question, who were the replacements we had at catcher, starter, LF, and closer? 

 

 

For these five trades to work out by the bar you have set, wouldn't we have needed a suitable replacement AND the players acquired to pan out?

[jokin]

 

Can you walk me through an alternative plan from 2012 to 2014.  With the benefit of hindsight?  I can't get the math to work to us being meaningfully better.  I also question whether the $110-$120M payroll in 2013 to 2015 makes a ton of sense, especially since the pitchers we could have signed are all now 30-32, declining as our other players come up. 

 

For heaven's sake, here's just one example from this year- the Detroit Tigers, with supposedly, according to TD bashers, "nothing" in terms of prospects to offer in trade, are currently rated as the #1 SP staff according to Fangraphs, and they replaced 3/5ths of their 2014 staff with 1) a for-cash acquisition from, Kyle Lobstein, (who the Twins passed on for Pressly in the 2012 Rule 5), 2) a trade for a lesser version of Trevor May, Shane Green, and 3) a trade for a lesser version of Escobar and a pitching prospect at least 3 years away, Alfredo Simon. 

 

The Twins could certainly have easily come up with these 3 names or better to put in place around  Hughes and a Price/Greinke-level ace.

 

(Not to mention how the Tigers have rebuilt their OF, including CF, with other teams' spare parts)

[jokin]

 

I really like this post.

 

Yeah, I'd rate Chopper's post as the thread-winner.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Terry Ryan has been GM since November 2011.

 

Today's outfield is Eduardo Escobar, Shane Robinson, and Torii Hunter.

[jimmer]

 

Terry Ryan has been GM since November 2011.

Today's outfield is Eduardo Escobar, Shane Robinson, and Torii Hunter.

Just wait though.  We're SO CLOSE to Rosario, Buxton and Arcia :-)

[jokin]

 

Terry Ryan has been GM since November 2011.

Today's outfield is Eduardo Escobar, Shane Robinson, and Torii Hunter.

 

Devastating indictment.

[tobi0040]

 

For heaven's sake, here's just one example from this year- the Detroit Tigers, with supposedly, according to TD bashers, "nothing" in terms of prospects to offer in trade, are currently rated as the #1 SP staff according to Fangraphs, and they replaced 3/5ths of their 2014 staff with 1) a for-cash acquisition from, Kyle Lobstein, (who the Twins passed on for Pressly in the 2012 Rule 5), 2) a trade for a lesser version of Trevor May, Shane Green, and 3) a trade for a lesser version of Escobar and a pitching prospect at least 3 years away, Alfredo Simon. 

 

The Twins could certainly have easily come up with these 3 names or better to put in place around  Hughes and a Price/Greinke-level ace.

 

(Not to mention how the Tigers have rebuilt their OF, including CF, with other teams' spare parts)

 

They don't have the best rotation in the divison, let alone MLB.

 

David Price. They have him for one year.  They gave up 6 years of control for Smyly for him.  He is either gone after this year or they will pay him $200+ million dollars from 30-37 or 38.

 

Verlander. He is owed about $110M over the next 5 years.  Grab your popcorn. Based on what I have seen over the last 1.5 years, this is going to be really, really bad.

 

Sanchez - this one turned out really well for them. No argument.

 

Simon.  Are we really calling this a coup already?    Green?  Let's wait until gets 100 innings before we call this a coup as well.

 

[jokin]

 

They don't have the best rotation in the divison, let alone MLB.

 

David Price. They have him for one year.  They gave up 6 years of control for Smyly for him.  He is either gone after this year or they will pay him $200+ million dollars from 30-37 or 38.

 

Verlander. He is owed about $110M over the next 5 years.  Grab your popcorn. Based on what I have seen over the last 1.5 years, this is going to be really, really bad.

 

Sanchez - this one turned out really well for them. No argument.

 

Simon.  Are we really calling this a coup already?    Green?  Let's wait until gets 100 innings before we call this a coup as well.

 

Wrong. I quite accurately said, that as of today, they have the best rotation in baseball in terms of WAR, IP, WHIP, ERA.

 

 

I didn't call it a coup.  I did call it a set of far superior off-season moves and previously cheaply-acquired depth after losing multiple key components in their rotation- in comparison to what the Twins have tried to cobble together year after year when they lost pitchers.  Especially when you consider that the Tigers have far less to work with, with respect to available enticing prospects.  The Twins got Milone and Stauffer for possible back-end depth in embarrassing comparison.

 

They signed Sanchez and acquired an Ace in Price for little talent cost, with the full intention on paying him Ace-level pay at some point, or getting rewarded on the back-end via trade/draft pick.

 

Verlander vs. the Twins signings.  I'm sorry, but between Nolasco and Santana, and the lesser-revenue Twins, Verlander plus the superior moves to bulld depth around his health issues is still going to work out far better for the Tigers.

 

Oh, and Buck Farmer, their 2013-5th round-drafted college SP, is already on the 40-man roster and throwing very well in AAA.

 

And you haven't mentioned the Tiger masterful OF retooling.

[Squirrel]

MODERATOR NOTE:

 

Some of the sarcasm in this thread (and others) is getting a little out of control. Please stop. Let's stop characterizing other posters as 'negative' or 'positive.' These are subjective terms to where we each is standing. Let's stop characterizing other posters comments as whining or on the 'TR defense' team. Let's stop characterizing arguments as all or nothing. Discuss, debate. But I am seeing a lot of unnecessary defensiveness in many threads, and snide sarcastic digs at others, please stop. We are in this together. And no matter whether we agree or disagree with the decision-making, none of us likes losing. So before you hit that 'post' button, please reread your thoughts and comments. If you don't want the sarcasm aimed at you, or the defensiveness, or the categorizing, or the sarcasm not meant for humor ... then don't dish it out. If you've had enough, then just stop and walk away. This is not a 'debate to the death.' There are no winners or losers. No right or wrong. Opinions, ideas, thoughts ... no matter where they land on the spectrum ... are just that, opinions, ideas, thoughts ... and ALL welcome, so long as some of the 'unnecessary attitude' is kept in check.

[h2oface]

 

......At the time of he trade, most every expert I recall labelled it a good trade, did they not? Perhaps you were one of the experts who didn't like the trade, and for that you get a nice big pat on the fanny. 

 

 

 

In point of fact, the window for Meyer was wide open, and the parade of mediocrity between Rochester and Minnesota came and went though that window multiple times... and the window actually extended,    in terms of Meyer's ST Majors/AAA dominance, from March (when Gardy publicly called for Meyer to be one of his late inning guys) all the way to August, but anyway.... "nice try" on the TR defense team, I know it's a lonely job these days.

 

Please, for help and clarification for the future, can you tell me, from a moderator's viewpoint..... which of these comments are considered snarky (if any are considered snarky at all), and perhaps the snarkiest of the two. I think it would help us all to know. Thank you very much. 

[Squirrel]

Please, for help and clarification for the future, can you tell me, from a moderator's viewpoint..... which of these comments are considered snarky (if any are considered snarky at all), and perhaps the snarkiest of the two. I think it would help us all to know. Thank you very much.

 

There is no 'one is snarkier than the other.' And there is no 'He started it' when another continues it. And perhaps they were both meant in good fun, but neither leads to constructive discussion. And these are the types of comments that posters take offense to and get defensive over and feel the need to object, and so we have the beginnings of a path leading towards bickering and away from discussing the topic at hand. While neither will earn a poster a warning, I am asking you ALL to try and stay away from these types of comments that lend nothing and from trying to get your 'digs' into one another. The season so far is frustrating enough without having threads disintegrate in this manner. There is such an awesome collection of baseball minds here that we can learn so much from one another, but some of it gets lost when posters resort to these types of comebacks.

 

In the end, just think a little. If it's not the type of comment you want directed towards yourself, don't use it towards someone else. And maybe you don't care and like the banter of digs, but just maybe another poster does care and doesn't like it.

[h2oface]

 

.... and into his 13th year after becoming GM, in his resignation speech, he said he was the wrong person to be a GM in modern baseball.  Following the logic here, it's all Target Field's fault----   but blaming the inanimate object is still just a deflection that ultimately reflects right back on management.

I am going to have to find that speech. (If anyone has a link, that would be great to offer). That is pretty telling to say that you don't think you are the right person anymore.

[jimmer]

 

I am going to have to find that speech. (If anyone has a link, that would be great to offer). That is pretty telling to say that you don't think you are the right person anymore.

'"The game has changed since I've entered," Ryan said. "It's for bright, energetic negotiators, moreso than anything I possess."'

[h2oface]

 

There is no 'one is snarkier than the other.' And there is no 'He started it' when another continues it. And perhaps they were both meant in good fun, but neither leads to constructive discussion. And these are the types of comments that posters take offense to and get defensive over and feel the need to object, and so we have the beginnings of a path leading towards bickering and away from discussing the topic at hand. While neither will earn a poster a warning, I am asking you ALL to try and stay away from these types of comments that lend nothing and from trying to get your 'digs' into one another. The season so far is frustrating enough without having threads disintegrate in this manner. There is such an awesome collection of baseball minds here that we can learn so much from one another, but some of it gets lost when posters resort to these types of comebacks.

In the end, just think a little. If it's not the type of comment you want directed towards yourself, don't use it towards someone else. And maybe you don't care and like the banter of digs, but just maybe another poster does care and doesn't like it.

Thank you very much. That helps me a lot. What had also led to confusion is that another moderator, ashburyjohn, had liked the first comment, so I really needed some clarification. 

[tobi0040]

 

'"The game has changed since I've entered," Ryan said. "It's for bright, energetic negotiators, moreso than anything I possess."'

 

This could very well be self depricating, versus him speaking what he thinks.  Just about every person that retires says something along these lines, or jokes that the company will be better off.

[h2oface]

 

This could very well be self depricating [sic], versus him speaking what he thinks.  Just about every person that retires says something along these lines, or jokes that the company will be better off.

Maybe so. I prefer to take him at the words he carefully and thoughtfully chose to use at this very important time for a very personal and meaningful event in his life.

[jimmer]

 

This could very well be self depricating, versus him speaking what he thinks.  Just about every person that retires says something along these lines, or jokes that the company will be better off.

He asked for a link, I provided a quote instead.  No judgments from me on what it meant.