The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity

[Major League Ready]

I think this thread really highlights the differences in how GMs evaluate a strategy vs some or even most fans.  If you evaluate the trade based on is Murphy better than LuCroy then it is easy to conclude it was settling for mediocrity.

 

IMO, the relative merit of the trade changes substantially if you evaluate the impact on the team over the life the assets being considered here.   LuCroy was likely going to require two premium Berrios or Kepler plus Gordon or Jay or Polanco.  Something along those lines.  The GM probably starts that evaluation with the 4-5 years that we for sure will not have these young players.  There is no guarantee with prospects.  Therefore we need to project a range of outcomes.  If that projection is at all correct, we know for sure we have substantially hurt or chances to be great in years 4-6.  We are trading the very assets we hope will take us from average to a contender.  In other words, we are making a decision that likely promotes mediocrity.

 

What about the next 2 years.  Can we construct a different strategy that makes us as good or better over the next two years.  The GM probably starts this analysis with evaluating the teams readiness to contend for the division.  Getting a one game playoff via the wildcard is not worthy of giving up premium assets.  This team contended for a wildcard only because a 500 record kept teams in the hunt late.  This team statistically did nothing above average.  We have many questions marks and a bunch of them would have to go very well to contend.  I just don’t know how you look at this team objectively and say they are ready to compete. 

 

Next, what are the risks associated with LuCroy’s concussion.  Is he confident enough to trade away premium assets for two years of this asset.  Is he that big of a game changer?  How many wins is he better than Murphy.  Can we more than make up for that by signing Park?  You can’t complain Ryan does not go for high upside guys and then Complain Park is not a sure thing.      Will Buxton/Kepler/Rosario outfield be better than Buxton/Hicks/Rosario.  Does this move also make room to give Arcia one more shot?

 

Seems to me that this move was anything but settling for mediocrity.  I guess if you look at the first 2 months of 2016, trading for LuCroy would have been better.  From some point in 2016 for the next 6-7 years, there is a much better strategy than trading away our future for two years of a concussed LuCroy.

[Major League Ready]

 

Toronto is behind the Twins and have handed out big contracts, Cinci is behind the Twins and have handed out big contracts.

I never said every deal those teams did was great, I said that those teams that are similar to the Twins have gone out and signed top free agents, in some cases, multiple times.

Last I checked, the Twins current model hasn't worked for them anytime in the last 20 years, perhaps it's time to try to make an aggressive move for once? Bring in an ace for once? Bring in a game changer true top position player at once? What is the worst that can happen? A bad contract and no World Series berths for 6-7 years?

So you are saying the strategy you propose has no history of success but you want them to do it anyway.  OK, now I finally understand your position.  How about if we follow, at least in general terms, the models of the two teams that just ended up in the world series. 

 

If you want to complain about the twins.  Let's focus on the real problem which is that they have not developed elite pitching.

[Mike Sixel]

WS is a crap shoot....Toronto was the best team in baseball last year. 162 games shows who is best, WS/playoffs is for entertainment purposes.

[Major League Ready]

 

WS is a crap shoot....Toronto was the best team in baseball last year. 162 games shows who is best, WS/playoffs is for entertainment purposes.

That's actually a good point.  However, I think there is plenty room for debate about which teams was best over 162 games.  Four teams had better records, one of them did win the WS.  The other three were in the same division.  

 

I would also point out that since the turn of the century, this was Toronto's first 90 win season.  The Twins have had five.  The Twins are also positioned for a prolonged run of 90 win seasons.  Probably not next year but I like their chances for the next several years.  Toronto's farm system took a hell of hit of a hit.  They better get it tone very soon because they are about to suck again for several years.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's actually a good point.  However, I think there is plenty room for debate about which teams was best over 162 games.  Four teams had better records, one of them did win the WS.  The other three were in the same division.  

 

I would also point out that since the turn of the century, this was Toronto's first 90 win season.  The Twins have had five.  The Twins are also positioned for a prolonged run of 90 win seasons.  Probably not next year but I like their chances for the next several years.  Toronto's farm system took a hell of hit of a hit.  They better get it tone very soon because they are about to suck again for several years.

 

But that wasn't your point......I was talking about success being about 162 games, not the playoffs. No place was I talking about best approaches or windows......but good point on other teams and their records, my brain farted there...

[DaveW]

 

 the models of the two teams that just ended up in the world series. 

The Royals traded for Cueto (an elite ace) and traded for Zobrist (a very good position player) this season to bolster their chances, they also traded for Shields the year prior (an ace, or close to an ace) and made the world series.

The Mets traded for a game changer in Cepesdes at the deadline.

 

Both teams were aggressive at the deadline (which the Twins never have been)

 

In addition the Blue Jays were aggressive as well and came close to the world series as well.

 

My problem with the Twins is that they are NEVER aggressive, it's one thing if they refuse to hand out 6 year contracts to MVP types or Ace pitchers, but then to compound that by refusing to actually ever be aggressive at a trade deadline to acquire a game changing player? Just conservative all around, with no aggressive moves. The results frankly haven't been there for TR, it would be nice if he would try to take a different approach for once.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

The Royals traded for Cueto (an elite ace) and traded for Zobrist (a very good position player) this season to bolster their chances, they also traded for Shields the year prior (an ace, or close to an ace) and made the world series.

 

The Mets traded for a game changer in Cepesdes at the deadline.

 

Both teams were aggressive at the deadline (which the Twins never have been)

 

In addition the Blue Jays were aggressive as well and came close to the world series as well.

 

My problem with the Twins is that they are NEVER aggressive, it's one thing if they refuse to hand out 6 year contracts to MVP types or Ace pitchers, but then to compound that by refusing to actually ever be aggressive at a trade deadline to acquire a game changing player? Just conservative all around, with no aggressive moves. The results frankly haven't been there for TR, it would be nice if he would try to take a different approach for once.

My problem is that you publically berate the competence of the FO without reasonable consideration of the facts and the context of those facts.   In this particular case, you are approaching this with complete disregard for the team’s revenue history.  Prior to Target Field the type of transaction you insist upon just was not in the cards.  The Twins were amongst the lowest revenue teams in baseball and that just does not go with big FA deals.  It also does not go with trading away great young (cheap) talent for big name players. 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Rank_1.htm

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html

Before you admonish the Twins approach throughout their entire history with statements that include never, you need to consider their revenue position prior to Target Field.  The Rays and Athletics have been successful and their approach is basically the opposite of your proposed approach.  

 

So, we are really talking about 6 years of history where the Twins have had a little higher level of revenue but still far below the top teams.  The Twins started that 6years with signing Mauer to a contract for 8/184 and Morneau had a healthy extension at 15M/yr too.  After they crashed in 2011, it simply did not make sense to spend on free agents and it certainly did not make sense to trade young talent for established players.  As a matter of fact, they probably should have traded any establish player they had on gone into full rebuild mode.  The point being to say they “NEVER” ignores both history and the circumstance of more recent history.

[Mike Sixel]

The Twins signed Morris to the largest FA contract ever, at the time, and won the WS. The Twins signed several players in 91 to go for it.......that was in the dome, right?

 

There will always be an excuse, but in 17 years, TR has never done it. Never. That might or might not change in the future, but let's at least admit that it has never happened. 

[Major League Ready]

The Twins signed Morris to the largest FA contract ever, at the time, and won the WS. The Twins signed several players in 91 to go for it.......that was in the dome, right?

 

There will always be an excuse, but in 17 years, TR has never done it. Never. That might or might not change in the future, but let's at least admit that it has never happened. 

Mike,

 

Let’s ignore for the moment that you are using a 25 year old example and the economics have changes drastically.  How can you possibly a 1 year deal to the 6-10 year type contracts that are the basis of this debate?   IMO, you are not even trying to be objective when you make this type of ridiculous comparison.

[USAFChief]

Mike,

 

Let’s ignore for the moment that you are using a 25 year old example and the economics have changes drastically.  How can you possibly a 1 year deal to the 6-10 year type contracts that are the basis of this debate?   IMO, you are not even trying to be objective when you make this type of ridiculous comparison.

Nor are you when you make the claim that in the past 25 years, conditions have never allowed the Twins to make aggressive, non conservative moves, ever.

 

It's not just about money.

[DaveW]

I'm just really tired of the "aww shucks, we are a small market ballclub we can't afford to play with the big boys"meme that so many people have been duped into believing.

 

Even prior to the opening of Target Field the Twins had plenty of money at their disposal to spend, they just choose not to. However, it should be noted that they never ONCE brought in a Cliff Lee, Johnny Cueto, etc at the deadline, guys who had 3 months left of a contact who could essentially give your team a boost into the playoffs and beyond. Those guys don't cost that much money, you are getting them for a pro-rated amount of one season, even at a 20 million dollar salary, you would only be paying 6 million or so if you got them at the deadline, am we to believe that the Twins couldn't afford to tack on an extra 6 million (often times much lower) or so at anytime during their last "run"?

 

There are multiple ways to be aggressive: via the trade market and via free agency are two of those, TR has done neither, and that is the bottom line. 1991 is a great example because it shows how "going for it" actually does pay off!

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

It's not just about money.

Amen.

 

Look at the Mets, they had payroll constraints this year and were still able to bring in Cesepedes with ZERO issue.

 

Look at the Rangers, they were able to get Philly to kick in some dollars in the Hamels deal!

 

Look at the Royals, they don't have a lot of money yet were able to snag an ace (Cueto) and stud (Zobrist) at the deadline.

 

The Twins have not once done anything close to this in TR's legacy, even though he could have any of his 17 years (though probably only in the 7-8 years when the Twins were competitive would it have made sense) Money is no precluding them from making these types of moves to "go for it", so lets just save the "The Twins can't afford it" for another thread please.

 

Also if money was as big as an issue as some make it out to be, they never would have given Pelfrey another contract after he did absolutely nothing for us in the first one.

 

 

[sane]

 

1991 is a great example because it shows how "going for it" actually does pay off!

And the 2014 Oakland A's show that "going for it"  can put you in last place the following year!

[DaveW]

 

The Rays and Athletics have been successful and their approach is basically the opposite of your proposed approach.  

 

 

The Athletics have won one post season series in the last 25 years or so. I wouldn't call that successful overall.

 

The Rays had an amazing GM, Manager and a high number of their high draft picks ended up working out for the absolute best. The Twins also are in significantly better shape then both of those franchises which have terrible stadiums (remember, Target Field was sold to the Minnesota citizens as a way to compete with the big boys!), zero fan interest etc

[DaveW]

 

And the 2014 Oakland A's show that "going for it"  can put you in last place the following year!

We could do this all day, since there have been many examples that going for it works: (See: this years two world series teams)

 

Nothing is 100% foolproof and sometimes things won't work out, but have things worked out for the Twins the last 17 and 25 years? Nope.

[Platoon]

You can argue each and every deal Ryan or Smith/Ryan made or did not make. Some could be easily cast as good, some bad, some neutral, and all in the eyes of the beholder. But I can't really think of a good defensive response to the record of the last 17-20 years. The results just aren't there. And while there may be, likely are teams with equivalent stages of mediocrity, few have held unto the status quo as the Twin have. When the only major orginisational change after such a yawn inducing stretch is the termination of Wally the Beer Man for selling to minors, it might not be a bad idea to consider some new blood in the FO?

[DaveW]

 

You can argue each and every deal Ryan or Smith/Ryan made or did not make. Some could be easily cast as good, some bad, some neutral, and all in the eyes of the beholder. But I can't really think of a good defensive response to the record of the last 17-20 years. The results just aren't there. And while there may be, likely are teams with equivalent stages of mediocrity, few have held unto the status quo as the Twin have. When the only major orginisational change after such a yawn inducing stretch is the termination of Wally the Beer Man for selling to minors, it might not be a bad idea to consider some new blood in the FO?

Perfectly summed up.

I'm not sure there are any teams in any professional sports that would allow 20 years of results like this without changing up something in the front office.

[Major League Ready]

Perfectly summed up if you completely ignore the revenue of the team.  You and a few others keep talking about the horrid record over the past 17 years.  Compared to what?  The Yankees and other teams with far more revenue?  As Mike stated what really counts is the record over 162 games.  Well, here is the win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for all of the teams with similar revenue to the Twins since the turn of the century.

 

Team Win %  90+ wins
 
Oakland ....0.537... 8
Twins ........0.503... 5
Rays.......... 0.499... 1
Jays............ 0.499... 1
Indians...... 0.498... 4
Mariners... 0.492... 4
Dbacks.......0.490... 4
Reds...........0.481.... 3
Marlins..... 0.480.... 1
Brewers.... 0.471.... 2
Pirates...... 0.452....  2
Royals...... 0.444....  1

 

Even with the horrible 4 years we had between 2011 and 2014, only the A’s have a better record and we all know Billy Beane has been the king of what many here like to call dumpster diving.  He traded established players for prospects instead of the other way around.

IMO, the disconnect is that some of the posters here just refuse to acknowledge that the Twins are at a disadvantage because of the revenue discrepancy of large market teams.  How hard is to understand that you can’t spend like a surgeon when you are an accountant?

[howieramone2]

The paying fans here in the Twin Cities are very happy with the direction of the team. TR has rebuilt our favorite team for the second time, and this time in less than 4 years. Any dissatisfaction with the FO certainly is not locally based. Tickets are going to get to be tougher to find and unlike some teams, what TR built is very sustainable, as it was the first time. These are the glory days for local fans.

[twinsnorth49]

 

The paying fans here in the Twin Cities are very happy with the direction of the team. TR has rebuilt our favorite team for the second time, and this time in less than 4 years. Any dissatisfaction with the FO certainly is not locally based. Tickets are going to get to be tougher to find and unlike some teams, what TR built is very sustainable, as it was the first time. These are the glory days for local fans.

Source? 

 

I'd say your just trolling, because you and I both  know there is absolutely no way you can back up these claims.

 

Why don't you just say you're happy with the direction of the team and leave it at that?

[nicksaviking]

 

Perfectly summed up if you completely ignore the revenue of the team.  You and a few others keep talking about the horrid record over the past 17 years.  Compared to what?  The Yankees and other teams with far more revenue?  As Mike stated what really counts is the record over 162 games.  Well, here is the win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for all of the teams with similar revenue to the Twins since the turn of the century.

 

Team Win %  90+ wins
 
Oakland ....0.537... 8
Twins ........0.503... 5
Rays.......... 0.499... 1
Jays............ 0.499... 1
Indians...... 0.498... 4
Mariners... 0.492... 4
Dbacks.......0.490... 4
Reds...........0.481.... 3
Marlins..... 0.480.... 1
Brewers.... 0.471.... 2
Pirates...... 0.452....  2
Royals...... 0.444....  1

 

 

I'm not sure that comparing records is really the debate here though.  If we are using these teams for comps, aren't we comparing their approach?  From that list, I'd say the Rays and the Pirates are the only teams that are year-in year-out conservative in nature.  The other teams, regardless of success, have at least had a few moments of going big in the offseason or midseason.

 

Even when the Twins had success, they never really came close to the top.  Seeing as that is what we are truly trying to achieve, and the current conservative approach has not yet worked, I don't think it's out of line to ask them to try something new.

 

Personally I still wait another year to go big because I think this team needs to wait until the core staff is headlined by young arms (knock on wood) and they shed some of the ugly veteran contracts (double knock) but I don't think it's unfair for those who are using the past as a bench mark, to assume that since the same people are in charge, changes to the approach aren't likely.

[whydidnt]

Funny thing about revenue for MLB Teams - how you perform on the field has a significant impact on revenue. The Twins were 12th in MLB revenue in 2011. However, fielding a lousy team (which is managements fault) tends to depress revenue. Hard for me to agree that the Twins can't compete revenue wise with all but the the very elite such as the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox and Dodgers. The recent dive in revenue is self inflicted. I also wonder how accurate recent figures are for the Twins. They signed a new deal with FSN, but nobody has ever indicated how much $ the Twins receive. For all we know, and this includes Forbes, they could very well be setting on a huge pile of local TV revenue that isn't included in this calculation. 

 

In any event, just as it seem obvious to people like Sane or MLR that some posters will complain regardless of what management does - other supporters apparently would think the current regime is making all the right decisions, even if they lost 90+ games for a decade. There appears to be no wrong TR could do, all issues are caused by external factors beyond his control, such as lack of revenue, unexpected injuries, a stubborn pitching coach, oh and other teams making adjustments to a new way of building a roster - not TR's fault other teams decided use advanced metrics to help make the most out of their budget and roster. 

 

Bottom line, we all have different views on what a successful team looks like and acts, and that's ok. However, some folks seem to think that being "right" in this discussion is all that matters. 

[howieramone2]

 

Source? 

 

I'd say your just trolling, because you and I both  know there is absolutely no way you can back up these claims.

 

Why don't you just say you're happy with the direction of the team and leave it at that?

Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. This is an honest opinion of one who actually attends the games, spends a lot of time downtown during game days etc. As a Twins fan and resident for over 50 years, I'm very comfortable expressing my knowledgeable opinion.

[USAFChief]

Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. This is an honest opinion of one who actually attends the games, spends a lot of time downtown during game days etc. As a Twins fan and resident for over 50 years, I'm very comfortable expressing my knowledgeable opinion.

Next year might reverse the trend, but over the last four years season ticket holders do not seem to agree, at least when voting with their wallets:

 

http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_27382017/twins-season-tickets-sales-continue-slide

[DaveW]

Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. This is an honest opinion of one who actually attends the games, spends a lot of time downtown during game days etc. As a Twins fan and resident for over 50 years, I'm very comfortable expressing my knowledgeable opinion.

PA?

[USAFChief]

IMO, the disconnect is that some of the posters here just refuse to acknowledge that the Twins are at a disadvantage because of the revenue discrepancy of large market teams.  How hard is to understand that you can’t spend like a surgeon when you are an accountant?

I could be wrong, but if I were to generalize what "some of the posters" here ARE acknowledging is that the Twins are at a revenue disadvantage in some cases, and management's overly conservative approach to combat that hasn't worked all that well.

 

Other posters seem to be making the case there is nothing to be done about that except throw up our collective hands and continue to blame the unfairness of it all.

[DaveW]

I could be wrong, but if I were to generalize what "some of the posters" here ARE acknowledging is that the Twins are at a revenue disadvantage in some cases, and management's overly conservative approach to combat that hasn't worked all that well.

 

Other posters seem to be making the case there is nothing to be done about that except throw up our collective hands and continue to blame the unfairness of it all.

Yup. At no point has anyone suggested that the Twins go all Yankees or Red Sox on the FA market, claiming that these are people's arguments just derails the conversation.

[nicksaviking]

 

Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. This is an honest opinion of one who actually attends the games, spends a lot of time downtown during game days etc. As a Twins fan and resident for over 50 years, I'm very comfortable expressing my knowledgeable opinion.

 

And that's fantastic, we wouldn't have a team here without dedicated fans.

 

Fans can still be dedicated and still believe more can be done though. Asking the team to put forth a better effort or try a different approach to solve the problem isn't a slight on one's fandom just as asking the same from your child wouldn't make you a bad parent.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. This is an honest opinion of one who actually attends the games, spends a lot of time downtown during game days etc. As a Twins fan and resident for over 50 years, I'm very comfortable expressing my knowledgeable opinion.

 

That may fit you and your friends, but turning this into a blanket statement about what Twins fans believe to a board full of Twins fans (who usually disagree with you) is just trolling.  It won't win you any points with people reading you.

[USAFChief]

Let me generalize, our favorite team was at a revenue disavantage when playing at the Metrodome. TR's conservative, and much copied approach, served Twins fans well, as it does to this very day.

I would agree if there were tangible proof.

 

IMO, there isn't. There has been one postseason series win in the TR era. A few dominant players, perhaps one really good team if you squint a bit. Teams good enough to win a weak ALC, but content to start Phil Nevin and Jason Tyner at DH in a postseason series.

 

I'm just one fan, and I speak only for myself, but I hope for better than that.