The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity

[TheLeviathan]

 

PA?

 

Paul Allen would have delivered that post in a different obnoxious way.  More 13 year old boyish in tone.

[Major League Ready]

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.

I cant speak for others but this is not even remotely close to my position.  There will be a time to go big but we are not there yet.  The difference in opinion is that some posters think the twins are throwing up their hands if they don't go all in.  LuCroy is a good strategy for a team with a window that is closing.  It's extremely short-sighted for one that has not even entered their window.  He will be long gone by the time this team enters what could be an extended period of on if we don't trade away the very assets that will get us there. 

 

IMO, taking a chance on Park, getting a solid catcher, trading Plouffe for a great RP + a good prospect.  Then, work Berrios into the starting rotation.  Take the 1st half of the season to determine how Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, Arcia, and maybe even Walker plus some others we have not even considered can form an outstanding OF for the next decade.  All of the power arms (Jay/Burdi/Meyer/Jones/Chargios,etc)  we have in the minors should produce at least a couple outstanding RPs and Jay does have the potential to be a very good SP.  Give Nolasco until June to see if he can make a comeback.  If not accept its a total failure, cut him and put May in the rotation.  If Mauer does not make a comeback this year, he becomes a bench player, you put Park and 1B and open a spot at DH for another power bat.

 

I am sure How is this throwing up our arms.  

 

By 2017

1B Mauer or Park

2B Dozier

SS Escobar

3B Sano

LF Kepler

CF Buxton

RF Rosario

C  Murphy

DH Park or Arcia or Walker or Vargas or someone not even thought of yet.

4th OF/DH Walker

5th OF DH Arcia or Vargas is DH 1B if Arcia bombs

 

SP1-Berrios---SP2-Santana---SP3-Duffey---SP4-Hughes----SP5-May

 

Good god, how much change do you expect over the course of 1 year?  This looks like a team that contend to me.

[whydidnt]

MLR - Your 2017 roster/lineup seems almost identical to the 2016 (minus Plouffe). When will the big move to jump forward actually happen? The Twins FO has been playing for next year since Ryan has been in charge. I, for one, would like to see them play for this year starting in 2016. 

[USAFChief]

I cant speak for others but this is not even remotely close to my position.  There will be a time to go big but we are not there yet.  The difference in opinion is that some posters think the twins are throwing up their hands if they don't go all in.  LuCroy is a good strategy for a team with a window that is closing.  It's extremely short-sighted for one that has not even entered their window.  He will be long gone by the time this team enters what could be an extended period of on if we don't trade away the very assets that will get us there. 

 

IMO, taking a chance on Park, getting a solid catcher, trading Plouffe for a great RP + a good prospect.  Then, work Berrios into the starting rotation.  Take the 1st half of the season to determine how Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, Arcia, and maybe even Walker plus some others we have not even considered can form an outstanding OF for the next decade.  All of the power arms (Jay/Burdi/Meyer/Jones/Chargios,etc)  we have in the minors should produce at least a couple outstanding RPs and Jay does have the potential to be a very good SP.  Give Nolasco until June to see if he can make a comeback.  If not accept its a total failure, cut him and put May in the rotation.  If Mauer does not make a comeback this year, he becomes a bench player, you put Park and 1B and open a spot at DH for another power bat.

 

I am sure How is this throwing up our arms.  

 

By 2017

1B Mauer or Park

2B Dozier

SS Escobar

3B Sano

LF Kepler

CF Buxton

RF Rosario

C  Murphy

DH Park or Arcia or Walker or Vargas or someone not even thought of yet.

4th OF/DH Walker

5th OF DH Arcia or Vargas is DH 1B if Arcia bombs

 

SP1-Berrios---SP2-Santana---SP3-Duffey---SP4-Hughes----SP5-May

 

Good god, how much change do you expect over the course of 1 year?  This looks like a team that contend to me.

I hope that works.

 

But I don't see how that isn't "conservative."

 

You've added Park and a reliever to the existing roster, while planning for prospect development. That's it.

[Platoon]

FO management is not all about money, not even close. It's about drafting, scouting, hiring competent field staff from A ball on up. It's about trying to sell high when you have the opportunity. It's about being fluid and adaptive in roster decisions, and accepting of the fact that it may be necessary to blend very divergent personalities on a roster to win. It's about recognizing changes in the sport and accepting them, hopefully in a timely manner. If simply money bought flags, the playoff contenders would be easily identifiable, and predictable. But it doesn't. For a local comparison try the Timberwolves. Flip, rest his soul, might have finally gotten them pointed in the right dirction. But prior to that all of Glenn's money proved useless. It takes someone to spend whatever you have wisely. As for the 90 win theory? You can pile up regular season wins in a weak division. But then consistently getting yourself blown out in the first round(s) of the PO puts your record in perspective. My personal angst over the FO is not based on any specific deal or year. It's based on the cumulative record, and the inconsistent roster management.

[DaveW]

Agreed, 90 win seasons in weak divisions don't mean much, it's not like the twins got suddenly super unlucky in the playoffs (though bad luck has its part) every single series these lost with the exception of the Oakland series they were signicanr under dogs in the series to begin with. Hence, they never had a team with a "legit" shot at a title, or only once in twenty five years, but that is stretching it a bit.

[formerly33]

 

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.

The paying fans? 

[Major League Ready]

 

MLR - Your 2017 roster/lineup seems almost identical to the 2016 (minus Plouffe). When will the big move to jump forward actually happen? The Twins FO has been playing for next year since Ryan has been in charge. I, for one, would like to see them play for this year starting in 2016. 

OK.  Fair enough.  Let’s talk about the specifics and you tell me if I am too optimistic.  I would add that that The Royals and the Mets followed this same path.  I guess the same could be said for the Pirates.  Allowing your young players to develop is a perfectly valid strategy.

Berrios, May added to the rotation and a full year of both Santana and Duffey seems like a much better starting rotation to me but we are obviously not talking about a sure thing.

 

Bullpen – We should be able to get a lights out reliever for Plouffe.  Granted, I am counting on a couple RPs coming from our system.  Is that too optimistic from a system with Jay/Burdi/ Reed/Jones/Chargios and a few others with back of the bullpen stuff.   That seems like a way better bullpen to me but maybe I am placing to much faith in these guys.  BTW … Burdi has an opponent BA of .080 and Reed has a Whip of .83

 

OF – Buxton provided no value last year.  It seems reasonable to expect he is going to be a very good player, quite a bit better than Hicks.  Rosario should improve as he learns to practice some patients at the plate.  The Royals had several improve year over year.   This leaves us with Kepler vs a 40 y/o Torri Hunter.  By 2017 that should be a considerable upgrade. 

 

Catcher – Murphy should be a considerable upgrade over Suzuki

 

Park is by no means certain.  That deal could tank but he could also be the answer hitting behind Sano which would be a big deal.    

 

To me this is a much better team than 2015.  It just is not markedly better on opening day 2016.

[whydidnt]

 

OK.  Fair enough.  Let’s talk about the specifics and you tell me if I am too optimistic.  I would add that that The Royals and the Mets followed this same path.  I guess the same could be said for the Pirates.  Allowing your young players to develop is a perfectly valid strategy.

Berrios, May added to the rotation and a full year of both Santana and Duffey seems like a much better starting rotation to me but we are obviously not talking about a sure thing.

 

Bullpen – We should be able to get a lights out reliever for Plouffe.  Granted, I am counting on a couple RPs coming from our system.  Is that too optimistic from a system with Jay/Burdi/ Reed/Jones/Chargios and a few others with back of the bullpen stuff.   That seems like a way better bullpen to me but maybe I am placing to much faith in these guys.  BTW … Burdi has an opponent BA of .080 and Reed has a Whip of .83

 

OF – Buxton provided no value last year.  It seems reasonable to expect he is going to be a very good player, quite a bit better than Hicks.  Rosario should improve as he learns to practice some patients at the plate.  The Royals had several improve year over year.   This leaves us with Kepler vs a 40 y/o Torri Hunter.  By 2017 that should be a considerable upgrade. 

 

Catcher – Murphy should be a considerable upgrade over Suzuki

 

Park is by no means certain.  That deal could tank but he could also be the answer hitting behind Sano which would be a big deal.    

 

To me this is a much better team than 2015.  It just is not markedly better on opening day 2016.

Okay, Let's compare the Twins lineup to the Royals - they are a good comp since they just won the WS, are in our division, and we will have to compete with them going forward:

1B- Hosmer vs. Mauer/Park - at this point I'd take Hosmer

2b - Infante vs. Dozier - Twins and Dozier for Sure

SS - Escobar vs. Escobar - I'd give this one to KC's version

3B - Moustakas vs. Sano - Going with Sano, but that's all based upon Potential

LF - Gordon vs. Kepler - I'm taking the proven player here

CF - Cain vs. Buxton - Cain is an MVP finalist this season. We hope Buxton get there someday, but Cain is better at this point.

RF - Rios vs. Rosario - Pretty close - let's call it even.

C - Perez vs. Murphy - Goes to Perez

SP - both teams have potential and lots of questions - even

RP - Royals dominate here

 

Final tally KC 5 - MN 2 Tie 3

 

If your goal is to win, you need to have better players than your opponents. The Twins have some good looking young players, but the Royals are better and if your goal is to win, the Twins have to add be aggressive about adding players with high ceilings. To bring this back to the topic at hand - to me the Twins are poised and built to be competitive but not necessarily to be winners. That's the difference.

[Mike Sixel]

The Mets traded for Cespedes......a HUGE move for them. That's exactly what I would want TR to do if he really thought they were contenders. Exactly.

[whydidnt]

 

The Mets traded for Cespedes......a HUGE move for them. That's exactly what I would want TR to do if he really thought they were contenders. Exactly.

And the Royals added Cueto and Zobrist, while the Jays added Price and Tulowitzki. Meanwhile the Twins added Jepsen. These are all aggressive moves made by GMs that are trying to win. We are still waiting for this type of move from the Twins FO- and the clock is going on 17 years.

[twinsnorth49]

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.

So more accurately "some" Twins fans are happy with the direction of the team. Some also are not, including knowledgeable ones who regularly attend games and spend a great deal of time downtown.

 

It's an honest opinion based on the people you know, who are undoubtedly Twins fans. They don't speak for the entire fan base, and you know that.

 

I'm not addressing it again.

[sane]

MLR - Your 2017 roster/lineup seems almost identical to the 2016 (minus Plouffe). . I, for one, would like to see them play for this year starting in 2016.

That is because MLR is using names that already are in the Twins organization(or arrival is imminent), instead of pulling fantasy players out of every part of his anatomy like the trade dreamers are doing. I am sure he is not anti-transaction, but he wants to show what we are starting with.

[DaveW]

instead of pulling fantasy players out of every part of his anatomy like the trade dreamers are doing.

Again, nobody is doing that....

[whydidnt]

That is because MLR is using names that already are in the Twins organization(or arrival is imminent), instead of pulling fantasy players out of every part of his anatomy like the trade dreamers are doing. I am sure he is not anti-transaction, but he wants to show what we are starting with.

1st, I'm not seeing all of these wild trade proposals in this thread to start with. 2nd,the point was that the Twins had enough to win. I pointed out that I didn't think they did and explained why. Not sure where a snarky trade comment comes from regarding this exchange.

[sane]

Again, nobody is doing that....

MLR is being criticized by other posters as being too conservative because he posted a roster using (nearly) all players already in the Twins organization. His choice. Adding LuCroy, Upton, Cueto, Plawecki, D'Arnaud is all fantasy speculation which may "look aggressive" but is not based an anything factual. I am sure he is in favor of any fruitful transaction available, but in this case he is referring to current reality.

[old nurse]

 

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?

Cinci has signed their own players. Chapman really did not get much more than some of the first round picks did, so what expensive free agents did the Reds sign and how many good players have they traded away the last few years because I just can't remember the signings, only the trades

[USAFChief]

MLR is being criticized by other posters as being too conservative because he posted a roster using (nearly) all players already in the Twins organization. His choice. Adding LuCroy, Upton, Cueto, Plawecki, D'Arnaud is all fantasy speculation which may "look aggressive" but is not based an anything factual. I am sure he is in favor of any fruitful transaction available, but in this case he is referring to current reality.

I'm not sure anyone criticized MLR as being too conservative. I think some of us pointed out his roster doesn't seem like evidence against the notion the Twins are too conservative.

 

Maybe being conservative is a good thing. I don't think so, but I've been spectacularly wrong before, and likely will be again. But there's no evidence in this thread to suggest the Twins are anything but very conservative and risk averse.

[SwainZag]

 

And the Royals added Cueto and Zobrist, while the Jays added Price and Tulowitzki. Meanwhile the Twins added Jepsen. These are all aggressive moves made by GMs that are trying to win. We are still waiting for this type of move from the Twins FO- and the clock is going on 17 years.

 

Honest question. Do you think if the Twins would have added any of these combos at the deadline that they would have been a lock for a playoff spot? Series win? World Series win?  Out of all the players you named all of them are now free agents and that includes Cespedes mentioned earlier.

 

Let's say they added Price and Zobrist at the deadline and the Twins won the WC and then lost out.  Would it be worth right now to say, "Wow TR was aggressive!" and now be out the guys we traded for AND the prospects we traded for them?

 

Perhaps I was in the camp that I thought the Twins were a decent team but not a true title contender this year and thought and still think a move like any of those would have been a mistake, but that's just my take.

[Major League Ready]

 

Okay, Let's compare the Twins lineup to the Royals - they are a good comp since they just won the WS, are in our division, and we will have to compete with them going forward:

1B- Hosmer vs. Mauer/Park - at this point I'd take Hosmer

2b - Infante vs. Dozier - Twins and Dozier for Sure

SS - Escobar vs. Escobar - I'd give this one to KC's version

3B - Moustakas vs. Sano - Going with Sano, but that's all based upon Potential

LF - Gordon vs. Kepler - I'm taking the proven player here

CF - Cain vs. Buxton - Cain is an MVP finalist this season. We hope Buxton get there someday, but Cain is better at this point.

RF - Rios vs. Rosario - Pretty close - let's call it even.

C - Perez vs. Murphy - Goes to Perez

SP - both teams have potential and lots of questions - even

RP - Royals dominate here

 

Final tally KC 5 - MN 2 Tie 3

 

If your goal is to win, you need to have better players than your opponents. The Twins have some good looking young players, but the Royals are better and if your goal is to win, the Twins have to add be aggressive about adding players with high ceilings. To bring this back to the topic at hand - to me the Twins are poised and built to be competitive but not necessarily to be winners. That's the difference.

The difference in perspective here is that you want a better team than the team with the best record in the AL and the WS winners at the start of 2016.  It would cost a fortune to make up the difference in free agency.  This is fantasy IMO opinion unless if you have budget of NY/LA or Boston. 

 

The Royals, Mets, Pirates, and Astros were all in the same position a couple years ago.  Did any of them trade away premier prospects to get established players?  I think it would be accurate to say they all patiently awaited their core to come together.  The trades the Royals and Mets made that were the most influential were trades in the past for prospects.

 

You also use a comparison the very team that is the best example of it taking time for a core to come together.   It took several years and the Royals developed the core of their team from within.  Their free agent additions were considerably more modest than the Twins.  They have one player on the WS champs in Davis that came from trading away prospects and that was a bit of a fluke. 

 

Yes, they made a couple of big deadline deals.  I don’t know how that is relevant to this discussion.  We can talk about that if we get there and they do nothing.

[Major League Ready]

I'm not sure anyone criticized MLR as being too conservative. I think some of us pointed out his roster doesn't seem like evidence against the notion the Twins are too conservative.

 

Maybe being conservative is a good thing. I don't think so, but I've been spectacularly wrong before, and likely will be again. But there's no evidence in this thread to suggest the Twins are anything but very conservative and risk averse.

I can say with certainty that your perspective changes when you are given responsibility for 9 figure organization.  The way 10s or 100+ million dollars is thrown around here  is extraordinarily different than any organization I have ever worked for or with.  Its easy playing fantasy GM.  

[sane]

Maybe being conservative is a good thing. I don't think so, but I've been spectacularly wrong before, and likely will be again. .

At my age, I would rather be spectacularly wrong (or right) than be conservative, but if my teams are talented and young, I want THEM to be conservative.

But if my team is talented and ageing and their window is closing, then l'audace!,l'audace!, toujours l'audace!

[Monkeypaws]

Having a plan and sticking to it isn't being conservative, it's being smart.

 

Look at the Texas Rangers, love to make splashy deals seemingly for the sake of it: Hamilton, Fielder,Hamels ... Where are the WS rings?

 

Cubs are another example, although they've drafted and developed well.

 

SF Giants are doing it right, with a mainly homegrown team, adding here and there when appropriate: THAT'S who the Twins should emulate, and are parallel to some degree - gotta stop wasting dough on marginal free agents.

 

Going out and making big deals and signing fre agents works less often than organizations that have a solid foundation and make only the deals  that compliment the core: KC, SF, the good Boston teams, even the Yanks (Jeter, Williams, Rivera, Posada, Petite, all drafted and developed). 

 

The Twins are on the right track - trying to rush things by throwing money at it is just wrong, and usually fails.

 

This is based on the assumption that the Twins were a fringe team, not true contenders last season.

[whydidnt]

Honest question. Do you think if the Twins would have added any of these combos at the deadline that they would have been a lock for a playoff spot? Series win? World Series win?  Out of all the players you named all of them are now free agents and that includes Cespedes mentioned earlier.

 

Let's say they added Price and Zobrist at the deadline and the Twins won the WC and then lost out.  Would it be worth right now to say, "Wow TR was aggressive!" and now be out the guys we traded for AND the prospects we traded for them?

 

Perhaps I was in the camp that I thought the Twins were a decent team but not a true title contender this year and thought and still think a move like any of those would have been a mistake, but that's just my take.

It's a good question, and I tend to agree that the Twins were playing above their head. However the Jays didn't give up a lot of their farm system to aquier Tulowitzki. The Royals got Zobrist for Manea, a decent prospect, but a guy who's been injured a lot. I'm not sure I know a comparable int the Twins system, he's not Berrios, but probably better than Stewart or Gonsalves at this point. It they could jab packaged one of them with another prospect, I would have been for it.

 

It doesn't change the conversation for this offseason though, and it still is one more time the current FO decided to basically stand pat.

[whydidnt]

The difference in perspective here is that you want a better team than the team with the best record in the AL and the WS winners at the start of 2016.  It would cost a fortune to make up the difference in free agency.  This is fantasy IMO opinion unless if you have budget of NY/LA or Boston. 

 

The Royals, Mets, Pirates, and Astros were all in the same position a couple years ago.  Did any of them trade away premier prospects to get established players?  I think it would be accurate to say they all patiently awaited their core to come together.  The trades the Royals and Mets made that were the most influential were trades in the past for prospects.

 

You also use a comparison the very team that is the best example of it taking time for a core to come together.   It took several years and the Royals developed the core of their team from within.  Their free agent additions were considerably more modest than the Twins.  They have one player on the WS champs in Davis that came from trading away prospects and that was a bit of a fluke. 

 

Yes, they made a couple of big deadline deals.  I don’t know how that is relevant to this discussion.  We can talk about that if we get there and they do nothing.

The Royals traded a top 5 prospect, Myers, for Shields a couple of years ago, so yes they have traded prospects. The thing about prospects is that only a small percentage ever turn into stars, or even solid contributors. Yes you have to build from within, but if you have the opportunity to deal potential for a sure thing, I think you need to do so. The current FO has been guarding their prospects like e gold we used to store in at Fort Knox for years, with very little in the way FO results to show for it.

[USAFChief]

I can say with certainty that your perspective changes when you are given responsibility for 9 figure organization.  The way 10s or 100+ million dollars is thrown around here  is extraordinarily different than any organization I have ever worked for or with.  Its easy playing fantasy GM.

 

That seems like a rationale for conservatism, not a refutation.

 

Which is certainly fair, but it seems like support for the OP. In which case, wouldn't it be easier just to agree with him?

[bird]

 

I'm not sure anyone criticized MLR as being too conservative. I think some of us pointed out his roster doesn't seem like evidence against the notion the Twins are too conservative.

Maybe being conservative is a good thing. I don't think so, but I've been spectacularly wrong before, and likely will be again. But there's no evidence in this thread to suggest the Twins are anything but very conservative and risk averse.

 

 

I think we as a TD community have arrived at a perhaps shaky consensus that Ryan, and the Twins overall, can be fairly described as conservative, and an even shakier consensus that Ryan is basically risk-averse by nature. Over the years, I've rarely read a post from someone claiming Ryan took too much risk. OTOH, it's not uncommon for the risks taken and the aggressiveness involved in some of his moves to be discounted here.

 

If we were only debating strategy, I think it would be fairly easy for those on different sides of the debate to say: "I see the merits of your argument, but I personally would prefer they follow the strategy I favor." The more rigorous debates would then be about contextual and historic circumstances, things like changes in revenue streams, stage of the rebuilding cycle, comparisons among teams' successes and failings in things like the draft, the value of FA versus in-house moves....

 

Inevitably, the conversation devolves into a "discussion" about Terry Ryan. When it does, things get messy, because there is a much more disparate view of what impact Ryan's personality and nature have on the whole process, of what his personality really is, and then of course there's the occasional demonizing that goes with it.

 

I'm known to be a defender of Ryan, but I acknowledge his flaws as I see them. I believe he's less flawed than many, and I think his strengths are many and often woefully under-appreciated.  I'm a proponent of a strategy that takes into account and puts into context both the financial implications of transactions and the team in general and the stage of the rebuilding cycle. Despite my very advanced age (my AARP card arrived before Chief's), I'm patient as a fan, and tolerant of mistakes.

 

Ryan has failed to act aggressively when an opportunity presented itself on a number of occasions over his tenure. I understand the viewpoint that these failings are inexcusable. The reason I don't call for his head on a stick when this happens is because I think it's VERY likely that the next GM comes in and makes different mistakes, more mistakes, more catastrophic mistakes. Billy Smith mistakes that set the cycle back. I focus on the strategy instead, and accept the fact that the execution will be imperfect, especially when our fate rests so heavily on the performance of a very diverse group of young athletes. (Yes, this is a debatable strategy tradeoff.)

 

Maybe I'm too conservative too. I can live with that label. But I hardly think that if I am, that I'll accept being told I settle for mediocrity. That would be nonsense.

 

 

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

This is minimization and understatement.

He sure has gotten a rise out of a HELL lot of people. Even me, I guess.

[DaveW]

That seems like a rationale for conservatism, not a refutation.

 

Which is certainly fair, but it seems like support for the OP. In which case, wouldn't it be easier just to agree with him?

Yeah that's the weird part, it's one thing to disagree with me saying that we should be aggressive, but to somehow deny or say that Terry Ryan hasn't been conservative is just out there. By all sports definitions TR has been one of the most conservative GMs in baseball, if not all professional sports.

[old nurse]

Ryan this go around as risk adverse.  How many times have they picked high school players in the early rounds of the draft whereas before it was who's basement was the highest. You let Cuddyer go to get 2 draft picks. You sign players that have histories of injuries and hope for the best.  Ryan can't afford a big mistake, think Sandoval or Ramirez, but he is willing to try the  medium mistake.