The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity

[old nurse]

 

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.

The Reds, Rays, Marlins, Rockis, Mariners,  Pirates, Diamondbacks, Indians and Braves all do not look like they do too much different than the Twins  in the risk taking department. The Yankees  appear to be taking less risk. The Cardinals are just plain smart. I wouldn't call the Orioles that wild and crazy. Up until this year, the Asto's did not risk anything.  Shapiro was brought into the Jays organization because up until the point that Shapiro was hired, the Jays had really done nothing. Ryan does not look all that differetn than 1/3 to 1/2 of the general managers.

[Major League Ready]

 

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.

I never said it was not conservative.  I implied it was the norm.  I asked you repeatedly for specific examples of lower revenue teams on the upswing of a rebuild making this type of move that would suggest it is not the norm.  I should add that they be successful examples because the bombs hardly support your point.  If it was the norm, it would be easy to come up with examples.  It’s not like we did this dance once.  I kept asking for specific examples and you ignored it because it does not fit your preferred narrative.   At one point, I even went so far as to put up all of the free agent SPs over the past several years and asked which one of them fit your scenario.  Is it really all that conservative if it is the norm amongst team with similar revenues?

 

I will be happy to acknowledge TR is extremely conservative if you show us the examples of a team as described above acquiring an Ace or MVP via free agency or trade.  There should be plenty examples based if your position is valid.  I mean we are talking about 17 years and a dozen teams that meet this description.  I would imagine the result will be SPs that we can debate if they are actually an ace.  That’s fine, at least we can put in perspective how many such transactions took place and there for determine the relative conservatism.  That is if you will actually respond with specifics instead or restating your position or ignore this all together if the facts don’t fit you position.

[Mike Sixel]

So, we agree he's conservative.....phew. That seemed really hard for some reason.

[twinsnorth49]

I wonder if this thread had originally been titled "The Front Office and being too conservative", how things might have turned out differently..............for the better.

[Squirrel]

 

So, we agree he's conservative.....phew. That seemed really hard for some reason.

 

Okay, have we now come full circle and can close this thread?

 

I wonder if this thread had originally been titled "The Front Office and being too conservative", how things might have turned out differently..............for the better.

 

I've never bought into that line 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' It's all in a name.

[DaveW]

 

 

I will be happy to acknowledge TR is extremely conservative if you show us the examples of a team as described above acquiring an Ace or MVP via free agency or trade. 

I already have, multiple times in this thread and others, you choose to ignore it.

 

Here are are a couple more that I didn't mention above (I have already provided a dozen or so examples):

The Reds traded for Ken Griffey Junior (MVP Type)

The Royals traded for Johnny Cueto (Ace) (Super recent too!)

 

 

[DaveW]

 

I wonder if this thread had originally been titled "The Front Office and being too conservative", how things might have turned out differently..............for the better.

I stand by the mediocre title, settling (i.e. not changing up any real personal in the FO, not changing your approach to trade and free agency) while you only win one playoff series in 17 (or 20 if you include the Bill Smith era) is mediocrity defined.

 

So thus, the Twins organization have been settling for mediocrity, unfortunately for them the fans haven't been, which is why attendance took a nose dive.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I stand by the mediocre title, settling (i.e. not changing up any real personal in the FO, not changing your approach to trade and free agency) while you only win one playoff series in 17 (or 20 if you include the Bill Smith era) is mediocrity defined.

 

So thus, the Twins organization have been settling for mediocrity, unfortunately for them the fans haven't been, which is why attendance took a nose dive.

I wasn't asking you to defend it.

[DaveW]

I wasn't asking you to defend it.

I know, I just didn't want people to think I was trying to "troll" or something

[sane]

What is wrong with settling for mediocrity?

All my friends say that my wife did that when she married me.

[Major League Ready]

I already have, multiple times in this thread and others, you choose to ignore it.

 

Here are are a couple more that I didn't mention above (I have already provided a dozen or so examples):

The Reds traded for Ken Griffey Junior (MVP Type)

The Royals traded for Johnny Cueto (Ace) (Super recent too!)

Cmon, you can’t possibly think that stating that a team has done something is an example.  You made several claims statement that several teams have signed the type of 6+ year contracts were are discussing and provided one specific example.  If I say that the Twins have had a better record over the past 15 years but all of one of the teams with similar or less revenue is that proof?  No, it’s a statement or claim.  Providing specific proof like the win records of those teams is a specific example.  I also stated each and every time that your statements were not proof so frankly, it seems disingenuous.

 

The Cueto example is a rental.  I don’t think it is beyond anyone involved in this thread that the entire issue revolves around the number of years and total dollar commitment.  Deadline deals are a mere tangent here.  It sure seemed clear that the basis of this debate has been 6+ year contracts for elite players.  I would bend and say Cueto is Elite because there is no point in debating a ½ season rental.  The Royals exposure/expenditure here was less than $5M.  Do you really think that example is relevant 6-8 years and $150M plus deals required to sign these guys in free agency?   I get it that they have not deadline deals either but that is an entirely different matter. 

 

I will give you Griffey but let’s be real about that too.  How many other teams have the elite free agents father on the roster?  I am thinking that influenced the signing.  This is also a 15 year old deal.  Is this really all you can come up with over the past 15 years, one great player that went to play with his father?

Where are all the “Aces” you insisted have been signed by the teams with equal or less revenue?  If you can’t come up with ½ dozen for those bottom twelve teams in the past 15 years, I think it is fair to say that such signings are rare given more than 50% of the teams in question would have not done this in the past 15 years.

[Mike Sixel]

Actually, not true for me at all MLR.

 

The lack of even doing a rental when they were really good in the dome is my primary issue with TR.......he wouldn't even go 3 months of an elite player when he was winning divisions but ran out amazingly bad DH options....That's much more damning of him than not signing elite players to 7 year deals, imo.

[DaveW]

 

Actually, not true for me at all MLR.

 

The lack of even doing a rental when they were really good in the dome is my primary issue with TR.......he wouldn't even go 3 months of an elite player when he was winning divisions but ran out amazingly bad DH options....That's much more damning of him than not signing elite players to 7 year deals, imo.

Same here, I have repeated that at least half the problem is never pulling the trigger on a one year rental/game changer as well.

[DaveW]

 

 

Where are all the “Aces” you insisted have been signed by the teams with equal or less revenue?

Padres just signed James Shields. There is a very recent one with a team with equal or less revenue. Nationals signed Mad Max, there is another recent one with similar revenue.

 

I provided plenty of examples earlier of both teams signing guys long term and teams trading for guys, you clearly don't care/won't budge from your stance, so I am done responding to this same question for the 10th time in the 4th different thread. If you want to see my answers, go back and look in the thread earlier for the countless examples that I stated.

[sane]

Actually, not true for me at all MLR.

 

The lack of even doing a rental when they were really good in the dome is my primary issue with TR.......he wouldn't even go 3 months of an elite player when he was winning divisions but ran out amazingly bad DH options....That's much more damning of him than not signing elite players to 7 year deals, imo.

On the reverse side of that, trading prospects for rentals is a bad idea IMO unless you are really a World Series contender. You don't get ANYTHING back next year.

[Monkeypaws]

 

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.

Hence the big contracts to Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana?

 

Or laying out 12 million to negotiate with Park?

 

I hope my banker is more conservative than TR.

[jimmer]

 

Hence the big contracts to Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana?

 

Or laying out 12 million to negotiate with Park?

 

I hope my banker is more conservative than TR.

I think if you look around at multi-year Free Agent contracts and bidding amounts for established players in other markets, you'll find none of those are of the expensive variety in today's market.  The fact that those are large contracts for the Twins doesn't make them actually large contracts in today's market.

[by jiminy]

 

 Quick check of catchers with 150+ at bats in 2015 shows Murphy at #6 in batting ahead of Wieters and Lucroy btw,  

The knock on him is those gaudy numbers are the product of a fluky BABIP and outstrip anything he ever did in the minors. The fear is he will do what Danny Santana did -- regress when his inflated BABIP regresses. He has never shown any power and has poor plate discipline. Hiring a guy based on a brief spurt of fluky numbers that belie poor peripherals is a gamble.

 

That said, all of that applies to Hicks, too. So it's a reasonable gamble.

 

And probably a lot less risky gamble than investing tons of money and tons of years on Wieters or LuCroy, who are despite having more upside are dangerously old, inconsistent, and injury prone.

 

So I'm fine with all three of the moves, personally.  But I also agree with the main point that at some point you have to look past the pretty good to the really good if you want to win. The goal after all is to be the BEST team. Which requires some real stars. You can't buy the best team, you need to get lucky with some prospects, which the Twins seem very well positioned to do. But to not just get to the playoffs but beat really good playoff teams with ace pitchers, you need an ace pitcher or two. Which might mean instead of signing guys like Santana, Nolasco, Pelfrey, and Hughes, you pool all that money and buy someone like Price or Greinke. Yes, that's a gamble.

 

Tying that much money up in one player can create an albatross contract like Mauer's, or worse if he's injured. But it's usually the only way to win it all. And they have enough income to budget two or three max contracts in there and still win if one fails. They can afford both Greinke and Mauer, if they don't tie up too much money in mediocrities.

 

But as someone pointed out, look at the Royals. Defense, run production, and a great bullpen can keep you in the hunt, as long as your rotation is deep enough. Remember in the past the Twins would have a few stars, and a few players so bad they would basically cancel them out. A team with no weak spots, and a smattering of stars, can win a lot of games too.

 

I expect the Twins to balk at the expense of an ace starter but possibly get a high profile reliever or two. Not saying I'm for that -- relievers are a notoriously bad risk, and they might do just as well by cycling minor leaguers like Burdi and Tonkin and Meyer in till somebody sticks. But at least a reliever doesn't break the bank. They can afford a 3/27M contract or two even if he flops. That's about all I'd expect though. It's going to take several breakout performers of the young guys to make the playoffs next year. Which if it happens would be the best possible core you could have--young, cheap talent. 

 

I'd rather see that happen AND add Greinke, and they could afford to do that, thanks to the new stadium and the league's TV contract. I just don't think they will. And neither does MLBtraderumors.com. They think the Twins' big pickup this off season will be Ryan Madsen, or someone like him. That and Park could well be it.

 

One last prediction: if they do sign Park it will be for significantly less than $40 million. I just don't see the Twins going for that, or him turning down anything under $25M.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Hence the big contracts to Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana?

 

Or laying out 12 million to negotiate with Park?

 

I hope my banker is more conservative than TR.

Those guys have ERA+ of 99, 97, and 90. They are the definition of mediocrity. 

 

All those signings tell us is that Ryan has gone from conservative to mediocre. Most people would love the old Ryan back, of just operating conservatively, developing minor league talent into good Major league ballplayers. With the added benefit of looking savvy and pocketing your owners that free agent money. 

[Major League Ready]

Padres just signed James Shields. There is a very recent one with a team with equal or less revenue. Nationals signed Mad Max, there is another recent one with similar revenue.

 

I provided plenty of examples earlier of both teams signing guys long term and teams trading for guys, you clearly don't care/won't budge from your stance, so I am done responding to this same question for the 10th time in the 4th different thread. If you want to see my answers, go back and look in the thread earlier for the countless examples that I stated.

 

 

Padres just signed James Shields. There is a very recent one with a team with equal or less revenue. Nationals signed Mad Max, there is another recent one with similar revenue.

 

I provided plenty of examples earlier of both teams signing guys long term and teams trading for guys, you clearly don't care/won't budge from your stance, so I am done responding to this same question for the 10th time in the 4th different thread. If you want to see my answers, go back and look in the thread earlier for the countless examples that I stated.

I brought up Max Scherzer myself as the closest example.  He is certainly an Ace but the Nationals had $64M more revenue than the Twins in revenue.  (2014- $287M and the Twins had $223M)  This is not the $100M+ advantage that some teams have so it would be reasonable to say that this is a c loser example but that $60M pays his salary a couple time so Scherzer is not a relevant example.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

Is Shields an example of the kind of contracts we are discussing?  You were the one that qualified the type of players that get 6 year contract or more.  Now, you want to use James Shields as an example.  OK, lets pretend that deal is an example. 

 

Shields was mediocre at best last year and will be 34 next year with 3 years remaining.  Santana was a fair amount better with an ERA+ of 104 and a 4.17 FIP, Shields had an ERA+ of 93 and a FIP of 4.45.  At this point, it looks like the FO made the better choice so again this is not supporting your case.    I mean Tommy Milone had a 106 ERA+ and Pelfrey’s was 97.

 

Not signing a 33 y/o Shields to a big contract is not what I would call conservative.  I would call it is calculated.  Shields deal will likely be another example of why lower revenue teams don’t do these deals.  So, far you have come up with one example that panned out and that one was a great player joining his father’s team.  I guess when we have a player that has a great son we can count them against the Twins if they don’t sign him.  Your only other example that was actually signed by a team with equal or less revenue is Mike Hampton and he was a bust.  Shields is not really an example but if consider, he looks like a bust too. 

 

Feel free to list the other specific examples you have made that I am ignoring.  It looks to me like you can’t come up with a single successful example other than Griffey and you still want to criticize the FO for not doing what every other FO has avoided or failed trying.

[nicksaviking]

Ok, I think this conversation has come full circle 10x over and nothing new is being brought to the table. It certainly has become more personal than productive. Additionally, this thread has generated a record number of complaints from both sides of the discussion, or probably more accurately, all sides of the discussion as I can't tell how many sides there are at this point.

 

This one certainly was a doozie, but I'm closing it down.