Twins Lose Zack Jones in Rule 5

[DaveW]

 

 

Now it's time for Ryan to build a postseason contender. Will he do that? I don't know but arguing about what he did or did not do in the 90s is a pointless discussion.

Not true at all, his 90's "moves and blunders" are relevant today because it speaks to his overall track record in his 17 years at the helm. If he is going to be praised time and time again for his Liriano, Nathan trade, then we need to look at the trades and moves that didn't work out. As far as him "rebuilding a bad team in 2011" it shouldn't take this long anyways, especially when you have the payroll potential he has and a farm system that was already stocked to the brim (during many of the Bill Smith era drafts)

 

It's all a moot discussion anyways, this organization would never fire Ryan anyways, if it was any other team Ryan would have been gone years ago.

 

Your comparison to Dayton Moore is irrelevant, if Dayton Moore were a GM for 17 years and only won one post season series he would have been let go. Moore however has numerous post season series wins, two world series appearances and 1 title. Thus Moore >>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan.

 

The whole goal in baseball is to win the world series, not "come close as you can to .500 overall over the course of a couple decades"

[DaveW]

Also Brock, if you go back and read, I only brought up Ryan's 90's record because there was a discussion involving his overall record the past 17 years (when in fact part of that record was with Smith at the helm)

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm not the one saying revenue and winning are not correlated, the studies are all over the internet showing that.

You can't use "studies all over the internet" to make a point and then say you are not saying it.  You are saying it in support of your point. 

 

We could run a correlation coefficient but do you need to do any analysis to see that revenue matters? A high school sophomore could look at the win records at tell you there is a strong correlation. 

 

What may taint the correlation is that it takes a lot of incremental dollars to make a difference.  One could then make a valid argument that revenue was not significantly impactful if there was not a large discrepancy in revenue but that's not reality.

 

So, give it to me straight Mike, Do you really think revenue does not matter?

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As far as him "rebuilding a bad team in 2011" it shouldn't take this long anyways, especially when you have the payroll potential he has and a farm system that was already stocked to the brim (during many of the Bill Smith era drafts).

This is blatantly untrue and you know it. The farm system was not "stocked". It was middling at best and most experts ranked it in the bottom half of baseball, not the top.

 

Going into 2012, BP had them ranked #22.

 

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that a typical rebuild takes 3-5 years? Pirates, Royals, Cubs, Astros... How many examples do you need?

 

 

[DaveW]

 

Zack who?

Wheeler!

[DaveW]

 

 

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that a typical rebuild takes 3-5 years? Pirates, Royals, Cubs, Astros... How many examples do you need?

The Royals, Cubs, Stros, Pirates all made good moves to make their teams better to reach that next step (to go along with the prospects) Terry Ryan has not done that especially this off-season. The Pirates, Royals, Cubs and Stros are all miles ahead of what the Twins are currently.

[DaveW]

 

This is blatantly untrue and you know it. The farm system was not "stocked". It was middling at best and most experts ranked it in the bottom half of baseball, not the top.

 

Going into 2012, BP had them ranked #22.

 

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that a typical rebuild takes 3-5 years? Pirates, Royals, Cubs, Astros... How many examples do you need?

Also if you are going to credit for TR rebuilding the Twins from the ashes (I still don't see it as it took them 4 years to have a super lucky season to get 83 wins) then you should also acknowledge that when he left the GM post originally he left Bill Smith with a bad farm system and a team that was quickly going under. Ryan is a big reason why the Twins were such a mess by 2012.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm sorry I ever participated in this thread.

 

This thread is not about Terry Ryan's past performance. If you wish to discuss Ryan's past performance or things unrelated to Zack Jones, feel free to do that in one of the forty-five bajillion threads on the subject.

 

I'm growing weary of every thread getting derailed on this forum. It makes this place an unpleasant site to visit.

 

Next person take take the thread off the rails, inject a pet argument, or start bickering with another poster gets a warning.

[Major League Ready]

 

Also Brock, if you go back and read, I only brought up Ryan's 90's record because there was a discussion involving his overall record the past 17 years (when in fact part of that record was with Smith at the helm)

Dave,

 

Are you saying that Smith's tenure is the reason the Twins organization has outperformed every organization other than Oakland that does not have higher revenue than the Twins?

[USAFChief]

 

You can't use "studies all over the internet" to make a point and then say you are not saying it.  You are saying it in support of your point. 

 

We could run a correlation coefficient but do you need to do any analysis to see that revenue matters? A high school sophomore could look at the win records at tell you there is a strong correlation. 

 

What may taint the correlation is that it takes a lot of incremental dollars to make a difference.  One could then make a valid argument that revenue was not significantly impactful if there was not a large discrepancy in revenue but that's not reality.

 

So, give it to me straight Mike, Do you really think revenue does not matter?

I would speculate payroll (or "outgo") matters more than revenue.

 

If you want to argue payroll is tied to revenue, there may be a point there, but not every team operates in the same manner.  Some spend more than others, and vice versa, despite similar revenue streams.  Is there some reason the Tigers should be outspending the Twins to the extent they do, other than their owner wants to win more than he cares about yearly profit?

 

As to the Twins, there is no reason they couldn't be spending more. That is a choice they have made.  They aren't even spending up to their self-imposed "50-55 percent" MLB payroll limit, and I would argue that self-imposed percentage should be higher than it was in the Metrodome.  Outside expenses didn't go up by 50% when they moved.

 

Earlier you argued for a "draft and build through the farm system" model for the Twins.  This is sort of a canard.  Nobody here is arguing the Twins shouldn't be pouring money and other resources into their farm system, and the truth is EVERY team has a farm system and tries to get as much talent out of it as possible.  The Yankees, the Dodgers, the Red Sox.  Every other team, large revenue or small.

 

 In fact, many here argue the Twins should be spending much MORE to bring talent into their system.  But they scrimp there, too.  To the best of my knowledge they have yet to spend a penny more than the draft allotment.   They have chosen not to break the international FA CAP, while other teams have looked at the system and basically said "one large signing per year?  Bullpucky...we're going to splurge every other year and bring several high profile FA prospects.  We can still sign several smaller profile targets in the off years, but we double or triple the high profile guys that way."  

 

Revenue matters?  Maybe.  But talk to me when the Twins are spending till it hurts.  Then maybe I'll listen to arguments about revenues.

 

 

[DaveW]

 

I'm sorry I ever participated in this thread.

 

 

So what are your feelings on Zack Jones secondary pitches?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So what are your feelings on Zack Jones secondary pitches?

He has secondary pitches?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

You can't use "studies all over the internet" to make a point and then say you are not saying it.  You are saying it in support of your point. 

 

We could run a correlation coefficient but do you need to do any analysis to see that revenue matters? A high school sophomore could look at the win records at tell you there is a strong correlation. 

 

What may taint the correlation is that it takes a lot of incremental dollars to make a difference.  One could then make a valid argument that revenue was not significantly impactful if there was not a large discrepancy in revenue but that's not reality.

 

So, give it to me straight Mike, Do you really think revenue does not matter?

I think revenues matter but as I see it, there are the half-dozen teams on the coasts with their inherent advantages, and then there's everyone else. What is wrong with looking at it that way? Why does there have to be a hard arbitrary line drawn on revenues directly above the Twins?

[Major League Ready]

This is blatantly untrue and you know it. The farm system was not "stocked". It was middling at best and most experts ranked it in the bottom half of baseball, not the top.

 

Going into 2012, BP had them ranked #22.

 

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that a typical rebuild takes 3-5 years? Pirates, Royals, Cubs, Astros... How many examples do you need?

Brock,

 

I am with you in terms of being excited about our future.  We are not too far away from a Berrios/Duffey/May/Gibson/Santana/Hughes rotation.  Obviously, that’s 6 SPs so take your pick which one is out.  I still like it. Maybe Hughes to the BP.   We are going to have an OF for the next 5+ years with Buxton and whoever wins the other jobs amongst Kepler, Rosario, Arcia, and perhaps Sano.  We can hope Walker figures it out too.  The Infield needs some work but Dozier/Escobar is a good start with Gordon and others in the future.  Hopefully, Sano ends up at 3B and 1B in manned by some combination of Mauer/Park/Arcia and Vargas.  We also have a bunch of power arms that will be manning the bullpen in the not too distant future.  That sounds like a team that will be a lot of fun to watch.

[formerly33]

 

It's all a moot discussion anyways, this organization would never fire Ryan anyways, if it was any other team Ryan would have been gone years ago.

You're right, it's a moot discussion. And just because "everyone else" would do something doesn't make it right or the only way. I'm curious...would you be satisfied if we had five, ten GM's instead of one (and of course Bill Smith's short tenure, making it two) over the years, but the exact same record? Or worse? ...and all because obviously Jim Pohlad was trying to make the moves that apparently Terry Ryan is incapable of making.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, next post that continues this Ryan discussion we've had 1000 times will lock the thread.