Jim Pohlad's Can of Worms

[Platoon]

By now I imagine Pohlad has instructed his secretary to hold all calls, especially from anyone named Scoggins. He likely wishes he had done this sooner, but at least we now know why he is seldom quoted on baseball topics. That said, if we are to assume his comments were forthright and reflect his opinions of the current team, he has opened a window into team philosophy.

 

A baseball team has several levels of structure.

 

Owner

GM

Manager

Players

 

A teams historical won lost record is most likely the result of ownership. I don't mean today's game, or this weeks, or this seasons. I mean over a span, in this case 20 years, or so.

 

The players output is limited by their abilities. It can ebb and flow, but in general it is what it is. Meaning Eddie Rosario will never be Joe Mauer, nor vice versa. The players play and hit where the manager puts them. His single biggest task is to put each player in a position to succeed. That's really all he can do. In turn he can only position the players he is given, which brings us to the GM. One can argue over the ability and upside of each and every player, but the bottom line is good players cost more than bad players overall. And in certain eras, the value of positions changes, SP, RP, hitting, etc. That does not mean spending money guarantees winning, Pohlad is correct about that. But it seriously increases the odds.and while there are a lot of other areas to the GM job description, a lot of them are limited, or enhanced by ownership.

 

The Pohlads. Based on the history of the last 20 years, not just this year, or the end of the Gardy era, it seems obvious to me that everything slides uphill. The players are actually the least culpable. They are only what they are. The manager is somewhat more responsible. It's his job to take what he is given, and make it as cohesive as health and the competion allow. The GM operates on several fronts. Talent, budget, evaluation, and instinct come to mind. But unless he operates within the confines of ownerships parameters, he will not be there for the 20 years this piece is using as a reference.

 

And what are those confines? Comments by the ownership have been very few, and very far in between, and likely won't increase soon. So all one can do is surmise, from an outside perspective. Terry Ryan did not keep his position this long without being able to adhere to ownerships agenda, and without being able to read the tea leaves. And the ability to spin that agenda so as any focus on the Pohlad family is positive,i.e. they have never refused to pay whatever needed for a FA! But history negates that narrative. What history shows is that the owners want:

 

A team that can be plausibly marketed as "competitive", but in reality ends up with no real possibility of "winning". Don't get me wrong, they will take winning if it falls to them but competitive, and winning are two different definitions, at least to me.

 

Seats in the seats. How they get there can be a compilation of the aforementioned competitive team, a new ball park, selling the experience, bringing back an old fan favorite, or celebrating our last trips to the WS, with many of the players in a posthumous mode. Lots of teams do this, but it should not be the apparent major focus.

 

A consistent budget, with contracts and players managed as assets. That's not unusual, but what is somewhat is the fact that the nature of the sport is that not all FA work out. So be it. But then it's time to suck it up, and move on. Trying to get your money's worth and burning a roster spot to amortize a contract over its full 4, or more year run is an accounting practice, not a good baseball philosophy.

 

To me there can be only several conclusions. By the length of his tenure, and the lack of Bill Smiths, Ryan is obviously doing the bidding of ownership. That W/L record is not a metric considered in success, unless it starts to seriously impact the P&L. That ownership is loyal to a fault, see Smith and Gardenhire. That while stability and public image are important, they are likely overvalued.

 

In closing, this not a defense of TR. I am not necessarily a fan of his. He is too reactive v proactive for my tastes. And other subjective issues I won't go into. What I am curious about is why he stays? He is a baseball lifer, like him or not. I would think that if he could, he would want to go to an organization that would let him be more than an asset shuffling manager. Maybe he hasn't had the opportunity? Maybe he is happy with the security? Or maybe he is the perfect fit for the Polhlads expectations. You can improve the record in a given year by changing some players, or the manager, or the GM. But to improve the long term results, will require new owners. They set the standards.