Why Ryan should stay, for the time being!

[gunnarthor]

 

I actually do think the nucleus is that bad.
On the entire 25 man roster, I think Sano, (and maybe Ervin) is the only player that a WS contending GM would want on his roster in any capacity.

Do you think the 40 man is bad?  I think it's young and inexperienced but I like the potential.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

OK.  Fine, and that's your opinion so you can have it.  But I do think that's a bit underselling Ryan and whatnot.  I disagree - obviously.  I think Ryan and Lunhow have both been at the helm for the last "few years" and should be given time to see things through.  

 

how much time, that's always the question, isn't it?

 

He was still involved in the BS led years, and he's been in total charge for 4-5 years now. How long is long enough?

 

Right now, it is hard to even say the process is working, let alone the outcomes are. If they were graduating a player or two a year, that were very good/great....and weren't making the same mistakes over and over (see CF and bullpen), I might have more confidence that they are on a great path. But, it is pretty hard to see that path right now with a lot of confidence. At least it is for me.

 

Admittedly, I never wanted TR back, and that clouds my thoughts on the last few years. That does not, imo, make my conclusions wrong.

[alarp33]

 

The internet is a fun place.  You get to be snarky for free.  Not a lot of restrictions.  If you post too much crazy crap, you can just wash it away with a new username.

 

That said, you understood exactly what constraints we were talking about.  You read major league ready's post so you knew what the parameters of the discussion were.  You choose to misread or misinterpret on purpose.  It's already a loaded topic so why fan things worse with petty stuff like that?  You could have ignored the discussion or started your own.  Couldn't you have just said, "I don't care about the payroll constraints before TF opened."  (There are flaws in that as well but at least you'd be on point).  Instead you write an offbeat opinion that has nothing to do with MLR's post and expect it to be looked at seriously?

 

Huh? Tad bit of an overreaction?  I was replying to your post, no one elses.  Any sort of "constraint" Ryan has is self imposed, by signing mediocre veterans without upside to contracts for more years and money than they are worth. 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Do you think the 40 man is bad? I think it's young and inexperienced but I like the potential.

Well I missed Park and Duffey, for starters.

Potential is one thing, I don't consider that nucleus though. Where are we if that potential doesn't pan out?

[Thrylos]

 

Everyone needs to go. I guess I think various coaches including Allen and Guardado are fine, but everyone else has to go. St. Peter on down.

 

Mitchell Report Allen?

I have no problems with Yesterday Eddie.  I'd keep Mientkiewicz as well, just for the tantrums 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Many people here have insisted we have sucked for a long period of time.  About 6 months ago, I posted the win records for all of the team with roughly the same revenue or less revenue than the Twins.  Only Oakland had a better win percentage since the turn of the century.  That's a very difficult fact to overlook.  Too many people fail to acknowledge relative revenue when evaluating win/loss over a long period of time.

Why since the turn of the century?  How does it look when you include Ryan's first 5 seasons as GM?  Starting in 2000 or 2001 seems like even more selective analysis than starting in 2010, 2011, or 2012 -- at least 2010 was the opening of Target Field and 2012 was TR's first season back as GM.  There's also an argument that the game has changed enough in the last 5 years that those years are more relevant that 2001-2010.

 

I think you have a somewhat valid point -- there were definitely achievements in the 2001-2010 decade, although simply counting regular season wins glosses over a few key facts, that the Twins were terrible in the postseason and (perhaps related) that the AL Central featured some of the absolute worst teams in baseball during that time period.  When the Twins started 8-25 this year, I found that 35% of all MLB teams starting 11-22 or worse in the wild-card era were from the AL Central.  Every year from 2001-2010 the AL Central had at least one of those terrible starts, except 2008 (when the whole division was bunched up) and 2009 (when Cleveland started 11-21 en route to 65-97).

[gunnarthor]

 

how much time, that's always the question, isn't it?

 

He was still involved in the BS led years, and he's been in total charge for 4-5 years now. How long is long enough?

 

Right now, it is hard to even say the process is working, let alone the outcomes are. If they were graduating a player or two a year, that were very good/great....and weren't making the same mistakes over and over (see CF and bullpen), I might have more confidence that they are on a great path. But, it is pretty hard to see that path right now with a lot of confidence. At least it is for me.

 

Admittedly, I never wanted TR back, and that clouds my thoughts on the last few years. That does not, imo, make my conclusions wrong.

I really don't like coloring him with the BS years - you don't want to credit him for signing Sano, as well.  I do think he stayed away from the GM duties while Smith was in charge.

 

As to the question of how long, I think it depends on how you feel a rebuild should take.  I used Lunhow as an example b/c we generally aren't personally invested in the Astros so it's maybe easier to compare.  The situations aren't the same but they are similar enough that I think if you think Lunhow deserves more time, then you should think Ryan does as well.  Both teams achieved surprising success last year.  Lunhow went all in to get his proven closer while Ryan didn't do much (and many national writers thought that was the right move since the Twins were bound to regress while the young players accumulated to the majors).  

[gunnarthor]

 

Huh? Tad bit of an overreaction?  I was replying to your post, no one elses.  Any sort of "constraint" Ryan has is self imposed, by signing mediocre veterans without upside to contracts for more years and money than they are worth. 

Yet, the constraint we were discussing was obviously dealing with something else.  Why jump into a discussion you weren't part of just to derail it?  

[Mike Sixel]

Lunhow over stepped last year, and Ryan understepped last year.

 

Long term, Lunhow probably cost his team more. Short term, when you had that many wins in the bag, Ryan may have cost his team more.

 

You still didn't answer the question.....how long should it take to be good?

 

Fair, I won't tarnish him with the BS years, as long as no one here gives him credit for any player acquired during those years......he did hand pick BS to succeed him, though, didn't he?

[alarp33]

 

Yet, the constraint we were discussing was obviously dealing with something else.  Why jump into a discussion you weren't part of just to derail it?  

 

I don't know what your issue is, but maybe step back and take a few deep breathes. It's a message board, and I was responding to a post I disagreed with, that's usually how this works.  How did me disagreeing with your comment derail anything?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, actually, that's not true.  The Astros have the worst record.  And I think that's a pretty good comparison.  Do you think Lunhow should be fired by Houston? 

Actually, I think Luhnow should be on the hot seat.  The Velasquez-and-more-for-Giles trade alone was highly questionable, even without the benefit of hindsight or Giles' poor performance thus far.

 

That said, as others have noted, the entirety of Luhnow's record is the last few years, and it does include a competitive playoff appearance.  In addition to the last few years of struggles, TR's record includes another slow rebuild from the 1990's, and a decade of regular season success from 2001-2010 that featured arguably only 1 competitive playoff appearance out of 6.

 

If they were baseball players, we'd probably be pretty confident that TR's ceiling is low enough, and his career results modest enough, that replacing him right now isn't likely to cost us much.  Luhnow might turn out similarly, but his shorter track record and more recent success could buy him a little extra time before we make that determination.

[gunnarthor]

 

Lunhow over stepped last year, and Ryan understepped last year.

 

Long term, Lunhow probably cost his team more. Short term, when you had that many wins in the bag, Ryan may have cost his team more.

 

You still didn't answer the question.....how long should it take to be good?

 

Fair, I won't tarnish him with the BS years, as long as no one here gives him credit for any player acquired during those years......he did hand pick BS to succeed him, though, didn't he?

I honestly don't know how long "long enough" is.  Like I mentioned, I thought the rebuild was going exactly as planned until this season.  I predicted a .500 team last year and a playoff team this year.  Oops.  So is this year wrong because of the higher difficulty learning curve or is the team just wrong?  Figure out that question first.

 

I'm in the wait and see camp.  Right now I think Ryan should do a few steps, if possible.

He should try and trade Plouffe and put Sano back at third.  Having both was defensible if you thought the team could compete this year but since they aren't, open up a spot in the OF.  The team now has 6 guys on the 40 man roster for the OF that have been top 100 prospects - all 26 or younger.  By putting Sano at third you can let those guys clear out space for themselves.  My guess is that Kepler/Buxton/Grossman are the three standing.

 

See what you have at the end of the year. A best case scenario would be that the younger players have started coming up and/or started adapting.  If the team is playing good baseball in the second half with Buxton/Kepler/Grossman/Park/Sano all hitting, Dozier not being a replacement player and Chargois, Berrios, Meyer, Burdi on the staff and maybe you think "we're just a year away."  

 

Worse case, they are playing .350 ball and the young guys aren't making improvements, I suspect a house cleaning happens.  

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

If they were baseball players, we'd probably be pretty confident that TR's ceiling is low enough, and his career results modest enough, that replacing him right now isn't likely to cost us much.  Luhnow might turn out similarly, but his shorter track record and more recent success could buy him a little extra time before we make that determination.

Wouldn't the opposite be true?  Realistically, outside of KC and Pittsburgh, teams usually go through losing cycles followed by a few years of winning, repeat.  You can spend your way out of that but most teams don't.  So a winning season after 8 years of losing probably isn't that impressive.  But Ryan was the only GM of a small market team that was able to turn over his nucleus without a full rebuild.  (You could argue that we aren't small market anymore and that shouldn't count).  But my point is that I'm willing to give more weight to building and maintaining a steady good team in a small market than the playoff results.  So let's see where this rebuild goes.  

 

Right now some GMs are riding waves created by many losing seasons - is Dan Duquette a good GM?  I'm not sure. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As to the question of how long, I think it depends on how you feel a rebuild should take.  I used Lunhow as an example b/c we generally aren't personally invested in the Astros so it's maybe easier to compare.  The situations aren't the same but they are similar enough that I think if you think Lunhow deserves more time, then you should think Ryan does as well.

See my post above -- isn't this a little like saying a 35 year old veteran player deserves as much time as, say, a 25 year old player?  When the 25 year old has been better recently and the 35 year old wasn't even that great during his prime (think steady like Plouffe the last few years)?  We know a lot more about Ryan, and while he did win some division titles, most of what we know isn't that good.  He rebuilds slowly, his teams were almost never competitive in the postseason, he's done very poorly allocating the additional resources provided by Target Field, etc.

 

As an aside, the Astros season isn't turning around as quickly as they hoped, and they've got a 4 game losing streak going, but they are 10-11 in May after having a 7-17 April.  Still in last place but they're 5 games closer to the second wild card than we are, and they were actually within 3.5 games of that just a few days ago.  (Also, given how bad we've looked, I'd be more inclined to believe the Astros have been unlucky by pythag or base runs in the early going, as opposed to the Twins who might be on the extreme where pythag or base runs might break down a bit?)

[Thrylos]

 

  But Ryan was the only GM of a small market team that was able to turn over his nucleus without a full rebuild.  

 

The small market fallacy aside,  Ryan does not know how to do a rebuild.  Even in the 90s.  He would sign 36+ year old free agents when his team was bottoming, instead of playing rookies.  The 2000s rebuild happened for him when no free agent would risk signing with a team that was about to be contracted, so he had to use rookies.  And then he sat on his rear happy with the one and outs... 

 

He cannot rebuild a team.  Or build a team competitive in the post-season. He had 20+ seasons to do it and he did not.

[gunnarthor]

 

See my post above -- isn't this a little like saying a 35 year old veteran player deserves as much time as, say, a 25 year old player?  When the 25 year old has been better recently and the 35 year old wasn't even that great during his prime (think steady like Plouffe the last few years)?  We know a lot more about Ryan, and while he did win some division titles, most of what we know isn't that good.  He rebuilds slowly, his teams were almost never competitive in the postseason, he's done very poorly allocating the additional resources provided by Target Field, etc.

 

As an aside, the Astros season isn't turning around as quickly as they hoped, and they've got a 4 game losing streak going, but they are 10-11 in May after having a 7-17 April.  Still in last place but they're 5 games closer to the second wild card than we are, and they were actually within 3.5 games of that just a few days ago.  (Also, given how bad we've looked, I'd be more inclined to believe the Astros have been unlucky by pythag or base runs in the early going, as opposed to the Twins who might be on the extreme where pythag or base runs might break down a bit?)

I don't think the 25 to 35 year player example works.  Both Lunhow and Ryan are old enough to do the job.  I think one could argue that Lunhow's win-now trades for Gomez, Gattis and Giles have hurt the team in the longterm (even if helping in the short term).  But that's getting into the bushes.  I think both have shown that they deserve a bit more time to fix what looked like good rebuilds.  As I said to Mike, if the Twins are still playing like this at the end of the year, I would expect a house cleaning.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Wouldn't the opposite be true?  Realistically, outside of KC and Pittsburgh, teams usually go through losing cycles followed by a few years of winning, repeat.  You can spend your way out of that but most teams don't.  So a winning season after 8 years of losing probably isn't that impressive.  But Ryan was the only GM of a small market team that was able to turn over his nucleus without a full rebuild. 

Beane?  He had an 8 year run of success in an often tough division, 1999-2006, a middling period from 2007-2011 but hardly a full rebuild before his 2012-2014 run.

 

Tampa Bay?  They are in a middling period now, but turned over pretty well from 2008 to 2013.  I think Longoria was the only carryover starter between those two teams.

 

And as you note, the "small market" designation probably doesn't even apply to the Twins, not since 2010 at least and probably going back to 2005 when Target Field was approved and our payrolls climbed and remained in mid-market territory.  Teams like the White Sox probably become valid comparison points then.  5-6 year rebuild plans shouldn't really be in play for us anymore.

 

Luhnow inherited a disastrous 106 loss team (and had nothing to do with its construction) which was 6 seasons removed from its last postseason appearance, and in a 12 year old ballpark.  I'm not sure why we give TR circa 2011-2012 the same rebuild timeline?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As I said to Mike, if the Twins are still playing like this at the end of the year, I would expect a house cleaning.  

I think that's fair.  I don't think I'd fire any GM today.  It will be interesting to see how both teams and their GMs respond during this season.

 

Although I think TR might be safer, not only due to his relationship with the Pohlads, but also due to lower expectations at this point which he himself is partly responsible for.

[DaveW]

The small market fallacy aside, Ryan does not know how to do a rebuild. Even in the 90s. He would sign 36+ year old free agents when his team was bottoming, instead of playing rookies. The 2000s rebuild happened for him when no free agent would risk signing with a team that was about to be contracted, so he had to use rookies. And then he sat on his rear happy with the one and outs...

 

He cannot rebuild a team. Or build a team competitive in the post-season. He had 20+ seasons to do it and he did not.

Yup, even in his "good years" Ryan made some big time blunders. Not the least of which was choosing Matt Lecroy over David Ortiz

[Rosterman]

If they go outside and bring in a new president/baseball operations guy AND a general manager, many many heads will roll, or the Twins staff will increase with all of the folks currently working there doing different (less responsible for baseball activites) duties. That would be idea. And then we could maybe get beyond "Twins Way" (What, no more TK at spring training) and possibly "we just need to put a competitive team on the field first, stay in the mix, and we can count the admission profits" attitude.

 

You would hope that whoever comes in sees the talent in the system. And remember, right now the Twins have TOO MUCH talent that is promising and have to make some hard decisions on who to protect in 2017 and 2018 - and there's a lot of bodies to consider. So a new person would have SOME prospects to deal carefully, to keep the system restocked, or arbitration players solid and possible to tie up for 3-5 years in the future. 

 

Nothing much will change this season. At the most, the Twins may change managers, elevating someone from the coaching staff and maybe replacing a couple of actual coaches. But all bodies will then be gone and left to new management (be it internal or outside) come the off-season. At the most, someone from the minors might be a manager candidate, at the least, at least half the coaching staff will come from the minors with one (Jake Maeur) being groomed possibly for future managerial candidacy, assuming the Twins would hire a veteran manager looking for a short-term challenge.

 

Ryan leaving today or tomorrow would mean that ALL the people under him right now will be running things for the remainder of the year and jockeying for a possible title change. Letting Ryan officially resign, say, September 1 might mean the Twins can get a jump and not have it affect the season too much.

 

But the ultimate question, faced by free agent players, too, is WHY come to Minnesota? Do you overpay for just okay? Do you stay in-house? Do you really shake everything up and will it destroy the team or what?

 

The bigger decision will be manager. Do you change in mid-season, giving half a season to a guy from down under (say Dougie M.) or jettison current manager a bit later and just have Gene Glynn takeover (and hopefully NOT be the candidate for the future...nothing against Gene, but...)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, setting aside the fact that the Twins are no longer really small market, comparing TR's past record to other past small market teams may not be the most instructive either.  Who are we comparing to?  As I mentioned above, Oakland and Tampa Bay have been pretty solid in recent history.  The old regimes in Pittsburgh and KC were epically bad, two of the longest droughts in modern pro sports history. Milwaukee wasn't far behind them.  Who else is in that group?  Loria's Expos and Marlins?  I'm not saying TR's record is bad, but I'm not sure he deserves bonus points for outperforming most of those franchises.

[Mike Sixel]

Also, imo, part of the problems today stem for TR's first tenure. I don't think that is true in Houston.

 

That said, I don't love what Lunhow did at all last year.....too much for too little, imo.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

The bigger decision will be manager. Do you change in mid-season, giving half a season to a guy from down under (say Dougie M.) or jettison current manager a bit later and just have Gene Glynn takeover (and hopefully NOT be the candidate for the future...nothing against Gene, but...)

Ignoring the rest, I'd fire Molitor yesterday. I think everyone agrees that the players are under-performing and the way he has treated some of the younger guys on the roster suggest he might not be the person for the job.  I think his baseball IQ is off the charts but his ability to relate and deal with players is not that good.  I think he'd be a good bench coach or a third base coach - explain to players why X,Y,Z happened but not necessarily there to deal with the daily frustrations of being a manager.  

[Major League Ready]

 

if you choose to limit spending, and wins and losses is how you are judged.....why should we feel good about it?

 

Why should any fan care about limits the team puts on itself about how much money it makes or doesn't make?

 

If your strategy is to draft and develop, and limit international spending, and not spend much money......and you don't draft and develop well, fans should be what? Happy because compared to other teams that don't spend money, you aren't as crappy?

 

What will those win loss records look like after this year, do you suppose? This is season what of the not a rebuild?

 

No one cares what their record is compared to other teams that won't spend money. You don't entertain people by having the most wins per dollar spent, you do that by putting good, exciting players on the field. They've largely failed to do that for 6 years now.

For starters, I used revenue not spending as the basis of comparison.  You seem to think how much they spend is a product of desire to spend.   I am absolutely certain ability to spend is a product of what is left over after expenses.    You keep insisting they wont spend but neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that their spending is more conservative than other teams in the same revenue range.  Everything I can find (primarily Forbes) indicates their profitability is at best middle of the pack most years.  The one exception is Detroit who has an aging owner willing to lose millions for another shot at a title. This insistence they WONT spend is an incredibly parochial point of view back.  Do you live in a million dollar home?  Why WONT you spend the money?

I would not expect you to care if the team is profitable not.  That is a very different thing than understanding their resources are limited and those limitations will make it impossible to spend to spend our way to success. 

 

Let’s turn this around.  I believe you indicated you were in IT.  If you were promoted to CIO tomorrow and my consulting firm came in and said “Mike, we are going to give you half the budget of other firms your size but we expect the same level of capabilities, response times, and service levels”, would you feel this is reasonable.

 

What if you were a sales manager and as VP of sales said ”Mike, sales team #1 has 12 people, a budget of $2.5M for sales staff, support and expenses.  The quota is $10M  I want you to hire 12 people but your budget is $1.25M and I expect the same production of $10M.”  Would that seem reasonable to you?

 

Since you like the entertainment analogy, what if you were a movie executive and the studio gave you $100M to produce a movie but expected the same revenue as a film with a $200M budget.

Are any of these scenarios even remotely reasonable?  Of course not, if we were presented these scenarios in real life we would I am pretty sure we would consider the person proposing these scenarios to be quite unre4asonable.  I would go so far as to say our description of said person to or friends and colleagues would be pretty harsh.  Yet, this is a common position for sports fans.  I think the problem is created because fans somehow think that sports teams should not care about the bottom line.  Explain to me why it is reasonable for players to treat the game as a business but owners should not.

[jimmer]

So some want to defend Ryan's relatively inactive offseason by saying the experts predicted regression for many of the team members so no need to spend this offseason, and then the same people admit they themselves expected us to be in the playoffs (or serious playoff contenders).  That confuses me.  

 

If you believed they were playoff contenders or playoff bound, that means you didn't agree with the experts and, therefore, should have expected them to do more in the offseason to make themselves true contenders.  

 

So, what I missing something?

 

In fact I remember some staunch Ryan supporters saying if he didn't go hard at improving the team this offseason, since they were serious playoff contenders, thaat they would be upset.  Then he did practically nothing and not a peep was heard...except the tune changing to the idea that the team was already so well put together that Ryan didn't need to do much.

 

I know I was told by many that I was crazy for not believing the talent on this team was enough to be a serious playoff contender.  I kept being reminded by some about how I felt about last year's team and expecting the other shoe to drop and the team stayed in contention all season.

 

I maintained my belief of the talent level on this team, maintained my belief their record didn't reflect their talent, and I was slammed for it by people saying that the team Ryan had made was going to make the next step this year to the playoffs so need for much in the offseason.

 

I guess my point is, while no one expected us to be this bad (and no one is happy about it), it was pretty obvious that this team was not a well put together team, yet Ryan is still someone immune from fault?  It's the players, it's the manager, it's the minor league development?  It's everyone's fault but Ryan's who is doing a good job?  How does that happen?

[DocBauer]

As bad and frustrating as things are right now, I can see the point of not making a move at this point. The arguement could easily be made "how could things get worse", and it would not be a reactionary or knee-JerK thought. But with the draft so close, and then contracts and the such to follow, I feel continuity is still important at this point.

 

Further, the Twins HAVE to make some trade moves here in the next couple of months to be sure. Now, forgetting for a moment that actual trade value for some of these trade candidates right now is pretty poor to aweful, SOMEONE has to make the moves needed. If not Ryan, then who?

 

Who could you get as a high quality replacement mid-season? I'm seriously asking. I would think there could potentially be several top candidates that would love the opportunity to sit in the Big Chair for the Twins. You have one of the top stadiums in all the Majors, a top farm system, there seems to be quality scouts and a quality milb coordinator in place. You have excellent complex in Ft Myers. But even still, how many of these candidates would feel comfortable leaving their current team mid-season, especially if their current organization is having a competitive season?

 

Said candidate would have a hard time, I'd think, hitting the ground running when he would need time to learn personnel on and off the field while also trying to make moves.

[DocBauer]

I honestly don't feel Ryan, at this point at least, would have the authority to name his successor, as some have suggested. From comments from Jim Pohlad, comments from Ryan concerning his job status and their displeasure, for the very first time I can recall, it would seem that ownership is frustrated and actually looking for answers and change.

[DaveW]

 

Further, the Twins HAVE to make some trade moves here in the next couple of months to be sure. Now, forgetting for a moment that actual trade value for some of these trade candidates right now is pretty poor to aweful, SOMEONE has to make the moves needed. If not Ryan, then who?

Who could you get as a high quality replacement mid-season? I'm seriously asking. I would think there could potentially be several top candidates that would love the opportunity to sit in the Big Chair for the Twins. You have one of the top stadiums in all the Majors, a top farm system, there seems to be quality scouts and a quality milb coordinator in place. You have excellent complex in Ft Myers. But even still, how many of these candidates would feel comfortable leaving their current team mid-season, especially if their current organization is having a competitive season?

 

I don't trust Ryan to be making the decisions at this point on who to trade for what (and who not to trade) having a lame duck GM making decisions is never a good plan. If you are going to can TR at the end of the season (not saying the Pohlads are) but IF they are planning on it, what is the point in letting him make moves for a team he won't be a part of moving forward?

As far as finding a high quality replacement mid season, money talks and the job talks. Frankly, ANY MLB GM job is a great gig for ANYONE who isn't a current GM, the Twins have a good setup, young talent and the ability to compete, they should be able to get whoever they want to be perfectly honest.

 

If you are going to keep Ryan around til the end of the year, then I think you need to have all of the trades go through the Pohlads for instance, i.e. you don't want him doing something desperate to try to save his job (i.e. trading Buxton, Berrios, Sano, Kepler, for a short term gain in major league talent)

Let TR shop Plouffe, Jepsen, Santana, Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, Arcia and a couple others all he wants, but don't let him trade any of the future core at this point. Let the next GM (whether he comes in at the all star break, or after the season) determine what to do (or not do) with those players.

[Mr. Brooks]

For starters, I used revenue not spending as the basis of comparison. You seem to think how much they spend is a product of desire to spend. I am absolutely certain ability to spend is a product of what is left over after expenses. You keep insisting they wont spend but neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that their spending is more conservative than other teams in the same revenue range. Everything I can find (primarily Forbes) indicates their profitability is at best middle of the pack most years. The one exception is Detroit who has an aging owner willing to lose millions for another shot at a title. This insistence they WONT spend is an incredibly parochial point of view back. Do you live in a million dollar home? Why WONT you spend the money?

I would not expect you to care if the team is profitable not. That is a very different thing than understanding their resources are limited and those limitations will make it impossible to spend to spend our way to success.

 

Let’s turn this around. I believe you indicated you were in IT. If you were promoted to CIO tomorrow and my consulting firm came in and said “Mike, we are going to give you half the budget of other firms your size but we expect the same level of capabilities, response times, and service levels”, would you feel this is reasonable.

 

What if you were a sales manager and as VP of sales said ”Mike, sales team #1 has 12 people, a budget of $2.5M for sales staff, support and expenses. The quota is $10M I want you to hire 12 people but your budget is $1.25M and I expect the same production of $10M.” Would that seem reasonable to you?

 

Since you like the entertainment analogy, what if you were a movie executive and the studio gave you $100M to produce a movie but expected the same revenue as a film with a $200M budget.

Are any of these scenarios even remotely reasonable? Of course not, if we were presented these scenarios in real life we would I am pretty sure we would consider the person proposing these scenarios to be quite unre4asonable. I would go so far as to say our description of said person to or friends and colleagues would be pretty harsh. Yet, this is a common position for sports fans. I think the problem is created because fans somehow think that sports teams should not care about the bottom line. Explain to me why it is reasonable for players to treat the game as a business but owners should not.

The problem with your argument is that the Pohlad's don't even spend the 52% of revenue anymore.

They told the taxpayers that they needed us to build a new stadium for them, so that they could spend enough to compete.

Payroll went up for a season or two, then they steadily dropped it, hoping nobody would notice.

 

And that's another argument. None of those other examples you cite are funded by taxpayer dollars.

Some other industries are given select tax breaks, but that is not comparable to flat out paying cash money for a businesses facilities.

 

Some might even consider that fraudulent behavior.

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't trust Ryan to be making the decisions at this point on who to trade for what (and who not to trade) having a lame duck GM making decisions is never a good plan. If you are going to can TR at the end of the season (not saying the Pohlads are) but IF they are planning on it, what is the point in letting him make moves for a team he won't be a part of moving forward?

As far as finding a high quality replacement mid season, money talks and the job talks. Frankly, ANY MLB GM job is a great gig for ANYONE who isn't a current GM, the Twins have a good setup, young talent and the ability to compete, they should be able to get whoever they want to be perfectly honest.

 

If you are going to keep Ryan around til the end of the year, then I think you need to have all of the trades go through the Pohlads for instance, i.e. you don't want him doing something desperate to try to save his job (i.e. trading Buxton, Berrios, Sano, Kepler, for a short term gain in major league talent)

Let TR shop Plouffe, Jepsen, Santana, Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, Arcia and a couple others all he wants, but don't let him trade any of the future core at this point. Let the next GM (whether he comes in at the all star break, or after the season) determine what to do (or not do) with those players.

In all honesty, do you really think Ryan would make a move to try and save his job?  I mean, you can argue about his quality of a GM but I don't think there is anything in his track record that would suggest he would do something like that.