No love for FO at the Sporting News

[wsnydes]

 

If they get talent in return.

True, but moving aging and expensive veterans in order to play younger in-house players has the same effect.  Especially true if those veterans aren't producing.

[RedBull34]

I really think this is a subjective, not objective exercise.

 

The reason the Twins FO looks so bad has nothing to do with their wins.  It has to do with the appearance of a plan.  The Twins do not appear to have one that is rock solid (a general wait and see what the prospects bring).

 

That being said what the D-Backs and Friars have done is more egregious.  They actively abandoned their plans to build up to gamble on a short time period.  The Friars completely failed and the D-Backs have as well.  The D-Backs had some bad luck, but it was such a stars and scrubs team that even one let down or injury (and looking at Pollock, Grienke, and Miller I'd say they've reached that)  was going to make it tough.

 

If the Cubs lost two of their studs, they'd still have enough talent to do well.  That's a team that is in a good position to stretch.

 

As for the Marlins, that 2012 trade has netted them nothing better then Hechevarria.  That's just awful.  While it's not the same FO, they just keep cycling through GM's and Managers.  They have no plan to succeed.

 

Personally I think Atlanta has a pretty solid FO.  I very much suspect their plan is to build up a cheap and solid pitching core and splurge on FA talent in the 2017 offseason.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Oakland's only win of a series was over the Twins in the same time period. Does that make Beane a bad GM that needs to be fired?

Technically, Beane is no longer the GM, although he was promoted up the ladder.

 

And if Oakland had as a bad of a run as the 2011-2016 Twins, in addition to their playoff futility, yeah, I think you'd have to consider changing the guard there as well.  As it is, Oakland under Beane went 17 seasons without ever winning fewer than 74 games, and when they finally did that in his 18th year, losing 94 games, they re-organized the front office a bit (although keeping Beane, and promoting an internal candidate to GM albeit one who had been a GM candidate elsewhere).  All while continuing to play under Metrodome-era facilities/payroll/revenue restrictions.

 

No one is arguing today that the Twins need a front office shake-up because of our playoff futility alone. It's our playoff futility plus our recent overall futility, among other issues.

[old nurse]

 

What should the worst or second worst team in baseball do with money, if not buy picks?

IDK, then why do people complain the Twins don't spend money and are cheap.

[old nurse]

 

 

Technically, Beane is no longer the GM, although he was promoted up the ladder.

 

And if Oakland had as a bad of a run as the 2011-2016 Twins, in addition to their playoff futility, yeah, I think you'd have to consider changing the guard there as well.  As it is, Oakland under Beane went 17 seasons without ever winning fewer than 74 games, and when they finally did that in his 18th year, losing 94 games, they re-organized the front office a bit (although keeping Beane, and promoting an internal candidate to GM albeit one who had been a GM candidate elsewhere).  All while continuing to play under Metrodome-era facilities/payroll/revenue restrictions.

 

No one is arguing today that the Twins need a front office shake-up because of our playoff futility alone. It's our playoff futility plus our recent overall futility, among other issues.

The current futility of the Twins has less to do with what happened since 2011 then what happened between 2000 and 2011

[tobi0040]

In contention, or not. The actual number of wins a team has is meaningless. Mediocre or bad is the same thing.

Well if contention is the metric, I am curious as to how you came up with your list of seven teams. Because four of them have been in the playoffs at least once since 2011 (Atlanta twice including another play in game, CIN once with another play in), MIL and AZ once.

 

The Rockies were bad, but they basically did the same thing the Twins did. They had a playoff team and locked up their veterans for too much money post peak. The diffference is they made the world series in 2007. So I think that would give them the edge in contention as well.

 

I agree that contention or not is what matters. The frustration most have is that we have somehow managed to not rebuild, yet have a record that reflects what the Braves and Astros have done, field a team of 20-23 year olds and play for the future.

[RedBull34]

 

IDK, then why do people complain the Twins don't spend money and are cheap.

Probably because the Twins don't buy picks like the Braves do.

[old nurse]

 

You think the Braves are sitting on money?  They bought a competitive balance pick this year from Baltimore (Matusz) and bought a top 100 prospect from Arizona (Arroyo contract).  And they are rumored to be in on half the top 30 international prospects.  You are barking up the WRONG tree if you want to say an organization is being run wrong or cheaply

They also gave up Barker, a good draft pickup, which is  about what they might get with the B comp pick. And they are out the pro rated portion of 3.9 million.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In contention, or not. The actual number of wins a team has is meaningless. Mediocre or bad is the same thing.

True.  How many seasons have the Twins been in contention during that time (2011-present)?  One, 2015.  How about the other teams on the list?

 

Braves 3
MIL 2
CIN 3
AZ 3
SD 0.5*
Miami 0
COL 0.5*
Twins 1

 

* means I gave half-credit for competing in a poor division until July 2013. A couple teams might hang close in 2016 yet too.

 

So by this measure, the Twins are maybe the fourth worst.  What was the Sporting News ranking again?  Oh yeah, third worst.

 

Quibbling about the exact rank is missing the point.  The Twins aren't in a good group.

[Mike Sixel]

 

IDK, then why do people complain the Twins don't spend money and are cheap.

 

Well, that complaint stems not just from the last 5 years.....but from when they were competitive. Once you have a reputation, it is hard to shake it, right or wrong.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The current futility of the Twins has less to do with what happened since 2011 then what happened between 2000 and 2011

I get that 2012 was largely a product of the Smith era, but 2016 is a safe distance away and it is by far our worst season yet.  Our 2016 record has everything to do with TR's allocation of resources since 2011, and little or nothing to do with Bill Smith.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm going to comment on the Tulo trade:

 

1. They got rid of Reyes' deal .... so the money isn't that bad.

2. They could have kept Reyes, who is even worse than Tulo...would the Jays have been the best team in baseball then? Probably not. How good would they be this year, with no SS? Probably not real good.

3. They were the best team in baseball last year. I guess I'd rather the team add players when they think they have a chance, get some great success, and then have a bad contract, than to have no success but not have bad contracts. The goal isn't wins/$, the goal is wins.

 

Is Tulo good/great right now? No. Does last year's success count? Does the huge increase in tickets this year help offset that? 

 

Baseball, by it's nature, almost requires the occasional bad contract. The question is, did that contract help lead to success during it's term, or was it a bad contract on a bad team? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I really think this is a subjective, not objective exercise.

 

The reason the Twins FO looks so bad has nothing to do with their wins.  It has to do with the appearance of a plan.  The Twins do not appear to have one that is rock solid (a general wait and see what the prospects bring).

 

That being said what the D-Backs and Friars have done is more egregious.  They actively abandoned their plans to build up to gamble on a short time period.  The Friars completely failed and the D-Backs have as well.  The D-Backs had some bad luck, but it was such a stars and scrubs team that even one let down or injury (and looking at Pollock, Grienke, and Miller I'd say they've reached that)  was going to make it tough.

 

If the Cubs lost two of their studs, they'd still have enough talent to do well.  That's a team that is in a good position to stretch.

 

As for the Marlins, that 2012 trade has netted them nothing better then Hechevarria.  That's just awful.  While it's not the same FO, they just keep cycling through GM's and Managers.  They have no plan to succeed.

 

Personally I think Atlanta has a pretty solid FO.  I very much suspect their plan is to build up a cheap and solid pitching core and splurge on FA talent in the 2017 offseason.

Obviously it's subjective.  And you can certainly put the Twins ahead of the Padres, Diamondbacks, and Marlins.  But that's splitting hairs.  The fact is, we're not even discussing the Twins performance in relation to an average or median team, we're only discussing them among the worst.  Which isn't a good spot for us given our records the previous 5 seasons, not to mention TR had ample time to prepare a better plan of succession than what transpired in the Bill Smith era...

[tobi0040]

Obviously it's subjective.  And you can certainly put the Twins ahead of the Padres, Diamondbacks, and Marlins.  But that's splitting hairs.  The fact is, we're not even discussing the Twins performance in relation to an average or median team, we're only discussing them among the worst.  Which isn't a good spot for us given our records the previous 5 seasons, not to mention TR had ample time to prepare a better plan of succession than what transpired in the Bill Smith era...

I have a real tough time putting the Twins ahead of the Marlins. They are two games above .500, with Dee Gordon suspended. Their payroll is also $17M lower than ours.

 

And I think a good way to look at trajectory is farm system rankings plus MLB players under 26 or so. Our farm system is ranked higher, but they have Stanton (26), Fernandez (23), Yelich (24), and Ozuna (25) on their major league roster. If we were to offer them a trade for all four of those players, I am guessing we would need to send them some combination of young assets (Buxton, etc.) and prospects that would be over 10 players. I don't think we have a one for one trade for either Stanton or Fernandez.

[wsnydes]

 

I'm going to comment on the Tulo trade:

 

1. They got rid of Reyes' deal .... so the money isn't that bad.

2. They could have kept Reyes, who is even worse than Tulo...would the Jays have been the best team in baseball then? Probably not. How good would they be this year, with no SS? Probably not real good.

3. They were the best team in baseball last year. I guess I'd rather the team add players when they think they have a chance, get some great success, and then have a bad contract, than to have no success but not have bad contracts. The goal isn't wins/$, the goal is wins.

 

Is Tulo good/great right now? No. Does last year's success count? Does the huge increase in tickets this year help offset that? 

 

Baseball, by it's nature, almost requires the occasional bad contract. The question is, did that contract help lead to success during it's term, or was it a bad contract on a bad team? 

I agree.  Bad contracts are going to happen from time to time.  It may not even be anyone's fault, it just ends up that way.  The Jays were in a better position of need for a move of that nature.  Who says Tulo even waives his no trade clause to come here. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I have a real tough time putting the Twins ahead of the Marlins. They are two games above .500, with Dee Gordon suspended. Their payroll is also $17M lower than ours.

And I think a good way to look at trajectory is farm system rankings plus MLB players under 26 or so. Our farm system is ranked higher, but they have Stanton (26), Fernandez (23), Yelich (24), and Ozuna (25) on their major league roster. If we were to offer them a trade for all four of those players, I am guessing we would need to send them some combination of young assets (Buxton, etc.) and prospects that would be over 10 players. I don't think we have a one for one trade for either Stanton or Fernandez.

Sure.  I think the other poster's issue with the Marlins was more with Loria the owner, and his revolving door for managers, GMs, and free agents.

 

Otherwise, on the baseball side, it would be hard to put them definitively behind the Twins.  They seem to be pretty good at drafting and development, and probably have the best chance of hanging in the race this year among the teams we are discussing.  As far as future liabilities, beyond this year, they only have guaranteed money tied up in Stanton, Gordon, Yelich, and Chen, which isn't bad.  (And Stanton's deal is the only one for megabucks -- that could be an interesting opt-out discussion after 2020!  I think Loria is banking on scaring him away before then...)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As for the Marlins, that 2012 trade has netted them nothing better then Hechevarria.  That's just awful.  While it's not the same FO, they just keep cycling through GM's and Managers.  They have no plan to succeed.

Also, it's not quite true that Hechevarria was the best thing from that trade.  They obviously got a ton of salary relief, plus they flipped Yunel Escobar for Derek Dietrich, and Henderson Alvarez gave them a couple decent years.

 

They are a weird franchise, but grudgingly I have to admit they've generally done some things well enough to generate some good players, change directions, and hang in there.

[tobi0040]

Also, it's not quite true that Hechevarria was the best thing from that trade.  They obviously got a ton of salary relief, plus they flipped Yunel Escobar for Derek Dietrich, and Henderson Alvarez gave them a couple decent years.

 

They are a weird franchise, but grudgingly I have to admit they've generally done some things well enough to generate some good players, change directions, and hang in there.

They were able to re-tool and quickly assess that wasn't working and unwind it.

 

I would argue similar traits with Houston and Atlanta. The ability to understand where you are and where you need to be, then to take actions to make it happen is a trait most other teams have that we don't.

 

Even some of the other bad teams on this list. For the most part they have realized where they are and tried making moves to correct it. The moves haven't by and large worked out, but they at least past the understanding and acceptance stage.

 

We are still rolling out Trevor Plouffe at 3B. Nolasco every fifth day. May in the pen. Santana will likely bump Kepler shortly.

[wsnydes]

 

They were able to re-tool and quickly assess that wasn't working and unwind it.

I would argue similar traits with Houston and Atlanta. The ability to understand where you are and where you need to be, then to take actions to make it happen is a trait most other teams have that we don't.

Even some of the other bad teams on this list. For the most part they have realized where they are and tried making moves to correct it. The moves haven't by and large worked out, but they at least past the understanding and acceptance stage.

We are still rolling out Trevor Plouffe at 3B. Nolasco every fifth day. May in the pen. Santana will likely bump Kepler shortly.

I can't agree with this enough.  This organization shows signs of complete delusion.  I don't see any signs that point to them understanding where they actually are, how they got there, or that they understand how to get where they feel like they should be.  The manager doesn't play the prospects that come up and the FO calls up guys "because they had to" and then instead of using that opportunity to see where that player is at, they send them right back to Rochester.  There is no adjustment to do what is best for the future, they still have the "we need to win games now" mentality.  It's seasons like these where an overall evaluation should be made.  Guys that you feel that will be pieces for the future get put where you feel they're going to end up.  Guys that you need to see what you have before you can determine their long term fate get an extended audition to help you decide.  If you have veterans that are doing nothing but blocking younger guys, you deal them, bench them, or cut them loose.  None of these things are happening for any reason other than injury.

[old nurse]

 

I get that 2012 was largely a product of the Smith era, but 2016 is a safe distance away and it is by far our worst season yet.  Our 2016 record has everything to do with TR's allocation of resources since 2011, and little or nothing to do with Bill Smith.

The core of the current team would have to have come from the talent  added during that time frame.  In the draft, how many position players were drafted after the first round? How many gem pitchers were found after the second round? What good useful pieces were added via trade?

2011 and later draft picks are now just starting to blossom in the majors. What front line players did the Twins have at that point to trade for up and coming talent? Nada.  Money resources, you couldn't have a non luxury payroll and even begin to fill the talent holes the Twins had and have via free agency.

[d-mac]

 

This.  Too many judge payroll on stinginess.  It has to be taken in context.  Rebuilding teams have lower payrolls because they offload their bigger veteran contracts to acquire young talent, which is cheap.

 

Exactly, the more "in contention" a team is, the more valuable each additional win is. To teams that are losing 90+ games, it doesn't make sense to spend a bunch of money for incremental improvements. The Twins could literally field a team of replacement level players for a fraction of their current payroll, and there wouldn't be a large drop off in performance, simply because they are so bad. 

 

A good proxy for Front Office skill is $ per win- it's a great measure for efficiently allocated resources. For example, the Cubs opening day payroll is about $155 mil and they are on pace to win 111 games, or $1,396,000 per win. The Twins opening day payroll is about $105 mil, and are on pace to win 50 games or $2,100,000 mil per win. However, it tends to get skewed a bit for teams that are better or worse than most teams over a significant period, because of diminishing returns- marginal wins at the bottom end of the scale are easy to come by and can be had for low cost, wins at the high end are difficult to come be and can be expensive. 

 

In this spirit I pulled every team's record between 2011-2016 (from BBref) and took every team that had 412 or fewer wins (the number of wins the Cubs had over the period) and a few other teams mentioned in this thread and pulled their opening day payroll data (from USAToday) over the examined time period and calculated their $/win numbers;

 

Ordered from most efficient to least:

 

Hou 350 wins- $1,026,039.71/win

SD 401 wins- $1,032,446.07/win

MIL 433 wins- $1,070,328.16/win

ATL 444 wins- $1,072,620.36/win

MIA 385 wins- $1,105,630.14/win 

ARI 428 wins- $1,124,407.46/win

CIN 432 wins- $1,352,287.43/win

SEA 410 wins- $1,420,061.14/win

COL 377 wins- $1,423,026.59/win

MIN 368 wins- $1,569,591.58/win

CHW 409 wins- $1,570,945.70/win

CHC 412 wins- $1,629,403.12/win

 

With the current trajectories of each team, it's hard to argue that the Cubs have done a worse job than the Twins. I could see the argument claiming the White Sox FO to have done a worse job than the Twins, however Fangraphs projects the White Sox to finish with 80 wins and the Twins with 65 (while only being outspent by only $7mil). 

[Mike Sixel]

If there were not players to trade during the Smith era....when would those players have been acquired, while Smith was GM, or someone else?

 

The Smith era brought us Sano and Kepler and Polanco, all signed in 1 year when the Twins spent more than other teams, weird that they haven't been aggressive since Smith left.....

 

The Smith era brought us

Aaron Hicks (now ...)

Kyle Gibson

Chris Herrman (now Palka)

Brian Dozier

Eddie Rosario

 

Frankly, those drafts largely sucked, but the GM doesn't make the picks, and the scouts and staff running the draft were put in place by whom?

 

[drivlikejehu]

Excusing Terry Ryan by blaming Bill Smith is absurd. Ryan picked Smith, and Smith was surrounded by other people Ryan picked. It was a group completely assembled by Ryan from top to bottom, reflecting his assessments and philosophies. In fact, the Bill Smith era highlights one of Ryan's primary weaknesses, which is his inability/refusal to surround himself with capable subordinates.

 

Very nice work by d-mac to point out the $/win totals. Considering trajectory, the only team I could see even contesting the #30 F.O. spot is Colorado, because they lost almost as much and have struggled to come up with a coherent plan.

 

However, their unique home field situation is grounds for a bit of leniency in my view . . . while I would certainly put them towards the bottom, I don't see any real argument to put them below the Twins. 

[old nurse]

 

If there were not players to trade during the Smith era....when would those players have been acquired, while Smith was GM, or someone else?

 

The Smith era brought us Sano and Kepler and Polanco, all signed in 1 year when the Twins spent more than other teams, weird that they haven't been aggressive since Smith left.....

 

The Smith era brought us

Aaron Hicks (now ...)

Kyle Gibson

Chris Herrman (now Palka)

Brian Dozier

Eddie Rosario

 

Frankly, those drafts largely sucked, but the GM doesn't make the picks, and the scouts and staff running the draft were put in place by whom?

In replying to spycake stating the Twins allocation of resources, Ryan had nothing to trade for players

 

Hermann is playing well for Arizona, not really perform as an asset here. He is not a starter there, was not a core player here. That you can name 2 position players and still not get that in over 10 years you have only  developed one starter from the later rounds. Hicks was a first round draft choice as was Gibson whom iirc pitches, not fields and bats. Note the period mostly covers the Mike Radcliff drafts

[TheLeviathan]

It amazes me anyone is defending Ryan.  Look, you can still feel he's the right guy and even base it on a time frame where he was successful.  

 

But we are here, where we are at, because of him.  This "total system failure" is on him.  And not in the rhetorical, BS way he means it - it is on him.  He deserves the ranking he has.

[jimmer]

 

It amazes me anyone is defending Ryan.  Look, you can still feel he's the right guy and even base it on a time frame where he was successful.  

 

But we are here, where we are at, because of him.  This "total system failure" is on him.  And not in the rhetorical, BS way he means it - it is on him.  He deserves the ranking he has.

unfortunately, it doesn't amaze me :-)

[old nurse]

 

It amazes me anyone is defending Ryan.  Look, you can still feel he's the right guy and even base it on a time frame where he was successful.  

 

But we are here, where we are at, because of him.  This "total system failure" is on him.  And not in the rhetorical, BS way he means it - it is on him.  He deserves the ranking he has.

There have been many people posting thoughts that come from an interesting journey. 

[Major League Ready]

 

Terry Ryan has been in charge for almost 20 years and won exactly one 5 game playoff series 14 years ago, but thank God he never threw random ideas around on a message board.  The Twins could be looking at something worse than a 20-45 record!

I don't think playoff series are a real good measure.   About six months ago I posted the records of all of the teams with revenue close to the Twins and less since the turn of the century.  Starting in 2000 was somewhat random.  The logic was in take a couple years for new leadership to impact a team.  Since the turn of the century, in spite of the past few seasons being terrible, only the As have a better W/L percentage than the Twins.  This fact does not excuse some of the moves or how pathetic this team is right now but it does suggest the criticism should be tempered and the premise they FO is a bunch of fools is a fanatical response from fans who need an outlet to vent their frustration.

[alarp33]

I don't think playoff series are a real good measure.   About six months ago I posted the records of all of the teams with revenue close to the Twins and less since the turn of the century.  Starting in 2000 was somewhat random.  The logic was in take a couple years for new leadership to impact a team.  Since the turn of the century, in spite of the past few seasons being terrible, only the As have a better W/L percentage than the Twins.  This fact does not excuse some of the moves or how pathetic this team is right now but it does suggest the criticism should be tempered and the premise they FO is a bunch of fools is a fanatical response from fans who need an outlet to vent their frustration.

Criticism should be tempered? Lol. They are on their way to a 50-112 season and haven't won a playoff game in 12 years with the same person in charge. Btw, the past "few" seasons have been terrible? It's actually 5 of 6

[Major League Ready]

 

Criticism should be tempered? Lol. They are on their way to a 50-112 season and haven't won a playoff game in 12 years with the same person in charge. Btw, the past "few" seasons have been terrible? It's actually 5 of 6

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with this year.  You are changing the argument.  I made a comparison of the Twin’s their record relative to their economic peers since the turn of the century?   So go ahead and complain about this year but those who constantly complain about the futility over this franchise over the course of the tenure of this FO are rewriting history or they expect the same winning percentage as the top revenue teams.  That is a foolish expectation given none of the lower revenue teams has equaled the top revenue teams or its foolish to think the ability to support a higher payroll is not relevant.