Pohlad-Ryan Disagreement?

diehardtwinsfan · July 19, 2016

For me, while tapping into the international market is a good thing, getting yet another 1B/DH type for this team (Park), was poor roster construction. Even if it worked out, which was questionable considering all his Ks in a league that's mostly like AA,, we didn't need more 1B/DH types on this team. And it was the start of the moving on Sano to OF. The decision to get him was slammed way before his performance at the major league level because of those reasons.

I decided to re-read the Park signing thread... Not a lot of slamming at all... certainly not by you as you didn't post in it at all. LewFordLives was really the only one really adamantly against it, with most of us being optimistic to varying degrees for varying reasons.

Of course, remember how we all thought we could get a decent catcher for Plouffe? Yeah, those were the good old days.. We were all off there. Every single one of us. I'm guessing that's the part that backfired on the FO. They expected more too, and when they didn't get it... Sano to the OF went from being a bargaining chip to the plan all along.

Riverbrian · July 19, 2016

I like the Park signing even if it doesn't work out.

I still have dreams of the Twins landing a Chapman or Ichiro on occasion and I'd like them to keep trying.

If Park doesn't work out... I'd like them to get better at it of course.

Nothing wrong with gathering assets... Now Asset Management... That's a whole different thing.

Otto von Ballpark · July 19, 2016

I decided to re-read the Park signing thread... Not a lot of slamming at all... certainly not by you as you didn't post in it at all. LewFordLives was really the only one really adamantly against it, with most of us being optimistic to varying degrees for varying reasons.

Again, what TR should be judged on is, did the move succeed? Not whether the move seemed reasonable at the time. Otherwise we wouldn't need a professional GM.

Obviously Park still has time to turn things around, but the early returns have not been good. Combined with TR's other shaky forays into free agency, that probably led to his dismissal more than anything.

diehardtwinsfan · July 19, 2016

Again, what TR should be judged on is, did the move succeed? Not whether the move seemed reasonable at the time. Otherwise we wouldn't need a professional GM.

Obviously Park still has time to turn things around, but the early returns have not been good. Combined with TR's other shaky forays into free agency, that probably led to his dismissal more than anything.

Yes and no. No one bats 1.000. I expect a GM to make smart moves, and take good calculated risks. I expect some failures. Honestly, my biggest beef was the lack of smart moves once it was clear the season was toast with Berrios, Polanco, Chargois, and Arcia being on top of that list.

We can blast Nolasco pretty easily in hindsight, but the Nolasco signing was driven by a team that desperately needed pitching with not much help in the minors, and believe it or not, Nolasco was one of the more coveted FAs that year. Sadly, I looked No one saw Duffey turning into what he did, and Gibson, Meyer, and May had a ton of question marks.

TheLeviathan · July 19, 2016

Park isn't a problem by itself, but as part of a completely foolish plan for the roster it is a huge problem.

I want anyone that green-lit the Sano to OF move sacked and I still have the feeling that Molitor was against it. He certainly never seemed in love with it.

jimmer · July 20, 2016

Park isn't a problem by itself, but as part of a completely foolish plan for the roster it is a huge problem.

I want anyone that green-lit the Sano to OF move sacked and I still have the feeling that Molitor was against it. He certainly never seemed in love with it.

Exactly, as was discussed quite a bit back when others were defending the move of Sano to RF. Of course when he was signed we didn't know the ridiculous decision to move Sano the OF (so athletic, you know) would be right around the corner, which was the main reason why getting Park was a bad idea.

Rosterman · July 20, 2016

Do you really EAT salaries. If so, we must look at the horrible salaries we have eaten in the past:

2016: Fien $2 mill, Jepsen $5, possibly Milone $4.5

2015: Stauffer $3, Pelfrey $5.5, Duensing $3,7

2014: Kubel $2, Pelfrey $5.5, Schaffer $1, Correia $5.5, Burton $3.2, Willingham $7

2013: Doumit $3, Carroll $3.7, Pelfrey $4

2012: Blackburn $4.7, Capps $4.2, Casila $1.3

Yes, nothing like the potential Nolasco $12, Hughes $9. Perkins $6.5, Santana $13, Suzuki $6 partial

But somehow Terry did manage to blow at least $10-12 million every year (lots of lame major league minimums that never paid off, and those that did...well...nothing like minor league free agents...but that means you have roster holes to fill.

And we sadly know that the salaries won't come off this year if you eat next year. Like Molly will be on payroll for 2017 (so why not play him rather than let him tour the U.S. like Gardy did on the Pohlad dime).

Your hope is to get out of THESE committments in a way that also gives you a bit of return. Get rid of $6 mill of Nolasco next year, you have $6 to spend on someone else, if you wish.

The flipside is you have the guy playing in the minors (shades of Nick Blackburn) or pitching (and losing) in the majors and driving down your seat sell-thru.

You always seem to eat salary. The Yankees were successful because they could eat free agent contracts, or afford to have a Nathan or a Perkins or a Hughes on the disabled list ALL season and not affect their spending or their needs.

Next thing you know, the Twins front office will be worrying about all those unsold hot dogs on those September nites when attendance is announced as 17,000 but there are really only 8,000 fans in the stands.

You can't always squeeze every dime out of a player. Sometimes you just admit the player and team didn't fit and move on. Figure out why and not do it intentionally again. Or spend money for the sake of spending money on paper to quiet the fan base, but not really having a plan and how all the pieces will fit together.

You always take a chance. How much are you overpaying, say, Joe Mauer this and last year, and possibly the next two years and IS his playing time and place hurting the team. Like Toshi, do you admit a mistake and get out of it. What was the reasoning for bidding on Park...to say that you did, and you got bit in the pants when no one else did for some obvious reasons?

you walk in the season with x-amount to spend, you spend it and hope you get a return. You will always get a return as major league sports franchises have a tendency to always increase in value, even if you lose (and get a nice write-off against other profits).

But sometimes in life you do sell at cost, or even a loss, to rid yourself of time-consuming inventory, or to re-generate some funds to purchase different property.

jimmer · July 20, 2016

Park isn't a problem by itself, but as part of a completely foolish plan for the roster it is a huge problem.

I want anyone that green-lit the Sano to OF move sacked and I still have the feeling that Molitor was against it. He certainly never seemed in love with it.

One of the things I said back in February was:

'What might have been a good idea is if they had decided to alternate Mauer and Sano between 1b and DH and then sign a guy like Fowler to play a corner for two years. Then they wouldn't have needed Park, and Sano wouldn't be in the OF.'

And later in February this:

'They could have decided to DH Sano or Mauer and play the other at 1B, while signing an OF (and not signing Park). That would have kept Sano out of the OF, by putting him at 1B or DH, while improving our OF defense instead of hurting it..

They could play him at 3B (if they thought he could play there like we were told for years). If they decided he wasn't going to be able to stick at 3B in the majors they could have moved him awhile ago.

It's absolutely mismanagement.

Kwak · July 20, 2016

Exactly, as was discussed quite a bit back when others were defending the move of Sano to RF. Of course when he was signed we didn't know the ridiculous decision to move Sano the OF (so athletic, you know) would be right around the corner, which was the main reason why getting Park was a bad idea.

There were many posters shouting about Sano"s athleticism. There was Ryan and his man crush on Twins' first-round draft choices (especially Plouffe!). My personal recollection in April '12 was "why wasn't Plouffe waived ?" Now I know why--Ryan! The collective "brain trust" stitched the 2016 lineup together and convinced itself that the pieces would fit--they didn't. Yes, Park was part of the problem--but the real issue was much larger--there was no clear vision for the path forward. The Twins became a stew with too many cooks. But the Twins' spin machine was in overdrive--and Pohlad and most fans (it seems) just wanted to believe the dark days were past. There was a light at the end of the tunnel--alas it was a locomotive!

TheLeviathan · July 20, 2016

One of the things I said back in February was:

'What might have been a good idea is if they had decided to alternate Mauer and Sano between 1b and DH and then sign a guy like Fowler to play a corner for two years. Then they wouldn't have needed Park, and Sano wouldn't be in the OF.'

I was also on the Fowler bandwagon. But I wanted him for CF/RF with Sano at 3B, I'm still convinced that's a possibility.

But the OF was beyond stupid, no matter whether he ended up at 3B or DH.

jokin · July 20, 2016

1) Desmond isn't a SS anymore,

2) he wouldn't have filled that hole which is currently filled by the Twins lone All Star and best player.

3) Also, he would have cost Kiraloff.

1) He's only playing OF for Texas because there were no other openings around the League at SS. Of course he's still a SS. There's no way the Nats would have offered Desmond 7/$107 to play a new position for the same team with no obvious heir apparent

2) Was anyone predicting that Nunez was going to have a career year and be the Twins best player? Certainly Terry Ryan, Rob Antony and Paul Molitor made no such utterances- Nunez started the season as the man most likely to be the first DFA. OTOH,. Desmond on a highly incentivized one-year deal at SS (which he sought in order to get a better offer than the Nats 7/$107) would have made a huge difference solidifying the MI as a proven veteran (picking up some of the leadership void left by Hunter's departure)- who has a career .300 BA and OPS+ of 111 hitting in the 2-hole in the batting order. (Nunez still could have proven himself with regular starts, what with Dozier's horrible start and Plouffe's horrible start, plus his injuries.)

3) The beauty of signing a proven, incentivized veteran in a premier position is the high likelihood of positive ROI. If the Twins had fallen out of contention- Desmond could have netted a nice package of prospects before the deadline. If the Twins had been in the hunt, the Twins would have received a nice compensatory 1st rd. pick after making a QO. If Desmond had fallen on his face, the Twins could have just walked away, after 2016, or even signed him to another lower-cost one-year deal. Isn't it a little too soon to assume that a guy just starting out in rookie ball shapes the Twins' destiny?

I liked the Park signing, still do, he's very cheap. I just didn't like that the Twins didn't move Plouffe and/or tell Mauer that he was either going to play RF or ride pine instead of the poor Sano decision.

I'm not buying the notion that Park was bought cheap. The first-year cost including the $12.85M posting fee puts the cost for Park at close to $16M. That money should have been focused more efficiently by filling the greater need in the Bullpen. I get that some remain optimistic about Park, but there are/were multiple 1B/DH/RF options stacked up iwithin the organization- and all are, or will be, playing at the minimum for quite some time.

I'm in complete agreement regarding Plouffe and Mauer, but adding Park into this mix was an unforced error that only served to further complicate things, as Park was an impediment to proper roster/lineup construction this year, needlessly risked permanent injury to their best offensive hope in 2 generations. The fact is, Park only becomes more of an albatross, albeit a less expensive one, over the next THREE years.

old nurse · July 20, 2016

In isolation, signing Park may not be bad (but signing a 29/30 yo unproven player to a four year deal, when your team has Plouffe, Mauer, Sano, Vargas, Arcia, ABWIII and Palka......well...who knows).

In deciding to then not deal Plouffe, and putting Sano in the OF....well, that's not good. You need to look at the context of the move. Out of context, it looks like a great idea for most any move to add talent, but in context, that isn't always true. There are only 25 spots on the active roster, and 40 spots ovearall. There is only so much budget. So, I'm not sure signing Park was a good idea, in context of the Twins.

Considering their 2015 season some of the players had, you had Sano and Plouffe. Vargas did not show much in his ml AB in 2015 and was dtill striking out a lot. AB Walker hadn't been in AAA and strikes out a lot. Palka had not even been to AA. With that that you threw out what you thought was a lowball bid for Park to give Arcia some competition. You couldn't trade Plouffe because as average of hitter as he is, he was still one of your better performers.

old nurse · July 20, 2016

1) He's only playing OF for Texas because there were no other openings around the League at SS. Of course he's still a SS. There's no way the Nats would have offered Desmond 7/$107 to play a new position for the same team with no obvious heir apparent

2) Was anyone predicting that Nunez was going to have a career year and be the Twins best player? Certainly Terry Ryan, Rob Antony and Paul Molitor made no such utterances- Nunez started the season as the man most likely to be the first DFA. OTOH,. Desmond on a highly incentivized one-year deal at SS (which he sought in order to get a better offer than the Nats 7/$107) would have made a huge difference solidifying the MI as a proven veteran (picking up some of the leadership void left by Hunter's departure)- who has a career .300 BA and OPS+ of 111 hitting in the 2-hole in the batting order. (Nunez still could have proven himself with regular starts, what with Dozier's horrible start and Plouffe's horrible start, plus his injuries.)

3) The beauty of signing a proven, incentivized veteran in a premier position is the high likelihood of positive ROI. If the Twins had fallen out of contention- Desmond could have netted a nice package of prospects before the deadline. If the Twins had been in the hunt, the Twins would have received a nice compensatory 1st rd. pick after making a QO. If Desmond had fallen on his face, the Twins could have just walked away, after 2016, or even signed him to another lower-cost one-year deal. Isn't it a little too soon to assume that a guy just starting out in rookie ball shapes the Twins' destiny?

I'm not buying the notion that Park was bought cheap. The first-year cost including the $12.85M posting fee puts the cost for Park at close to $16M. That money should have been focused more efficiently by filling the greater need in the Bullpen. I get that some remain optimistic about Park, but there are/were multiple 1B/DH/RF options stacked up iwithin the organization- and all are, or will be, playing at the minimum for quite some time.

I'm in complete agreement regarding Plouffe and Mauer, but adding Park into this mix was an unforced error that only served to further complicate things, as Park was an impediment to proper roster/lineup construction this year, needlessly risked permanent injury to their best offensive hope in 2 generations. The fact is, Park only becomes more of an albatross, albeit a less expensive one, over the next THREE years.

The 7/107 offer was before the 2014 season. By spring of 2016 it was a different story. There was no 100 million offer, just a QO from the Nats. Now you could criticize the Nats for not signing him as an outfielder as they have had to put Trea Turner out there. 28 other clubs passed on signing Desmond as a shortstop. About the only one that should not have is Arizona

DJSim22 · July 20, 2016

I think all Pohlad knows is $$$ and Ryan wasn't producing enough $$$ regardless of wins or losses.

Champuckett · July 20, 2016

Aside from Pohlad saying Ryan wanted to leave immediately rather than wait until the end of the season, as Pohlad had originally offered, it's clear why the decision was made.

TR came in to rescue the franchise, to rescue Bill Smith, and to rescue the potential loss in profits to the Pohlad family. He made promises and offered hope for the future. He quickly went to work on rebuilding a devastated and ruined farm system. He told the fans and the owners that we were going to have to rebuild to make this franchise into a winner again, and he was right. He just wasn't the man to do it.

All of the rebuilding efforts, draft choices, and foreign acquisitions have all resulted in below expectations in productivity. This may change in time, but as of July 2016, no one can say that thus far, our great hope for the future we find in May, Meyer, Berrios, Buxton, Sano, and Park have worked out for us. It took Jim Pohlad much longer than the fans to fully realize this and to realize that the initial promise by TR had still not come to fruition. That, coupled with the lack of off-season trades and in season trades this season, when we have a lot of cards to play, were not happening. The most minute and minor possible changes were made, releasing Arcia, releasing Jepsen, releasing Fien, players that were not integral or key contributors that could make a splash on the open market. We have a lot to work with, yet still nothing is happening as we near the trade deadline, no results and I think the trigger had to be pulled at that point in firing him a few weeks ago, as revenue is slowly drying up and the Pohlad product is continuing to produce at an unacceptable rate for their shareholders.

nicksaviking · July 20, 2016

1) He's only playing OF for Texas because there were no other openings around the League at SS. Of course he's still a SS. There's no way the Nats would have offered Desmond 7/$107 to play a new position for the same team with no obvious heir apparent

2) Was anyone predicting that Nunez was going to have a career year and be the Twins best player? Certainly Terry Ryan, Rob Antony and Paul Molitor made no such utterances- Nunez started the season as the man most likely to be the first DFA. OTOH,. Desmond on a highly incentivized one-year deal at SS (which he sought in order to get a better offer than the Nats 7/$107) would have made a huge difference solidifying the MI as a proven veteran (picking up some of the leadership void left by Hunter's departure)- who has a career .300 BA and OPS+ of 111 hitting in the 2-hole in the batting order. (Nunez still could have proven himself with regular starts, what with Dozier's horrible start and Plouffe's horrible start, plus his injuries.)

3) The beauty of signing a proven, incentivized veteran in a premier position is the high likelihood of positive ROI. If the Twins had fallen out of contention- Desmond could have netted a nice package of prospects before the deadline. If the Twins had been in the hunt, the Twins would have received a nice compensatory 1st rd. pick after making a QO. If Desmond had fallen on his face, the Twins could have just walked away, after 2016, or even signed him to another lower-cost one-year deal. Isn't it a little too soon to assume that a guy just starting out in rookie ball shapes the Twins' destiny?

I'm not buying the notion that Park was bought cheap. The first-year cost including the $12.85M posting fee puts the cost for Park at close to $16M. That money should have been focused more efficiently by filling the greater need in the Bullpen. I get that some remain optimistic about Park, but there are/were multiple 1B/DH/RF options stacked up iwithin the organization- and all are, or will be, playing at the minimum for quite some time.

I'm in complete agreement regarding Plouffe and Mauer, but adding Park into this mix was an unforced error that only served to further complicate things, as Park was an impediment to proper roster/lineup construction this year, needlessly risked permanent injury to their best offensive hope in 2 generations. The fact is, Park only becomes more of an albatross, albeit a less expensive one, over the next THREE years.

If other clubs thought Desmond could still cut it at SS why is he only on a one year deal playing a brand new position.

He was awful last year, why should Ryan have expected him to be good but not expected Nunez or Escobar to be good? Both were better than him last year.

And why would anyone care about having Desmond on this team? He wouldn't have this club in contention. You would really rather have Desmond in a losing season than the draft pick? Predicting that a 30-year-old who had decling trends the past three years and nearly led the NL in strikeouts was going to have more trade value with an undeserved price tag, than two arbitration guys who put up pretty solid numbers last year is simply being blinded by his name.

Also, the Twins payoff of Park's former team is inconsequential, it didn't cripple the spending this year and it's already paid, it won't impact salary going forward. It had nothing to do with the inability to upgrade the bullpen. Also, it's not a salary and should not be considered part of payroll any more than money spent on the Dominican Academy or adding the new bar to Target Field.

Blackjack · July 20, 2016

Rob Antony said that Terry Ryan was told that he would be replaced at seasons end and Terry gave it some thought and said "let's just do it now".

All indications are that Terry requested the firing if it was gonna happen anyway.

Thats my understanding too, Terry didn't want to be a lame duck, kudos to him.

I think Jim Pohlad 'tried to be like Terry', he was honest and upfront and told Terry he was out at the end of the season and Terry, realizing he was in a no-win situation, he'd be criticized if he did nothing and he'd be criticized if he traded half the team, so he bailed out.

Pohlad should have realized that's what Terry would do. Now we have the sharks - the other GM's - circling Rob Anthony. Pretty stupid. I for one lost a lot of respect for Jim Pohlad. It will be interesting to see how contracts are handled in the future, see whether they eat any money in trades or sign any high-price free agents, or whether its all about the money as Reusse alludes to in his article.

Mr. Brooks · July 20, 2016

Thats my understanding too, Terry didn't want to be a lame duck, kudos to him.

I think Jim Pohlad 'tried to be like Terry', he was honest and upfront and told Terry he was out at the end of the season and Terry, realizing he was in a no-win situation, he'd be criticized if he did nothing and he'd be criticized if he traded half the team, so he bailed out.

Pohlad should have realized that's what Terry would do. Now we have the sharks - the other GM's - circling Rob Anthony. Pretty stupid. I for one lost a lot of respect for Jim Pohlad. It will be interesting to see how contracts are handled in the future, see whether they eat any money in trades or sign any high-price free agents, or whether its all about the money as Reusse alludes to in his article.

You lost respect for Pohlad because he fired Terry, or because he was honest with him?

I don't think I've ever lost respect for someone for telling the truth.

mazeville · July 20, 2016

In isolation, signing Park may not be bad (but signing a 29/30 yo unproven player to a four year deal, when your team has Plouffe, Mauer, Sano, Vargas, Arcia, ABWIII and Palka......well...who knows).

In deciding to then not deal Plouffe, and putting Sano in the OF....well, that's not good. You need to look at the context of the move. Out of context, it looks like a great idea for most any move to add talent, but in context, that isn't always true. There are only 25 spots on the active roster, and 40 spots ovearall. There is only so much budget. So, I'm not sure signing Park was a good idea, in context of the Twins.

I don't have a problem with the Park signing. I'd honestly prefer seeing the Twins get more aggressive with international players -- I'd rather they sink their money into those types of signings than spend their money on mediocre US free agents.

While Park didn't do well in the majors, and the Twins had lots of corner infielders/DH types, lots of people thought he would do well, and if you get a good power hitter, you make it work.

The problem still goes back to the team's decision not to trade Trevor Plouffe in the offseason and moving Sano to OF -- especially when the team already had a ton of outfield prospects who would need playing time. I think the Twins should have traded Plouffe regardless of whether they signed Park or not. Because they didn't trade Plouffe, though, the Park signing looks worse, the Arcia DFA looks worse and the Sano move to the OF was clearly a disaster.

I'm not going to criticize this team for going out and getting an international free agent whom many believed would have 20-plus HR power in the major leagues and who was easily on his way toward that early in the season. I will criticize this team for insisting on keeping an average third baseman who makes $7 million a year and who is blocking your best hitting prospect from playing his natural position.

Linus · July 20, 2016

If this truly was a result of a difference in opinion about a baseball related decision I don't know why anybody would be excited that pohlad's opinion has prevailed.

Mike Sixel · July 20, 2016

I don't have a problem with the Park signing. I'd honestly prefer seeing the Twins get more aggressive with international players -- I'd rather they sink their money into those types of signings than spend their money on mediocre US free agents.

While Park didn't do well in the majors, and the Twins had lots of corner infielders/DH types, lots of people thought he would do well, and if you get a good power hitter, you make it work.

The problem still goes back to the team's decision not to trade Trevor Plouffe in the offseason and moving Sano to OF -- especially when the team already had a ton of outfield prospects who would need playing time. I think the Twins should have traded Plouffe regardless of whether they signed Park or not. Because they didn't trade Plouffe, though, the Park signing looks worse, the Arcia DFA looks worse and the Sano move to the OF was clearly a disaster.

I'm not going to criticize this team for going out and getting an international free agent whom many believed would have 20-plus HR power in the major leagues and who was easily on his way toward that early in the season. I will criticize this team for insisting on keeping an average third baseman who makes $7 million a year and who is blocking your best hitting prospect from playing his natural position.

but they didn't do any of that......that was the point of my post. If you acquire park, and keep all the other 1b/DH/3B types, well, what have you done to get better? Put Sano in RF?

In isolation, not a bad move, maybe. In the context of the rest of the team, and the other moves made, not so good, imo.

mazeville · July 20, 2016

but they didn't do any of that......that was the point of my post. If you acquire park, and keep all the other 1b/DH/3B types, well, what have you done to get better? Put Sano in RF?

In isolation, not a bad move, maybe. In the context of the rest of the team, and the other moves made, not so good, imo.

I get that. But the Park acquisition wasn't the problem. The problem was the decision to keep Plouffe and insert Sano into the outfield.

Sano was not going to be a DH. He's too young and has too much potential. The Twins looked at that and instead of trading the costly average third baseman when his value was at its peak, they instead took Sano away from the position he's been playing for years in the minors and put him in the outfield. THAT was the dumb move.

Sure, they could have used the DH spot to rotate Sano, Mauer and Plouffe. But I'm not going to fault the Twins for going out and getting someone with 20-homer power.

jimmer · July 20, 2016

I get that. But the Park acquisition wasn't the problem. The problem was the decision to keep Plouffe and insert Sano into the outfield.

Sano was not going to be a DH. He's too young and has too much potential. The Twins looked at that and instead of trading the costly average third baseman when his value was at its peak, they instead took Sano away from the position he's been playing for years in the minors and put him in the outfield. THAT was the dumb move.

Sure, they could have used the DH spot to rotate Sano, Mauer and Plouffe. But I'm not going to fault the Twins for going out and getting someone with 20-homer power.

I think it's clear Sano is best utilized at DH and he loses value in the field because he's not a good defender anywhere. If he could play a position well, I'd agree.

alarp33 · July 20, 2016

I get that. But the Park acquisition wasn't the problem. The problem was the decision to keep Plouffe and insert Sano into the outfield.

Sano was not going to be a DH. He's too young and has too much potential. The Twins looked at that and instead of trading the costly average third baseman when his value was at its peak, they instead took Sano away from the position he's been playing for years in the minors and put him in the outfield. THAT was the dumb move.

Sure, they could have used the DH spot to rotate Sano, Mauer and Plouffe. But I'm not going to fault the Twins for going out and getting someone with 20-homer power.

While I understand your point, Park is 30 and in AAA because he can't hit a ML fastball. The Park acquisition was a problem....

mazeville · July 20, 2016

I think it's clear Sano is best utilized at DH and he loses value in the field because he's not a good defender anywhere. If he could play a position well, I'd agree.

I fully disagree. He is only 22 years old (23?). You don't relegate someone that young - and athletic - to DH that fast, especially when you spent years grooming him to be a third baseman in the minors.

The kid hasn't played third in a year. Give him a break. If you're going to fault anyone on that front, fault the Twins' player development staff for not getting him better prepared to play the position.

He's demonstrated enough on some pretty spectacular plays to tell me that he CAN play third full time.

mazeville · July 20, 2016

While I understand your point, Park is 30 and in AAA because he can't hit a ML fastball. The Park acquisition was a problem....

Probably. But that's the risk with ANY signing. And as I said, a lot of people thought that Park's power would translate to the majors.

jimmer · July 20, 2016

I fully disagree. He is only 22 years old (23?). You don't relegate someone that young - and athletic - to DH that fast, especially when you spent years grooming him to be a third baseman in the minors.

The kid hasn't played third in a year. Give him a break. If you're going to fault anyone on that front, fault the Twins' player development staff for not getting him better prepared to play the position.

He's demonstrated enough on some pretty spectacular plays to tell me that he CAN play third full time.

I've seen very few spectacular plays (mostly on him coming in on slow balls and throwing) mixed with plays described as spectacular that were fairly routine, and a ton of spectacular blunders (a ton relative to chances) along with balls missed due to range issues.

And I don't see how using a guy at DH, regardless of his age, is a bad thing if one values defense. But, we'll see how it goes. Hope you're right.

Otto von Ballpark · July 20, 2016

Thats my understanding too, Terry didn't want to be a lame duck, kudos to him.

...

Pohlad should have realized that's what Terry would do. Now we have the sharks - the other GM's - circling Rob Anthony. Pretty stupid. I for one lost a lot of respect for Jim Pohlad.

Wouldn't that fall a bit on TR too? If Antony isn't up to the task, it was pretty crappy of TR to retain him as his sole #2 for all these years, and then ask to get dismissed (putting Antony in charge) right before the trade deadline.

Now, I don't think TR actually believes Antony isn't up to the task (which is probably part of the problem with TR's work as GM, just like how he believed in Smith as GM too). But it's hard to assign too much blame to one side or the other without knowing exactly how the discussions this summer took place.

jokin · July 22, 2016

The 7/107 offer was before the 2014 season. By spring of 2016 it was a different story. There was no 100 million offer, just a QO from the Nats. Now you could criticize the Nats for not signing him as an outfielder as they have had to put Trea Turner out there. 28 other clubs passed on signing Desmond as a shortstop.

From the results, it sounds like the Twins need more conceptual thinking like Jon Daniels. Of course it takes guts to buy low on a guy who had a down season. As I previously stated, Desmond bet on himself, turning down a 7 year deal- As A SS- and temporarily lost. But let's see how many offers he has this offseason- and let's see if he gets some interest in FA as a SS.

Richie the Rally Goat · July 22, 2016

Too many conspiracy theories here.

wins stunk this year. Twins had to fire someone. The owner likes Moliter and doesn't want a coaching carousel, so Ryan is gone while Moliter stays.

Pretty simple.

i wouldn't even go that far. Target field is a very new park and not selling enough tickets to be profitable. Someone needed to go and firing the manager didn't boost enough ticket sales.

Sign In

Pohlad-Ryan Disagreement?

Recommended Posts

Archived

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates