An Argument for the Twins to NOT do too much to fix their 2017 rotation

[Loosey]

 

I didn't say it was only luck....but the Cubs are clearly the best team in the majors this year. They are actually historically one of the best teams ever. But, if they don't win, the entire season was a failure?

That's why I hate the thought process of if you don't win the championship your season is a failure.  So only one team doesn't fail?

 

I would go as far as to argue that the Twins 2016 season was not a complete failure.  Yes, their record was the worst in franchise history, but they were able to get some of the future pieces up into the majors and see what they have.  Buxton, showed signs at the end of the season he could be the guy people hoped for, Berrios we now know has plenty to work on, Sano needs to be continually pushed they learned.  Polanco is a good hitter, possibly good enough to replace the team MVP who built up his value enough that he can possibly be flipped for more pieces for the future.  So things were achieved for the 2016 Twins, Wins were not, but as an organization things became somewhat clearer.

[BK432]

The points enclosed in this discussion re: starting pitcher prices are probably right, so because of that, it's just hard to see how much outside help the Twins truly should or will go get. I think what they should do, and what they'll likely do, is:

 

1) Focus on developing the young SP talent they have;

2) Consider trading valuable pieces for additional young SP talent (not necessarily low minors but those at the higher levels)

3) Add/promote/develop major league-ready (or close to) relief pitching. A strong bullpen will help to improve this team in the short term, take pressure of the SPs and should be much more affordable and attainable

4) Put the very best defensive team on the field that you can. Your young talent gets you much of the way there. Outfield defense has been continually ignored by the previous regime. This includes signing a catcher who has a track record of positive pitching handling. Reviews are mixed on catcher defensive metric value, but there are catchers who show the ability to frame and call a game well.

 

The team would be improved by accident in 2017 - it's pretty hard to lose 103 games. I think the goal should be to improve far beyond what would be accidental; define accidental as a regression to erase the 'bad luck' in their 2016 record (2016 pythagorean record 66-96, 1st order 64-97, 2nd order 67-95, 3rd order 68-94). So: you can set your goal for the team, I can set mine...but I do believe fixing the bullpen and defense can make for a big positive change in the short term.

 

Just one final caveat - this approach is SUPER frustrating to me and I would guess it is to many others. Simply because we've had the opportunity to improve the team over the last 6 years but did virtually nothing. So the quote-unquote 'standing pat' approach isn't what any of us want to hear. But I can't hold Falvey and company responsible for what occurred previously.

[mazeville]

 

2] The FA market for SP is just not good at all. And unless there is someone Falvey or his new GM believes is a real steal, you're just throwing good money after bad and repeating the recent Ryan cycle of mediocre veteran FA pitchers.
 

 

I agree with a lot of this, but for the notion that the Twins should not trade Santana -- and this is the reason.

 

No, the Twins should definitely not go into the FA market unless there's a low-risk, high-reward type option who would be willing to go on a build-his-value one-year deal. 

 

Yet the lack of FA options at starter make it an absolute must that the Twins explore the idea of trading Ervin Santana. It doesn't mean they have to trade him. But they should definitely look to trade him and open a spot for Trevor May, who belongs on the starting staff.

 

The Twins are not contending next year. Not by a long shot. By the time the team is in contention, Santana should be starting his decline. So they should strike now while the iron is hot.

 

OR, they could do so at the deadline next year. But I contend that this is the best time to do that and eliminates the risk that Santana's arm falls off or something. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I didn't say it was only luck....but the Cubs are clearly the best team in the majors this year. They are actually historically one of the best teams ever. But, if they don't win, the entire season was a failure?

If they lose, it would be a failure, yes I do believe that. I'd hope management does too.

 

The moment that an organization's goal regarding success or failure lowers from winning a title, is the moment they are doomed to never win one.

 

Guys like Marty Schottenheimer and Bruce Boudreau would never get fired if management didn't consider anything less than a title failure.

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Refer to the "Allen comments" published in the PP. It appears that development was the worse. The original "pitching theory", P2C, didn't require superior talent and development was focused on two things--no walks, and lots of infield ground balls in order to limit the damage. The adage "aim down the middle and trust in 'stuff'...", separated those who advanced from those who were cut. Such was the "development" of pitchers. Eliminating P2C from the lingo meant "change speeds often" to serve as the new theory of pitching. That's not working very well either.

 

 

Just curious - do you have a link to this article?  I missed it and would like to read it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If they lose, it would be a failure, yes I do believe that. I'd hope management does too.

The moment that an organization's goal regarding success or failure lowers from winning a title, is the moment they are doomed to never win one.

Guys like Marty Schottenheimer and Bruce Boudreau would never get fired if management didn't consider anything less than a title failure.

 

So the Twins fail next year if they get to 81 wins, add three great starters, and set themselves up for 2018? They should be solely focused on winning it all next year, future be damned?

 

If not, then, well, it isn't true that the goal is always win now....

 

As for Cubs, of course they shouldn't "settle"....but that doesn't make this year a failure, imo. It also doesn't mean that accepting it as a good year is dooming them to mediocrity. 

 

These are, of course, not facts, just opinions. 

 

 

[Oldgoat_MN]

It is far more likely that we could get our 'catcher of the future' with Dozier than it is that we get some MLB ready top of the rotation pitcher. Those guys are difficult to pry away from their teams.

 

Given the poor FA class we will probably see Gonsalves, May, Mejia and others thrown into the mix to truly see what we have. Then a trade next season and a FA signing next off-season.

 

Of course, we would have to have a manager who was playing for the future. I don't believe I've seen one of those in a Twins uniform since Tom Kelly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree with a lot of this, but for the notion that the Twins should not trade Santana -- and this is the reason.

 

No, the Twins should definitely not go into the FA market unless there's a low-risk, high-reward type option who would be willing to go on a build-his-value one-year deal. 

 

Yet the lack of FA options at starter make it an absolute must that the Twins explore the idea of trading Ervin Santana. It doesn't mean they have to trade him. But they should definitely look to trade him and open a spot for Trevor May, who belongs on the starting staff.

 

The Twins are not contending next year. Not by a long shot. By the time the team is in contention, Santana should be starting his decline. So they should strike now while the iron is hot.

 

OR, they could do so at the deadline next year. But I contend that this is the best time to do that and eliminates the risk that Santana's arm falls off or something. 

 

This post is spot on.  Let me throw it to those of you dead set on the Twins adding starting pitching.

 

How and who?

 

This offseason market is going to be a sellers market.  Why, given our current status, would we jump in as a buyer when we have assets to sell?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Wow. That must make being a sports even harder for you than others. 

 

I mean, I get the general sentiment, but "you had no success if you don't luck into the WS title" is a pretty high bar, imo.

Yeah. Let this sink in for a moment:

 

It has been 25 years since the Twins last won a title. Only 12 franchises have won a title during that time. That's less than one new franchise every other year. At that pace, it would take roughly 65 years for the final team to win a championship.

 

I understand the frustration with the 2000s Twins and their lack of postseason success but I'd love to see the Twins play at that level again, titles be damned.

Losing sucks.

[Vanimal46]

This post is spot on. Let me throw it to those of you dead set on the Twins adding starting pitching.

 

How and who?

 

This offseason market is going to be a sellers market. Why, given our current status, would we jump in as a buyer when we have assets to sell?

I'd like to sign 1 or 2 pitchers on a 1 year deal with the hope they can be flipped in July for better prospects.

 

Brett Anderson, and quite frankly don't care all that much on the 2nd name. Just someone that could potentially rebound and provide some decent starts.

 

My fear is relying entirely on Mejia being ready by opening day, Gonsalves being ready by June, and the other prospects being ready by the end of the year. We've been down this road before, and that's how we got Albers and Dean in the rotation.

 

Let's say Santana is traded. This is the outlook:

 

Gibson - fool me once, fool me twice

Santiago - by default have to keep him now

May - back issues. Can we rely on him for 30+ starts?

Berrios - we all know his struggles last season in MLB

Wheeler - not sold on him

Mejia - Question mark

Gonsalves - Dangerous to assume he'll be ready at all in 2017

Hughes - Question mark

*Prospect from Santana trade* - most likely AA guy in the same boat as Jay and Stewart.

 

That's a ton of unknowns and question marks to rely on.

[Major League Ready]

 

And they won exactly 1 playoff series in that time.
I realize I'm in the minority, and I completely respect the opposite opinion, but to me there is zero difference between 2nd place and 30th place. None. The goal, to me, is a title. This isn't the Olympics where you get a medal for 2nd and 3rd. You either win a title or you don't.

It is true they have not had any post season success.  Given the way you measure success, yes, they have been terrible for 25+ years.  I look at the whole, especially when evaluating a 25 year period.I just think the notion the twins have always suck assumes a context of they should win as much as the large market teams which I believe to be a ridiculous premise.  

 

It's along season.  I want to be entertained for 162 games.  If we win our share of World Series in simplistic terms a WS win is likely every 30 years.  You are welcome to measure success any way you like but I am not going to demand a standard that only provides satisfaction 1/30 of the time. There is enough disappointment in life without creating expectations that are likely to lead to disappointment 29 times out of 30.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's a ton of unknowns and question marks to rely on.

 

Brett Anderson and Generic FA guy do nothing but add to your mountain of question marks.  They don't solve that problem even remotely.

 

I'm ok with signing a couple guys, but I'm not fooling myself about who they are.

[Mr. Brooks]

So the Twins fail next year if they get to 81 wins, add three great starters, and set themselves up for 2018? They should be solely focused on winning it all next year, future be damned?

 

If not, then, well, it isn't true that the goal is always win now....

 

As for Cubs, of course they shouldn't "settle"....but that doesn't make this year a failure, imo. It also doesn't mean that accepting it as a good year is dooming them to mediocrity.

 

These are, of course, not facts, just opinions.

There is a difference between win now teams and rebuilding teams.

It's not realistic to aim for a title when you are rebuilding.

 

I'm saying the goal is to win a title or two when your window opens up, as the Cubs are now, and the Twins were then.

I'm NOT saying you have to win one every year. If the Twins had cashed in a title during that window, it would have been a success.

But, they didn't, so to me that window was a failure.

I'm hoping the next window, whenever that begins, will be more successful.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah. Let this sink in for a moment:

 

It has been 25 years since the Twins last won a title. Only 12 franchises have won a title during that time. That's less than one new franchise every other year. At that pace, it would take roughly 65 years for the final team to win a championship.

 

I understand the frustration with the 2000s Twins and their lack of postseason success but I'd love to see the Twins play at that level again, titles be damned.

 

Losing sucks.

I'd hate to see a repeat of that.

 

The journey might have been more fun then than now. But, the destination was exactly the same- one of 29 losers.

 

To me there is only one winner each year. And to me, that is what is so great about sports.

[Mr. Brooks]

It is true they have not had any post season success. Given the way you measure success, yes, they have been terrible for 25+ years. I look at the whole, especially when evaluating a 25 year period.I just think the notion the twins have always suck assumes a context of they should win as much as the large market teams which I believe to be a ridiculous premise.

 

It's along season. I want to be entertained for 162 games. If we win our share of World Series in simplistic terms a WS win is likely every 30 years. You are welcome to measure success any way you like but I am not going to demand a standard that only provides satisfaction 1/30 of the time. There is enough disappointment in life without creating expectations that are likely to lead to disappointment 29 times out of 30.

Like I said, I respect the opposite view.

Also, I thought I clarified this before, but I never claimed I didn't get enjoyment from teams that don't win a title.

Of course it's more enjoyable to watch a 90 win team than a 60 won team.

I'm just not going to call it a success if we didn't win.

 

Also don't buy the small market/ big market excuse.

For one, there is no cap in baseball. I get that it's still a business, but there is nothing stopping an owner from going all in for a year or two when the window is there.

Also, all I ever hear when it suits the Twins is that you can win without a huge payroll. But then, when the opposite suits the Twins, it's gee not our fault we just can't compete with these huge payrolls.

[jimmer]

 

Like I said, I respect the opposite view.
Also, I thought I clarified this before, but I never claimed I didn't get enjoyment from teams that don't win a title.
Of course it's more enjoyable to watch a 90 win team than a 60 won team.
I'm just not going to call it a success if we didn't win.

Also don't buy the small market/ big market excuse.
For one, there is no cap in baseball. I get that it's still a business, but there is nothing stopping an owner from going all in for a year or two when the window is there.
Also, all I ever hear when it suits the Twins is that you can win without a huge payroll. But then, when the opposite suits the Twins, it's gee not our fault we just can't compete with these huge payrolls.

In the last 19 years, St Louis has a couple titles, KC has a title and been there twice in a row. Marlins have a couple titles, Arizona has one.

 

So yeah, markets our size and smaller can win W Series.

 

For me though, the results of a postseason tournament doesn't prove much except who got hot at the right time.  Small sample sizes for days.  Cubs are the best team in baseball.  If they don't win the W Series, still the best team in baseball.

[USAFChief]

Premubly, one of the primary reasons Falvey got the job was because ownership realized something different needs to be done with the way the Twins assemble a pitching staff. And they decided Falvey was the guy to do something different.

 

If all the Twins were going to do was wait for internal solutions to develop, there was no need to move on from Ryan.

 

Get started building a staff, and get started immediately. This winter. I don't care the FA market is weak. It takes no brains to sign the top free agents, and I'm told the Twins can't play that game anyway. What takes brains is finding talent that's not widely recognized as such. That's Falvey's (and the GM's) job. Find some real assets, and get them on the roster somehow. Spend some money, spend some trade pieces, sign international FA's, promote guys from the minors. Whatever.

 

"Not do too much" to the staff? I hope nobody...NOBODY...on the Twins thinks that's any kind of reasonable plan.

[TheLeviathan]

Chief, I'll never understand your philosophy that setting sail with a ship full of cheap plugs is a better strategy than...I don't know...being patient and building a boat that may actually make the trip.  

 

You're flushing assets in a bad market in the name of principle, not good asset management or planning.  I hope on all that is holy in baseball, that Falvey totally disagrees with you.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Premubly, one of the primary reasons Falvey got the job was because ownership realized something different needs to be done with the way the Twins assemble a pitching staff. And they decided Falvey was the guy to do something different.

If all the Twins were going to do was wait for internal solutions to develop, there was no need to move on from Ryan.

Get started building a staff, and get started immediately. This winter. I don't care the FA market is weak. It takes no brains to sign the top free agents, and I'm told the Twins can't play that game anyway. What takes brains is finding talent that's not widely recognized as such. That's Falvey's (and the GM's) job. Find some real assets, and get them on the roster somehow. Spend some money, spend some trade pieces, sign international FA's, promote guys from the minors. Whatever.

"Not do too much" to the staff? I hope nobody...NOBODY...on the Twins thinks that's any kind of reasonable plan.

I am with you in thinking that the Twins need to improve their rotation next season, and make a run at the postseason, but it's possible that some combination of the current 6-8 guys are capable of doing the job but have been held back somehow.

 

I wouldn't want to sign more mediocre free agents, just because. I would rather see a cheap, shrewd trade or two, similar to how the Cubs have acquired Arrieta and Hendricks. However, those guys were July trades. The secondary things will be important too. Abandoning the P2C philosophy will help. Shuffling some staff. Playing a good MLB outfield for the entire season. Reassess in May-June.

[USAFChief]

Chief, I'll never understand your philosophy that setting sail with a ship full of cheap plugs is a better strategy than...I don't know...being patient and building a boat that may actually make the trip.

 

You're flushing assets in a bad market in the name of principle, not good asset management or planning. I hope on all that is holy in baseball, that Falvey totally disagrees with you.

Being patient for what?

 

The cruise sets sail next April whether they attempt to patch the holes or not. IMO, doing nothing ensures they sink before they leave the harbor.

 

I'm not arguing to flush assets. I'm arguing this leaky tramp steamer isn't going to fix itself. We're hiring a repair crew. Find some parts and start the job.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Being patient for what?

The cruise sets sail next April whether they attempt to patch the holes or not. IMO, doing nothing ensures they sink before they leave the harbor.

I'm not arguing to flush assets. I'm arguing this leaky tramp steamer isn't going to fix itself. We're hiring a repair crew. Find some parts and start the job.

 

If you want to trade for pitching this offseason, relative to most offseasons or even the deadline, you will have to flush extra assets to obtain the same piece.  Pitching will be at a ridiculous premium.  So your suggetion to trade young players for it is tantamount to flushing assets.

 

To continue the perhaps tortured analogy: The ship I'm setting sail on plans to win a World Series.  You appear eager to leave port no matter what condition the ship is in, what the weather looks like, or how bad the patches are.  

 

I'm planning to make my destination by building a ship that won't sink halfway because I was so deluded about my chances that I rushed the trip before I had a ship capable of making it.  We're better off letting the storms die down and work on our ship before we set sail.  Your patched up ship might make it a few extra miles than the one we sank last year....but it's still going to sink.

 

I don't plan to wait forever, but I damn sure won't rush into the trip when I know I'm going to sink.

[Jham]

 

Chief, I'll never understand your philosophy that setting sail with a ship full of cheap plugs is a better strategy than...I don't know...being patient and building a boat that may actually make the trip.  

 

You're flushing assets in a bad market in the name of principle, not good asset management or planning.  I hope on all that is holy in baseball, that Falvey totally disagrees with you.

It's ok to sign some stop gaps and try to win a few games before your magical 2019 run where all the prospects somehow peak at the same time.  I'll agree that it's unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2017 basket.  I would argue that it's more unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2019 basket.  If we get to 2019 and Sano and Buxton are winning MVP's and have some sort of fun nickname, and the pitchers look like they're top 10 rotation, maybe shove all in.  (Again, if they're MVP's then, they should be pretty darn good now).  

I'd say right now we have Q J of hearts, a really nice starting hand.  But the flop came out A A 10 and now we got a crappy hand.  Chief is suggesting a small bet at the board hoping we can either steal the pot or hit a King on the turn, and probably doing the same thing on the river.  This way, we reserve some chips so that we can push all in if we hit that King of hearts.  If things don't work, out, it's not that hard to fold.

 

It seems like you're suggesting we fold, then fold again, until we're dealt a pair.  Then just shove all in, then just watch the flop, turn, and river while having all your chips already in the middle hoping you have a pair of Kings and not a pair of fours.  Personally, I'm not confident enough in our starting hand to push all in and watch the board play out through 2019. 

I'm suggesting we try to win now.  I surround this team with some talent and give them 1 year to show they're worth continuing to build around.  Then I don't need to take such a large leap the next two years.  And if they can't show they're ready to compete, I fold.  I try to figure out which of our "stars" still have the most trade value and I try another hand.

 

Good players peak early and sustain success.  If this core is good enough in 2019, they're good enough now.  And they'll need battle testing.  If not, better we find that sooner than later and move on before they Plouffe or Delmon out on us.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm suggesting we try to win now.  I surround this team with some talent and give them 1 year to show they're worth continuing to build around.  Then I don't need to take such a large leap the next two years.  And if they can't show they're ready to compete, I fold.  I try to figure out which of our "stars" still have the most trade value and I try another hand.

 

Good players peak early and sustain success.  If this core is good enough in 2019, they're good enough now.  And they'll need battle testing.  If not, better we find that sooner than later and move on before they Plouffe or Delmon out on us.

 

Right now they were good enough for more than 100 losses.  That's really your argument?  That they're good enough now?  Did you watch any of this season of baseball?  "Good enough now" is perhaps the least accurate description of this team I can conceive of.  If you want to continue your analogy, we're holding 8/2 off suit and you want to go all-in.  That's is demonstrably poor-percentage thinking.  

 

Look, you want to throw some hail mary bets out in hopes of turning them into a little bit of luck for a hand much later?  Sure, I'm in on that.  Sign a flyer or two and hope you can deal them in July.  But that's the goal and nothing more.  It's probably a good goal too - identify some buy low talents and sell them high for the future. Same with selling on Dozier and Santana.  Sell now in hopes of turning the profits to your advantage later.  But that means you knowingly take some beats now for the payoff later.  Know what you have and know how to play it.  Going all-in with 8/2  is just bad management of probability.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's ok to sign some stop gaps and try to win a few games before your magical 2019 run where all the prospects somehow peak at the same time. I'll agree that it's unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2017 basket. I would argue that it's more unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2019 basket. If we get to 2019 and Sano and Buxton are winning MVP's and have some sort of fun nickname, and the pitchers look like they're top 10 rotation, maybe shove all in. (Again, if they're MVP's then, they should be pretty darn good now).

 

I'd say right now we have Q J of hearts, a really nice starting hand. But the flop came out A A 10 and now we got a crappy hand. Chief is suggesting a small bet at the board hoping we can either steal the pot or hit a King on the turn, and probably doing the same thing on the river. This way, we reserve some chips so that we can push all in if we hit that King of hearts. If things don't work, out, it's not that hard to fold.

 

It seems like you're suggesting we fold, then fold again, until we're dealt a pair. Then just shove all in, then just watch the flop, turn, and river while having all your chips already in the middle hoping you have a pair of Kings and not a pair of fours. Personally, I'm not confident enough in our starting hand to push all in and watch the board play out through 2019.

 

I'm suggesting we try to win now. I surround this team with some talent and give them 1 year to show they're worth continuing to build around. Then I don't need to take such a large leap the next two years. And if they can't show they're ready to compete, I fold. I try to figure out which of our "stars" still have the most trade value and I try another hand.

 

Good players peak early and sustain success. If this core is good enough in 2019, they're good enough now. And they'll need battle testing. If not, better we find that sooner than later and move on before they Plouffe or Delmon out on us.

I know it's beside the point, but on that board you don't want a K on the turn. That's how you lose all your money to a full house.

[twinsnorth49]

If they lose, it would be a failure, yes I do believe that. I'd hope management does too.

 

The moment that an organization's goal regarding success or failure lowers from winning a title, is the moment they are doomed to never win one.

 

Guys like Marty Schottenheimer and Bruce Boudreau would never get fired if management didn't consider anything less than a title failure.

Marty Schottenheimer and Bruce Boudreau were given much more rope than one failed season before being fired. Ultimately they just became victims of the cyclical nature of sports, in other words their window closed and it was time to start over.

 

It's all well and good to say win or bust but I don't believe that's a sincere belief in pro sports. Teams turn over, talent ebbs and flows, it's not sustainable to expect it every year and truly believe it. It's a cliche.

[kab21]

It is nice to see that everyone stayed on topic.

I certainly hope that nobody has illusions that the rotation will be fixed in a season especially considering how poor the FA market it, the general lack of trade chips (aside from Dozier) and the struggles that prospects frequently face when called up. I like the long term potential of the Twins rotation especially if they can add an established veteran or two but there isn't a route to a good rotation next year unless magic is involved.

Magic would include finding a Jake Arrieta type (should try but unlikely), finding a perfect Dozier trade (could happen), Berrios doing a 180 and another prospect taking off immediately when called up. 1 or 2 of these can happen but that is the best case scenario (realistic scenario).

[Mr. Brooks]

Marty Schottenheimer and Bruce Boudreau were given much more rope than one failed season before being fired. Ultimately they just became victims of the cyclical nature of sports, in other words their window closed and it was time to start over.

 

It's all well and good to say win or bust but I don't believe that's a sincere belief in pro sports. Teams turn over, talent ebbs and flows, it's not sustainable to expect it every year and truly believe it. It's a cliche.

1) I've already clarified that winning every season isn't realistic. I'm saying if you have a window and don't cash in a title then it wasn't a success. That could be 1 title in 5 years or whatever the window is.

 

2) They weren't let go because the window closed and it was time to start over. Schottenheimer was fired from San Diego after a 14-2 season.

And both the Caps and Ducks were/are still playoff contenders immediately after firing Boudreau.

 

3) Again, who is saying every year? That's not realistic. But don't call it a success when you don't.

The goal should be to win a title. I guess I don't understand how that is controversial.

[Vanimal46]

 

Brett Anderson and Generic FA guy do nothing but add to your mountain of question marks.  They don't solve that problem even remotely.

 

I'm ok with signing a couple guys, but I'm not fooling myself about who they are.

 

I'm not fooling myself either on who these guys are either. They're serving a purpose of pitching for 3 months, up to 1 year, until one of the other guys are deemed ready. None of these signings are going to sexy, or appealing to the fans off the bat. But that's why Falvey was brought on board, to identify the diamonds in the rough or bounce back candidates, and flip them for better prospects that fit the system he wants to implement. 

[Major League Ready]

 

Like I said, I respect the opposite view.
Also, I thought I clarified this before, but I never claimed I didn't get enjoyment from teams that don't win a title.
Of course it's more enjoyable to watch a 90 win team than a 60 won team.
I'm just not going to call it a success if we didn't win.

Also don't buy the small market/ big market excuse.
For one, there is no cap in baseball. I get that it's still a business, but there is nothing stopping an owner from going all in for a year or two when the window is there.
Also, all I ever hear when it suits the Twins is that you can win without a huge payroll. But then, when the opposite suits the Twins, it's gee not our fault we just can't compete with these huge payrolls.

The idea of a cap is to nullify revenue advantage.  Saying there is no cap in baseball in the context that revenue should not be a factory makes absolutely no sense.  Unless of course, you subscribe to the idea that the owners with $100M disadvantage should spend as much as the top market.  In other words, they should invest a billion dollars for the right to lose a billion dollar in 10-15 years. 

 

Unless you can demonstrate that other small to mid-market teams have won as much as the major markets, we are really not talking about opinion here. Here is the list of win percentages since the turn of the century through 2015 for teams with equal or less revenue than the twins.  I did this last year and did not think it was necessary to add 2016.

 

Oakland - 537
Twins - 503
Rays - 499
Jays - .99
Indians - 498
Mariners - 492
Dbacks - 49
Reds - 481
Marlins - 480
Brewers - 471
Pirates - 452
Royals - 444

 

I only calculated the win records for a few of the top teams.  Obviously, not all of the top markets have excelled.

 

Yankees - 582
Boston - 546
Dodgers - 536
Philly - 517
Angels - 546
Giants - 531
Cardinals - 565

 

Oakland is the only small market to team to even come close so to say you don’t buy the whole small market thing is to ignore the facts.

[twinsnorth49]

 

2) They weren't let go because the window closed and it was time to start over. Schottenheimer was fired from San Diego after a 14-2 season.
And both the Caps and Ducks were/are still playoff contenders immediately after firing Boudreau.
 

And how did that work out for both of those teams after firing those guys? Still abject failure I guess.

 

Success can be measured incrementally