Are the Front Office's Jobs Secure?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

7 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

 

By this logic no team would every fire anyone, ever.  Yes, the next regime MIGHT not be successful.  We KNOW the current one has not been.

Falvey said when he was hired that the easily measurable goal was to build a sustained championship organization.  Do you think he has succeeded?

 

Well I know the general consensus believes there needs to be a razing from the top down.  I am not so sure.

Not enough metrics.  Too much metrics.  Should have traded this guy.  Should have acquired that guy.  <Insert prospect here> should be playing over <insert veteran here>...

Arguing semantics or hindsight serves little purpose.  This FO had some unique challenges when they first came on board. The basically gutted and overhauled the entire administration to bring them up to speed on metric usage.  They had to rebuild a system that had zero pitching prospects

"But FDG, that was years ago!  What have they done for me lately?"

Made the playoffs multiple times.  In other years (like this one), have put teams together that on paper were strong, but underperformed or were decimated by injuries.  Continue to push a relatively cheap ownership group to spend and invest more.  Sign guys they had no business being in on...

I am not going to sit here and defend these guys, but I am also not going to tear them apart either.  I am not convinced that things are SOOOO bad for the Twins that gutting the FO is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are all they are.  Nobody here is a party to all of the factors that go into their decisions, myself included.

Have at it...

[Jeff K]

16 hours ago, ashbury said:

We joke about them as "FalVine" but they are not conjoined Twins.    Assuming this season ends without a playoff win to show for it, change at the top could be made without firing them both.

Two scenarios:

1) Falvey fires Levine on the grounds of accountability for 3 consecutive seasons of subpar results.  This outcome assumes that Levine has had more input to the overall "vision" than we know, and for instance was the architect of the major trades and signings of the past few seasons, with Falvey merely providing budgetary approval when they happened. 

2) Joe Pohlad (or Dave St Peter acting with his approval) fires Falvey and elevates Levine to the big chair, perhaps with a title only of Executive VP of Baseball Operations rather than the redundant President.  This is if Falvey has been completely hands-on with every important decision, and Levine has been in effect a glorified assistant GM who ownership feels is suited to the big job.  (I want to stress, Levine is a decade older than Falvey.)

In either scenario we have a new GM who comes in, and Rocco's job hangs in the balance depending on whom they hire and how much decision-making power the new GM is given.  New GMs tend to like new managers.  Of course, Rocco could be fired if FalVine both stay on, but this thread is about change at the top.

I tend to think either of these scenarios is more likely than firing both Falvey and Levine.  If it works, it has a ripple effect of accountability everywhere down the org chart, without throwing the organization into months of chaos from complete turnover.  Firing both means Joe Pohlad is saying, "this is my baseball team now," and I just don't foresee that.

But the guesswork involves our not knowing with real certainty what the working dynamics currently are at the top, Pohlad included, and how decision making is split.  Anything could happen.  If we win a playoff game, probably the FO maintains the status quo.  Otherwise I might split the chances into:

• status quo - 35%
• Levine fired - 30%
• Falvey fired - 20%
• both fired - 15%

 

I agree with your thoughts at the top of the house.  That said, under all circumstances, I would fire Rocco.  His game management is entirely perplexing to me.  Additionally, great managers bring out performance greater than you would expect.  This team has underperformed...what does that make Rocco?

[chpettit19]

Lots of talk of "highest payrolls" or "TR didn't get this big of payrolls" like the Twins are a top spending team now. Yes, the overall total of the payrolls are higher, but they're still in the 15-20 range in terms of league rankings on spending. I'm not saying this as an excuse, or to suggest it's crazy to think they should be fired. My "fire/don't fire" decision making question was how quickly/effectively they made in season adjustments to "the plan," and they've completely failed at that in my opinion (Gallo alone is enough to say they've failed at it). I'm just bringing this up because them spending 150+ mil is a team record, but the rest of the league is setting team records, too. Their overall spending power hasn't dramatically changed in the context of the league overall.

[LastOnePicked]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

I’m ok with pretty good, because 1987 showed me that sometimes pretty good will get you pretty far. 

I knew that 1987 team. This is no 1987 team. Energy, passion, fire - not even remotely close. Plus, the 1987 team had just one path to the playoffs, and had to best 6 other teams to get there. Put the Twins back in the same AL West bracket in 2023, and they scarcely stand a chance of even reaching third place.

The AL Central continues to obscure the fact that this team is not good. Not even pretty good. We can debate their luck in terms of injuries, sure, but their sheer luck in landing in the worst division in baseball is undisputed.

[John Belinski]

I was a fan of Terry Ryan  He was a hands-on front office person. He knew talent and went to a lot of games to find baseball players. He did not have the payroll to work with or the Twins would have won a lot more games. He could have left the Twins for another team for a higher payday, but he was a Twins fan.  He was one of the last hands-on front office people who knew players.

[Jocko87]

5 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Is it? aren't guys getting hurt at about the same level, and now talk of the pitching tiring at the 2/3 point of the season?

With that said, win a playoff game and keep their jobs, don't and fire them simple as that for me. Rocco for me needs more than a win to keep his job, he needs to not get out managed as well.

I generally agree with the moves this FO makes (not Gallo and the relief decisions) but I don't enjoy the brand of baseball that is played. It is a sad thing watching the Twins and being surprised when a player doesn't strike out, and watching other teams and being surprised when a top player does strike out.

To be fair, I posted that before the Ryan news.  That's a bit of a demerit, although it seems mostly on Ryan I want my trainer to sniff that stuff out. 

Days lost is pacing significantly down from last year.  It's probably less of a noticeable issue because we haven't had to dip into the "who dat" level of depth to back fill.  That depth is also a good mark for the front office.

The training staff isn't perfect but from outside information it changed from a big issue to a normal or non issue.  Don't forget the part where the former training staff presumably signed off on bringing in some broken arms too.  I think that may be a larger part of their downfall than the normal injuries. 

My larger point is that the FO addressed it aggressively with a known quantity after trying their own way with a less proven talent.  Not unlike what I expect with the hitting room this off season. 

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Well I know the general consensus believes there needs to be a razing from the top down.  I am not so sure.

Not enough metrics.  Too much metrics.  Should have traded this guy.  Should have acquired that guy.  <Insert prospect here> should be playing over <insert veteran here>...

Arguing semantics or hindsight serves little purpose.  This FO had some unique challenges when they first came on board. The basically gutted and overhauled the entire administration to bring them up to speed on metric usage.  They had to rebuild a system that had zero pitching prospects

"But FDG, that was years ago!  What have they done for me lately?"

Made the playoffs multiple times.  In other years (like this one), have put teams together that on paper were strong, but underperformed or were decimated by injuries.  Continue to push a relatively cheap ownership group to spend and invest more.  Sign guys they had no business being in on...

I am not going to sit here and defend these guys, but I am also not going to tear them apart either.  I am not convinced that things are SOOOO bad for the Twins that gutting the FO is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are all they are.  Nobody here is a party to all of the factors that go into their decisions, myself included.

Have at it...

Yeah good points.  "Fire 'em all" is the easiest thing to say for a fan.  I do think Falvine have been given a long leash and the results just haven't been there - it's great that they incorporated analytics into the process, but as a fan I care about results.  Not only have there been 0 playoff wins, things have been trending downward the past couple seasons. 

Here's how I tend to think of it:  there are 30 MLB GM jobs on planet Earth.  Is Falvey one of the 30 best people in the world at running a ball club?  Personally I don't really see anything in his performance to suggest that's the case.  But again, easy for me to say.  

[TwinsDr2021]

9 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

To be fair, I posted that before the Ryan news.  That's a bit of a demerit, although it seems mostly on Ryan I want my trainer to sniff that stuff out. 

Days lost is pacing significantly down from last year.  It's probably less of a noticeable issue because we haven't had to dip into the "who dat" level of depth to back fill.  That depth is also a good mark for the front office.

The training staff isn't perfect but from outside information it changed from a big issue to a normal or non issue.  Don't forget the part where the former training staff presumably signed off on bringing in some broken arms too.  I think that may be a larger part of their downfall than the normal injuries. 

My larger point is that the FO addressed it aggressively with a known quantity after trying their own way with a less proven talent.  Not unlike what I expect with the hitting room this off season. 

I do give the FO Kudos on planning for depth this year.

1B - AK got hurt

2B - Polanco got hurt

SS - Correa supposedly has Plantar fasciitis

3B - Lewis got hurt, Miranda as well

CF - Buxton hasn't played their yet

Bench - Gordon

Pitching - De Leon, Alcala, Ryan, Mahle, and there is talk the starters are tired?

And the biggest one was that the training staff hasn't found an issue with Gallo to put him on the IL. (maybe bilateral leg weakness)

 

[Cory Engelhardt]

It's all about results. If they don't win the division I'd say no. If they win a series in the playoffs, then 100%. If they win the division and get swept, it's up for debate. 

[In My La Z boy]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Lots of talk of "highest payrolls" or "TR didn't get this big of payrolls" like the Twins are a top spending team now. Yes, the overall total of the payrolls are higher, but they're still in the 15-20 range in terms of league rankings on spending. I'm not saying this as an excuse, or to suggest it's crazy to think they should be fired. My "fire/don't fire" decision making question was how quickly/effectively they made in season adjustments to "the plan," and they've completely failed at that in my opinion (Gallo alone is enough to say they've failed at it). I'm just bringing this up because them spending 150+ mil is a team record, but the rest of the league is setting team records, too. Their overall spending power hasn't dramatically changed in the context of the league overall.

Making the $300M decision on Buxton and Correa is proving to be disastrous in year 1. This scares me for the next 5 years. We can't afford to have wasted $300M. The discussion at trade deadline about a RH bat made me sick thinking about these 2 guys. We should have RH bats covered, we spent $300M. Also noticed Steer just hit #17 - the list is getting long for me here on FO blunders. Our luck CES will tear it up as well in Cincy. Hindsight isn't looking favorable for the FO here.

[howeda7]

19 hours ago, ashbury said:

We joke about them as "FalVine" but they are not conjoined Twins.    Assuming this season ends without a playoff win to show for it, change at the top could be made without firing them both.

Two scenarios:

1) Falvey fires Levine on the grounds of accountability for 3 consecutive seasons of subpar results.  This outcome assumes that Levine has had more input to the overall "vision" than we know, and for instance was the architect of the major trades and signings of the past few seasons, with Falvey merely providing budgetary approval when they happened. 

2) Joe Pohlad (or Dave St Peter acting with his approval) fires Falvey and elevates Levine to the big chair, perhaps with a title only of Executive VP of Baseball Operations rather than the redundant President.  This is if Falvey has been completely hands-on with every important decision, and Levine has been in effect a glorified assistant GM who ownership feels is suited to the big job.  (I want to stress, Levine is a decade older than Falvey.)

In either scenario we have a new GM who comes in, and Rocco's job hangs in the balance depending on whom they hire and how much decision-making power the new GM is given.  New GMs tend to like new managers.  Of course, Rocco could be fired if FalVine both stay on, but this thread is about change at the top.

I tend to think either of these scenarios is more likely than firing both Falvey and Levine.  If it works, it has a ripple effect of accountability everywhere down the org chart, without throwing the organization into months of chaos from complete turnover.  Firing both means Joe Pohlad is saying, "this is my baseball team now," and I just don't foresee that.

But the guesswork involves our not knowing with real certainty what the working dynamics currently are at the top, Pohlad included, and how decision making is split.  Anything could happen.  If we win a playoff game, probably the FO maintains the status quo.  Otherwise I might split the chances into:

• status quo - 35%
• Levine fired - 30%
• Falvey fired - 20%
• both fired - 15%

 

Firing only Levine while Falvey stays would be a joke. This is Falvey's team and he's the one whose head should role. Whether Levine stays or not is a separate discussion but a complete housecleaning is in order IMO.

[KirbyDome89]

12 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

It's all about results. If they don't win the division I'd say no. If they win a series in the playoffs, then 100%. If they win the division and get swept, it's up for debate. 

I don't understand why 2 wins in October should determine their job status if the 162 prior to that have been subpar. If the team continues to play as they have, backing into a division title or even winning a WC series on the back of great SP shouldn't negate how uninspiring the product has been for the last 2+ years. 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

2 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

I knew that 1987 team. This is no 1987 team. Energy, passion, fire - not even remotely close. Plus, the 1987 team had just one path to the playoffs, and had to best 6 other teams to get there. Put the Twins back in the same AL West bracket in 2023, and they scarcely stand a chance of even reaching third place.

The AL Central continues to obscure the fact that this team is not good. Not even pretty good. We can debate their luck in terms of injuries, sure, but their sheer luck in landing in the worst division in baseball is undisputed.

And yet, that 1987 team with all of that energy, passion, and fire managed to win only 85 games.  I know and remember that team well.  Only three guys were substantially above average bats (Hrbek, Bruno, Puckett) and four regulars in "yikes" territory.  Their rotation was Blyleven, Viola, and who knows.  They were a great Dome team but an atrocious road team.  Hardly a juggernaut.  As fans, we tend to have revisionist history about teams, when in reality, they were just pretty good and got hot at the right time.  They only had to win two series to go all the way, and they did it.  With all of the rounds of wildcards, it's a little harder now.

The division is not good.  It wasn't great in 1987 either.  Their 1987 division winning record would have been fifth in the American League East.  They can't do anything about that except win the division and hope for the best in the playoffs.  Then you never know what will happen.  I'm not saying that they are going to win the WS this year, but they are not the poor team that people describe.  In 1987, a mediocre regular season got them pretty far and even though they weren't a dynasty, I can still celebrate and embrace the World Series title that went with it. 

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Making the $300M decision on Buxton and Correa is proving to be disastrous in year 1. This scares me for the next 5 years. We can't afford to have wasted $300M. The discussion at trade deadline about a RH bat made me sick thinking about these 2 guys. We should have RH bats covered, we spent $300M. Also noticed Steer just hit #17 - the list is getting long for me here on FO blunders. Our luck CES will tear it up as well in Cincy. Hindsight isn't looking favorable for the FO here.

I'm not really worried about Correa moving forward. I think he bounces back just fine next year. But he's certainly been awful this year. Buxton I have real fears about ever being an outfielder again, and that's huge. But I won't play the hindsight game with that deal. I had no problem with him getting that deal, and until I'm given hard proof that they should've known his knees were going to completely fall apart I'm not going to hold that against them. But if those deals are both bad for 5 more years it's really, really bad for this organization. $45+ million on the bench for 5 years is not a sustainable plan. But 2 RH bats isn't really having "RH bats covered." We shouldn't be RH bat barren, but they're not totally covered even with those 2 at their peaks.

They had 2 horrid trades last year. No doubt about that. I didn't mind the Mahle one at all. I didn't expect Mahle to need TJ surgery or Steer to be nearly this good. CES still has a lot to prove before I'm going to cry over him, but he's got a real chance to be a solid bat. Thought it was a reasonable trade for 1.5 years of Mahle. They traded from an area of perceived depth (RH corner IF bats with questionable gloves) for an area of need (the rotation for more than just the end of last year). You have to give value to get value. Didn't work out. I also didn't mind the Lopez deal, and anybody who claims they had a problem with Cano being traded, or saw this year coming from him, is flat out lying, so I thought Povich was a reasonable price for 2.5 years of Lopez. I didn't expect Lopez to be as good as he was in the first half, but didn't expect him to completely fall apart with the stuff he throws. Didn't work out. Those are 2 huge mistakes that absolutely should be held against the FO. Even if part of it is bad luck with the TJ surgery for Mahle, you can't have 2 misses that are that big in the same year.

But, overall, I actually think they do an OK job with their roster building. Doesn't mean I wouldn't fire them for other reasons, but they are pretty neutral on their hits and misses. Not surprising they produce these roughly .500 teams (they were a .500 team last year until they were playing you, me, and Jake Cave in September). The bigger the hit or miss the more emotional the reaction. Have 2 big misses, and then your team face plants the next year? Going to have a lot of emotional reactions out of fans. But they've had good trades. Odo, Maeda, Gray, Ryan, Duran. Those are good trades. But the team overall has struggled so we forget about them and focus on the misses. Human nature. I've been slow on giving up on them because there's a very real chance you fire them and get a much worse FO in their place. They're middle of the ground. There's worse out there. But their inability to adjust in season (why is Gallo still here?!), and the fact that I'm someone who believes in taking the educated risk on higher upside, leads me to want to move on. It's not at all, for me, that they're just piling up blunder after blunder. I don't agree with that. It's that they're average, and I want to take a shot at better than average. I'd much rather miss on a Walker Jenkins upside play than make the "safe" college bat play with lesser upside. I don't think these guys can get this team to a dominant spot. And I want to see if someone else can.

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Everybody calling for a house clearing...  You are expecting that the following regime would be better.  Far from a sure thing.

A regime change is a change in approach and culture and can take many years to see results.  Watch what you ask for...  

A risk worth taking rather than locking yourself into an underwhelming product. 

Lol, we're 7 years deep and still shifting the goalposts on results? 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

A risk worth taking rather than locking yourself into an underwhelming product. 

Lol, we're 7 years deep and still shifting the goalposts on results? 

I don't see how that's "shifting the goalposts on results." I'm on the "fire the FO" side of the argument, but FDG isn't wrong that there's a long ways below the Twins, and their FO, and the bottom of the league. I agree that I'd take the risk for getting much worse at the shot of getting much better, but this FO is competent, just not great. 

Your suggestion that them "winning a WC series on the back of great SP shouldn't negate how uninspiring the product has been for the last 2+ years" is far closer to "shifting the goalposts on results" than FDG pointing out that things could get a lot worse around here with a new FO. I'm not saying them winning the WC series alone should negate anything, but why would we not give them credit for acquiring "great SP" that can win a playoff series against a team I'm quite sure you'd describe as better than the Twins? I haven't particularly enjoyed watching this team for a couple years now, but if they start winning playoff series I'll absolutely give them credit for it, and reassess my stance. Is your demand of them not to win playoff series? Does it not count if they don't win the way you want, but instead win "on the back of great SP?"

[Five minute major]

Who the bleep could possibly qualify this FO as successful?  I am assuming these folks got the early jump on marijuana usage before it became legal.   What have they done to warrant any positive reaction?  And if there are any they certainly don't overshadow the bevy of horsecrap decsions:

• Overpaying a horrendously overated Correa 
• Jake Cave over Lamonte Wade and than holding on to him hoping he would show something far too long.
• Cano for Jorge Lopez (unproven at all)
• CES and Steel for Tyler Mahle (this one alone should be fireable). I lose sleep over this one.  Its going to suck for an effing decade plus.
• Trading the incredibly popular Luis Arraez (lost this trade as well although not as bad as the previous two)
• Hiring the unproven Rocco Baldelli for a team that should have one a playoff series at the time.  I do believe Baldelli has learned from some of his mistakes.  However, he should have learned those somewhere else.

The list goes on.  This team is never going anywhere with this FO PERIOD!

 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Yeah good points.  "Fire 'em all" is the easiest thing to say for a fan.  I do think Falvine have been given a long leash and the results just haven't been there - it's great that they incorporated analytics into the process, but as a fan I care about results.  Not only have there been 0 playoff wins, things have been trending downward the past couple seasons. 

Here's how I tend to think of it:  there are 30 MLB GM jobs on planet Earth.  Is Falvey one of the 30 best people in the world at running a ball club?  Personally I don't really see anything in his performance to suggest that's the case.  But again, easy for me to say.  

Would you put him at the bottom of the 30 current people running MLB teams? I'd fire him (assuming they're not going to make any real noise in the playoffs), but I think he's pretty squarely in the middle of the pack of current MLB GMs/POBOs. It's not hard to look around the league and see a whole lot of other teams I'm much happier not being a fan of. Again, I'd fire him, but I'd certainly be ready for the possibility of far worse results. This team, and being .500, isn't fun. But it's way better than being Oakland, Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, or Miami. And basically the same as being a fan of Kansas City, Arizona, other Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Washington, New York, other New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Cleveland, Toronto, and Baltimore. That's 7 teams I see as being clearly worse. And 13 I see as being awfully similar (some cuz of recent rings, others cuz they're up and coming, others cuz they're basically the same middle of the road type teams). That leaves 9 I think are clearly better. 

Is Falvey one of the 30 best people in the world at running a ball club? I don't know. But I know there's currently a number who are worse than him running other teams. 

[Woof Bronzer]

10 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Is Falvey one of the 30 best people in the world at running a ball club? I don't know. But I know there's currently a number who are worse than him running other teams. 

Great post.  I guess the only thing I'll add is that I don't think "are there worse MLB GMs" should be a factor into whether or not Falvine goes.  But you're right, as much as I'm ready to move on from Falvine (have been for a while), it could be worse.  

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Great post.  I guess the only thing I'll add is that I don't think "are there worse MLB GMs" should be a factor into whether or not Falvine goes.  But you're right, as much as I'm ready to move on from Falvine (have been for a while), it could be worse.  

I'm ready to move on, but the nervous side of me is certainly worried that things get even worse. I think they have a solid core of young guys on the cusp, though, so my hope is that they could be replaced with someone who doesn't have to do a whole bunch early on, but can make some tweaks to overall strategy, and supplement the hopeful "new core" to raise the ceiling. I don't get the feeling the Pohlads are going to make any changes, though. I think they have been assured they'll be here to start next season at a minimum.

[Whitey333]

Been following twins baseball since the mid sixties.  This has taken me through some fun years and some awful years.  Yet I find myself totally frustrated with a franchise that hired a new front office 7 years ago that told us we would have a sustainably winning and competitive team.  We are still waiting.  The past three years have produced some of the most overhyped and boring baseball in years.  They are very hard to watch.  I love the Twins and follow them daily.  IMO this management team should be replaced by someone that can give us major league baseball.  My guess is we will back into the central division title by default and they will all be telling us what a great job they did.  This will result in us having to put up with this embarrassing brand of baseball for years.  Go Twins!!

[Rod Carews Birthday]

29 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Is Falvey one of the 30 best people in the world at running a ball club? I don't know. But I know there's currently a number who are worse than him running other teams. 

This is the key to the equation.  If you really think there is someone out there who is readily identifiable and readily available to come in and run the team that would be a better choice, firing Falvey makes complete sense.  But if there were those people out there, don't you think that at least 15 other clubs would have hired them by now?  It's just not that easy and I lived through some mighty lean years that I really don't want to go back and re-visit.  I don't love Falvey and Levine nor all of their moves (and lack of moves), but I don't need to if they continue to keep the team competitive. 

[KirbyDome89]

Just now, chpettit19 said:

I don't see how that's "shifting the goalposts on results." I'm on the "fire the FO" side of the argument, but FDG isn't wrong that there's a long ways below the Twins, and their FO, and the bottom of the league. I agree that I'd take the risk for getting much worse at the shot of getting much better, but this FO is competent, just not great. 

Your suggestion that them "winning a WC series on the back of great SP shouldn't negate how uninspiring the product has been for the last 2+ years" is far closer to "shifting the goalposts on results" than FDG pointing out that things could get a lot worse around here with a new FO. I'm not saying them winning the WC series alone should negate anything, but why would we not give them credit for acquiring "great SP" that can win a playoff series against a team I'm quite sure you'd describe as better than the Twins? I haven't particularly enjoyed watching this team for a couple years now, but if they start winning playoff series I'll absolutely give them credit for it, and reassess my stance. Is your demand of them not to win playoff series? Does it not count if they don't win the way you want, but instead win "on the back of great SP?"

"It takes years to see results," after 7 seasons at the helm is most definitely shifting the goalposts. 

MN entering the postseason is entirely a product of the division in which they play. This is a massively flawed roster, on the back of two consecutive down seasons due in large part to other massively flawed rosters. I'm not saying this regime is devoid of any success, so sure, celebrate those accomplishments. Why, as a fan, would I not want them to win playoff games? SP seems like their best route to doing that but maybe they reverse course and out hit their opponent, but that's not really the point. I'm less enamored with 2023 postseason results when the process once again seems faulty. Idk how, after 7 seasons, that's shifting the goalposts. 

 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

"It takes years to see results," after 7 seasons at the helm is most definitely shifting the goalposts. 

MN entering the postseason is entirely a product of the division in which they play. This is a massively flawed roster, on the back of two consecutive down seasons due in large part to other massively flawed rosters. I'm not saying this regime is devoid of any success, so sure, celebrate those accomplishments. Why, as a fan, would I not want them to win playoff games? SP seems like their best route to doing that but maybe they reverse course and out hit their opponent, but that's not really the point. I'm less enamored with 2023 postseason results when the process once again seems faulty. Idk how, after 7 seasons, that's shifting the goalposts. 

 

He was speaking about a new regime coming and changing culture, etc. taking years. Suggesting that making a regime change wasn't going to lead to immediate result changes that many of us are calling for. He wasn't shifting the goalposts, he was talking about lining up a new kicker.

I don't disagree that making the playoffs is entirely about them being in the central. Don't disagree that this is a flawed roster. Is winning playoff games not the goal you're hoping to achieve, though? If they get to the ALCS does it make you rethink anything? WS? ALDS? Is there any amount of success this team can have in the postseason that would make you rethink your stance on their employment with the Twins continuing? There's definitely some success that would make me rethink things.

Their "process" this year, as you seem to be acknowledging, is to win with great SP first and foremost. If they get in and win with great SP is that really a "faulty" process? My understanding from most fans, and my own stance, is that playoff success is our goalpost. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you and all you care about is changing the process even if the process leads to great postseason success this year. But if playoff success doesn't negate the regular seasons the last 2+ years I don't know what could. Maybe that's your point. In which case you just have different goalposts than most the rest of us from what I can tell.

[chpettit19]

25 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

This is the key to the equation.  If you really think there is someone out there who is readily identifiable and readily available to come in and run the team that would be a better choice, firing Falvey makes complete sense.  But if there were those people out there, don't you think that at least 15 other clubs would have hired them by now?  It's just not that easy and I lived through some mighty lean years that I really don't want to go back and re-visit.  I don't love Falvey and Levine nor all of their moves (and lack of moves), but I don't need to if they continue to keep the team competitive. 

I will say that there's definitely people within the industry that other orgs have their eyes on, and who people believe could run a team. How easy is it to get that right, though? There's new head baseball guys hired all the time who do great. Look at the Orioles for example. Or the Reds. Both made changes at the top in recent years and are on the rise. But plenty of other teams have made changes and seen little to no improvement, or gotten worse. It's not quite as easy as saying "15 other teams would have hired them by now." But, it's also not as easy as "just fire them and hire someone better."

The reason I've been slow with jumping on the "fire the FO" bandwagon is because I don't love or hate this FO. I think they're OK. I'm just not a fan of their brand of baseball, or their speed at which they make adjustments. They're kind of like Kirk Cousins to me. Do I think they're good enough to get us to the playoffs, have some nice stretches, and keep us from being a dumpster fire? Yes. Do I think they're good enough to win us championships, or be true, consistent contenders for championships? No. And I'm ready to make an upside play. Even if I know if may lead to Christian Ponder taking over. I want to take a shot at finding a Mahomes.

[Mike Sixel]

22 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

"It’s easy to compare to the Terry Ryan regime and agree that they’re in a much better place now."

I'm not actually sure I do agree. Ryan left with a promising farm system ahead and with a few very modest postseason successes behind. If Falvey/Levine exit after this year, the same just can't be said. Twins will have a bottom-half farm system, a nonexistent pitching pipeline, two very costly and ineffective long-term contracts on the books and absolutely zero postseason success to show for their tenure.

Yes, the Twins have improved some in development and analytics, but so has every other team. The game has changed. The Twins are not ahead of the curve in anything in this sport.

Otherwise, I agree with pretty much every other point here. Particularly the idea that their job security after this season should be anything but assured at this point.

Fangraphs has the farm system in the middle, nowhere near the bottom. This team is light-years ahead of where it was under Ryan. 

That said, I'd fire them now. I'd definitely fire them if they miss the playoffs. They refuse to move on from their mistakes. The only reason Julien is up is because polanco was hurt twice. I have zero faith in their ability to build a complete team. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

This is the key to the equation.  If you really think there is someone out there who is readily identifiable and readily available to come in and run the team that would be a better choice, firing Falvey makes complete sense.  But if there were those people out there, don't you think that at least 15 other clubs would have hired them by now?  It's just not that easy and I lived through some mighty lean years that I really don't want to go back and re-visit.  I don't love Falvey ? The lookand Levine nor all of their moves (and lack of moves), but I don't need to if they continue to keep the team competitive. 

Keep? Neither of the last two years were that. 

[P Meyer]

I think they are very safe. Whether we like it or not, the Twins are a relevant baseball franchise right now. They are 507/473 since these two arrived, and have finished worse than 2nd in the division only 2 of 8 seasons with three playoff appearances. And before people cite titles as the goal, only three teams from the AL have made the World Series in that timeframe. Houston four times, Tampa, and Boston. 

 

Also, remember that the Twins finished no better that 2nd in their division over the preceding 6 seasons, and finished last 4 out of those 6 seasons.

 

Rocco may be moved on from, but I would guess the front office has zero worries about their jobs.

[KirbyDome89]

46 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

He was speaking about a new regime coming and changing culture, etc. taking years. Suggesting that making a regime change wasn't going to lead to immediate result changes that many of us are calling for. He wasn't shifting the goalposts, he was talking about lining up a new kicker.

I don't disagree that making the playoffs is entirely about them being in the central. Don't disagree that this is a flawed roster. Is winning playoff games not the goal you're hoping to achieve, though? If they get to the ALCS does it make you rethink anything? WS? ALDS? Is there any amount of success this team can have in the postseason that would make you rethink your stance on their employment with the Twins continuing? There's definitely some success that would make me rethink things.

Their "process" this year, as you seem to be acknowledging, is to win with great SP first and foremost. If they get in and win with great SP is that really a "faulty" process? My understanding from most fans, and my own stance, is that playoff success is our goalpost. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you and all you care about is changing the process even if the process leads to great postseason success this year. But if playoff success doesn't negate the regular seasons the last 2+ years I don't know what could. Maybe that's your point. In which case you just have different goalposts than most the rest of us from what I can tell.

I also read it as preaching patience for the current FO as well, maybe it wasn't. 

I can chop 3 IF singles, go 3-4, score a couple runs, and the team wins. Goal accomplished, we picked up the W. Can I rely on that outcome night after night? Unless you can convince me this FO has a crystal ball that perfectly, and consistently, predicts how to build flawed rosters that can eek out a division title and then go on lengthy playoff runs I'm out. Honestly. I hope they do win the WS. I also can't overlook some of the obvious failures when it comes to building a team.

I think the process should consistently yield better results than a barely above .500 club clinging to a small lead in an atrocious division, during a stretch where they're trying to win. Is that goal really a radical departure?

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I also read it as preaching patience for the current FO as well, maybe it wasn't. 

I can chop 3 IF singles, go 3-4, score a couple runs, and the team wins. Goal accomplished, we picked up the W. Can I rely on that outcome night after night? Unless you can convince me this FO has a crystal ball that perfectly, and consistently, predicts how to build flawed rosters that can eek out a division title and then go on lengthy playoff runs I'm out. Honestly. I hope they do win the WS. I also can't overlook some of the obvious failures when it comes to building a team.

I think the process should consistently yield better results than a barely above .500 club clinging to a small lead in an atrocious division, during a stretch where they're trying to win. Is that goal really a radical departure?

Totally fair about the consistency of the results. I guess my point/question is how flawed can your roster, and in tandem process, be if you win the WS, reach the ALCS, reach the ALDS? I don't think a roster that wins the WS could be so severely flawed that it's not worth reassessing the FO. ALCS would make me think, but not quite as hard. ALDS would make me pause, but probably still be on the "fire them" bandwagon. 

I'm just saying that I believe playoff success should make us rethink things even after the last couple regular seasons depending on what the playoff success is. I just don't think your roster can be as flawed as we may view this one if they win the world series.