Grading Terry Ryan

[gunnarthor]

Maybe not. My retort would be that most FAs that hit the market have some warts and all players (prospects, trade targets, your own players) come with risks.

 

As much as I appreciate Ryan's ability to build an organization, FA is going to have to be utilized at some point to help build that playoff caliber team you talked about above. Waiting for that perfect moment (as if it is a neon sign that starts flashing) or for that perfect player is built on far too many presumptions to me.

 

Hell, I'd argue it's far riskier to wait and hope than it is to sign and hope.

 

I agree with part of your post. FA should be utilized and if the Pohlads don't significantly increase payroll in a few years, I'll be bitching right there with you. But I just think it should be used as a finishing product. I honestly don't see the point in paying Sanchez 15m (or whatever)to maybe win 2 more games this year, for two reasons. 1) A few extra wins mean nothing and hurts draft position and 2) we need Sanchez for our core in a few years. If he's hurt then, we won't get another guy. (That said, I think the Twins should spend the money to get the Cuban defector since he's young enough to be part of the next Twins core, so long as their scouts think he is the real thing).

 

All FA classes have warts, that's why they are generally used to augment a team, not drive it. Now, the successes of our young players might move up our timeline, but that's a different thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's because it is.

 

That doesn't make a damned bit of sense. How is it riskier to give a guy $100m than to... not give a guy $100m?

 

*blank stare*

[ThePuck]

I agree with part of your post. FA should be utilized and if the Pohlads don't significantly increase payroll in a few years, I'll be bitching right there with you.

 

What constitutes a few? Cause it's going to keep going down all the way into 2016 at least.

[Guest USAFChief]

Well, if there's nothing there in 3 years then Sanchez wouldn't have helped anyway.

 

It's difficult to argue with this type of logic.

 

"Sign some actual pitching...spend some money."

 

"No, don't do that. Good pitching won't help right now, and won't be good when the rest of the team is good. We all know they're going to be good in three years."

 

"But that pitching would make the team better now, and might still be good when the rest of the team is good."

 

"But what if the team never gets good?"

[ThePuck]

That doesn't make a damned bit of sense. How is it riskier to give a guy $100m than to... not give a guy $100m?

 

*blank stare*

 

Because not taking the risk guarantees you don't get a quality player with that money. You keep talking about that money. How is that money going to hinder anything? What's it going to stop them from doing? Nothing. Where's the risk in spending it if it won't hinder us at all, even if the play doesn't work out?

[ThePuck]

It's difficult to argue with this type of logic.

 

"Sign some actual pitching...spend some money."

 

"No, don't do that. Good pitching won't help right now, and won't be good when the rest of the team is good. We all know they're going to be good in three years."

 

"But that pitching would make the team better now, and might still be good when the rest of the team is good."

 

"But what if the team never gets good?"

 

Yeah, I love the guarantee that we shouldn't spend till 2016 when we're competitive as if that's a guarantee.

[TheLeviathan]

All FA classes have warts, that's why they are generally used to augment a team, not drive it. Now, the successes of our young players might move up our timeline, but that's a different thread.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting anything else. And to your second point: Do you know how many Sanchez's we can afford in the next 6-7 years?

 

By my count, probably at least 3. Maybe 4. So I don't really buy that argument.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Because not taking the risk guarantees you don't get a quality player with that money. You keep talking about that money. How is that money going to hinder anything? What's it going to stop them from doing? Nothing.

 

No, the argument was that it was more risky to not sign the expensive player. I'm not one to get into semantic arguments most of the time but come on, that's ludicrous.

[jokin]

"But what if the team never gets good?"

 

"Well, see, that's really good too!, because, you know, we'll keep our really, really good draft position...and keep drafting really, really good prospects.... and our GM will keep getting style point kudos from the faithful Brethren for his super-power, death-defying avoidance of "imprudent financial risks"...

[ThePuck]

No, the argument was that it was more risky to not sign the expensive player. I'm not one to get into semantic arguments most of the time but come on, that's ludicrous.

 

Yes, because you risk the rotation being much worse because you didn't sign a guy who could very well be huge upgrade all because of money that wouldn't hurt you at all to spend or hinder your ability to spend more. It's not semantics at all. That's risking your rotation's effectiveness. Risk isn't restricted to money.

[Guest USAFChief]

No, the argument was that it was more risky to not sign the expensive player. I'm not one to get into semantic arguments most of the time but come on, that's ludicrous.

If the goal is to save ownership as much money as possible, it's obviously riskier to spend it.

 

If the goal is to assemble a championship caliber major league baseball team, it's riskier to continually pass on talent, put that money in ownership's pocket, and enter a season with a rotation like the Twins have now, and likely will have for the foreseeable future.

[ThePuck]

If the goal is to save ownership as much money as possible, it's obviously riskier to spend it.

 

If the goal is to assemble a championship caliber major league baseball team, it's riskier to continually pass on talent, put that money in ownership's pocket, and enter a season with a rotation like the Twins have now, and likely will have for the foreseeable future.

 

exactly.

[jokin]

If the goal is to save ownership as much money as possible, it's obviously riskier to spend it.

 

If the goal is to assemble a championship caliber major league baseball team, it's riskier to continually pass on talent, put that money in ownership's pocket, and enter a season with a rotation like the Twins have now, and likely will have for the foreseeable future.

 

Can I remind everyone yet again, the Rangers and Dodgers were both financially bankrupt in just the last couple of years. And look where they are now. No one is suggesting that the Twins can operate at that level, but the financial structure of Major League Baseball and the reality of the level of support in this market certainly suggests that they can take on far more risk they are currently willing to carry.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, because you risk the rotation being much worse because you didn't sign a guy who could very well be huge upgrade all because of money that wouldn't hurt you at all to spend or hinder your ability to spend more. It's not semantics at all

 

Dude, you're killing me. Free agents are perhaps the riskiest thing in baseball and generally bring back a low return per dollar spent.

 

But somehow it's less risky to throw a ton of money at a guy (a pitcher, no less) than to not throw money at him?

 

This makes no sense.

 

And every dollar you spend now impacts dollars you spend later. That's how finite resource management works. You may have enough money to do multiple things but the two events still have bearing on one another. They do not exist in a vacuum.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If the goal is to save ownership as much money as possible, it's obviously riskier to spend it.

 

If the goal is to assemble a championship caliber major league baseball team, it's riskier to continually pass on talent, put that money in ownership's pocket, and enter a season with a rotation like the Twins have now, and likely will have for the foreseeable future.

 

For the fifth time, that is not risk.

 

One cannot be riskier by playing it conservatively and close to the vest. Risk is exposing yourself to avoidable loss. Do not spend the money, expose yourself to little risk. You may expose yourself to fielding a crappy team but that IS NOT RISK.

[jokin]

For the fifth time, that is not risk.

 

One cannot be riskier by playing it conservatively and close to the vest. Risk is exposing yourself to avoidable loss. Do not spend the money, expose yourself to little risk. You may expose yourself to fielding a crappy team but that IS NOT RISK.

 

Except by exposing yourself to the risk of fielding a crappy team, you lose fan support and eventually (in most organizations, anyway), you lose your job. That's the risk involved here.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Except by exposing yourself to the risk of fielding a crappy team, you lose fan support and eventually (in most organizations, anyway), you lose your job. That's the risk involved here.

 

This argument isn't about Terry Ryan's job, it's about free agency and that somehow the Twins would have mitigated risk by signing a player last offseason instead of this offseason or next offseason.

 

It's utter nonsense and completely without basis. The premise is built on the notion that somehow last offseason's free agents were more risk averse than other years. My only argument here is that EVERY free agent is risky. No one is more risky than anyone else (well, all things being equal) and the ONLY advantage is to try to utilize age to get the most out of a player when you need it the most. The one thing we know is that younger players tend to be healthier and more productive than older players. Therefore, it makes sense to not bet against the house and try to sign a guy in the hopes that he'll still be good in four years.

[ThePuck]

okay, I'm out of this particular argument because it's an exercise in complete and utter futility.

[Guest USAFChief]

For the fifth time, that is not risk.

 

One cannot be riskier by playing it conservatively and close to the vest. Risk is exposing yourself to avoidable loss. Do not spend the money, expose yourself to little risk. You may expose yourself to fielding a crappy team but that IS NOT RISK.

 

To quote a great poster...*blank stare*

[drjim]

That's a hindsight argument right there. I'm sure you know that.

 

Hindsight in the sense that no one predicted a shoulder injury one year into the five year deal. Not really hindsight to suggest that signing a player now would lead to a scenario that said player would be less effective when the team was ready to compete.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To quote a great poster...*blank stare*

 

You field a crappy team but you do it without spending a dime.

 

Or you could sign a guy for $100m and he could blow his shoulder out in February.

 

Both situations end with a bad team but one has money and the other does not.

 

Now explain to me how the broke-ass team played the "less risky" hand. Please. Someone. Anyone.

[Guest USAFChief]

You field a crappy team but you do it without spending a dime.

 

Or you could sign a guy for $100m and he could blow his shoulder out in February.

 

Both situations end with a bad team but one has money and the other does not.

 

Now explain to me how the broke-ass team played the "less risky" hand. Please. Someone. Anyone.

 

Please explain to me what your ultimate goal is for the Twins...to win as many games as possible, in as many seasons as possible; or to ensure the Pohlad brothers can count on banking a hefty profit in as many seasons as possible?

 

You keep talking about "risk" as if there's only one kind: financial.

 

Some of us see "losing" as a risk as well.

 

And let's be honest here...the Pohlads would have been at no real financial risk had they signed a pitcher to a high dollar contract.

 

They would almost certainly have still turned a profit in 2013, most likely a smaller one. They almost certainly won't lose money in the coming years whether or not such a pitcher (or 2 or 3) were on the payroll.

 

And even if they were to somehow lose money in a year or two of such contracts, the Twins are not a significant source of income for the family, so how much risk would they really be taking?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Please explain to me what your ultimate goal is for the Twins...to win as many games as possible, in as many seasons as possible; or to ensure the Pohlad brothers can count on banking a hefty profit in as many seasons as possible?

 

You keep talking about "risk" as if there's only one kind: financial.

 

Some of us see "losing" as a risk as well.

 

And let's be honest here...the Pohlads would have been at no real financial risk had they signed a pitcher to a high dollar contract.

 

They would almost certainly have still turned a profit in 2013, most likely a smaller one. They almost certainly won't lose money in the coming years whether or not such a pitcher (or 2 or 3) were on the payroll.

 

And even if they were to somehow lose money in a year or two of such contracts, the Twins are not a significant source of income for the family, so how much risk would they really be taking?

 

I'm not even debating the argument of "should the Twins sign a free agent" at this point. I responded to that original post merely to say that it was completely devoid of logic. I will respond to something completely insane like "signing a free agent now is less risky than not signing one" because it's the type of offhand remark that sounds good but makes absolutely zero sense when put under any kind of scrutiny.

 

You can make all the arguments about signing Sanchez that you'd like. I'll disagree but hey, people have different ideas for building a team. I think the Twins should be playing in the shallower end of the pool for the time being with the intent of making a bigger splash as we find out more about Buxton, Sano, Meyer, et al because when it comes to free agency, I believe that the smart play is to go with the numbers, and those numbers say that younger players are healthier and more productive. Make use of that age while the team is *hopefully* competitive.

[drjim]

Can I remind everyone yet again, the Rangers and Dodgers were both financially bankrupt in just the last couple of years. And look where they are now. No one is suggesting that the Twins can operate at that level, but the financial structure of Major League Baseball and the reality of the level of support in this market certainly suggests that they can take on far more risk they are currently willing to carry.

 

I don't understand your point here. Owners filed for bankruptcy to expedite sales and protect assets. The health of the franchises was never really in doubt.

[Willihammer]

Unless it's 2016, Sanchez is either not pitching or ineffective, and the Twins are handing him $17m every season to do little or nothing.

 

The typical veteran decline arc means it's a pretty bad idea to sign a guy to a five year deal when you can't realistically compete until year three of said contract.\

 

You're missing 2 key elements in your risk equation: inflation and supply. Who's to say what $17m buys when the TWins are "ready" to spend money? Probably not a lot less than a 31-32 year old Anibal, I'd wager.

[beckmt]

I think part of the discussion is that the Twins will have at least another $20 million in free salary after this season is over, if not more. Most of the new core will be in their second year, so the raise in payroll will not be huge. That added to the $25 million in new TV revenue should equal some ability to pay for free agents. Problem is that all clubs have the extra $25 million and the free agent market may not be that strong after resignings at the end of the year and qualifying offers to the major free agents. Twins major concern in this offseason is again pitching. Terry Ryan will have a much more definitive grade after this offseason, as he will be judged on how close he has brought the Twins to competing.

[Kwak]

The point of this thread is to grade Ryan's performance. But patience until next April will completely remove the illusion of competing if the salaries of Morneau, Blackburn, and likely Carroll are just removed from the payroll (except of course the minimum salary that their replacements make) and not utilized to add significant talent. \

The arguement of "we can't use the money now" could be replaced with: "we are prepared to lose more games by not adding veteran talent, by operating at a lower payroll."

[whydidnt]

A couple of late thoughts to this thread. I have to give Ryan a solid D+ at this point. Yes the minors are better, but that was inevitable considering the draft picks and the fact we gave up two major league players.

 

No, he gets a a D+ because he has shown a complete lack of ability to judge/build a quality Major league staff. Before the 2012 season, he said Starting Pitching was a strength of the team, and we all know how that worked out. Last off-season we heard Starting Pitching was the #1 priority and yet, 1/2 way through the season we are watching the same old junk ballers we have seen over the last few years. I hate to see what happens to the staff when it's not a priority to improve.

 

The GM's job should be to field the best team as possible, not save as much money as as possbile, which is how he runs the team. There is no evidence that Twins ownership will put any savings in 2013 into a piggy bank for use in 2014 or years later. They just never have done that, always setting the payroll as a the same percentage of revenue. Not spending money on quality pitchers/middle infielders, etc. is why this team is and has been lousy for 3 straight years, at some point the people running the team have to address the issue with more than lip service.

 

I get being excited about the minor league system, but frankly it doesn't seem to me there is much help for the SP on the way. May and Meyer have some potential, but it's almost a guarantee that one of them doesn't make it or washes out to the bullpen. Otherwise, there just aren't any guys in AA or AAA to really get excited about. If you think the Twins are going to compete with Sano, Buxton, etc. in 2015, you must think they are going to win a lot of 8-6 games because their just isn't enough here to build a competitive pitching staff. They are going to have to supplement what they have and I have serious doubts about Ryan's ability or willingness to do that. He is philosophically opposed to spending big $ on pitchers -- and for that he gets a D+.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You're missing 2 key elements in your risk equation: inflation and supply. Who's to say what $17m buys when the TWins are "ready" to spend money? Probably not a lot less than a 31-32 year old Anibal, I'd wager.

 

Supply doesn't change. It drifts up and down a little each year but players are always available.

 

Inflation, meh. That is more than countered by player decline with age. Salaries don't skyrocket over the course of 2-3 years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The point of this thread is to grade Ryan's performance. But patience until next April will completely remove the illusion of competing if the salaries of Morneau, Blackburn, and likely Carroll are just removed from the payroll (except of course the minimum salary that their replacements make) and not utilized to add significant talent. \

The arguement of "we can't use the money now" could be replaced with: "we are prepared to lose more games by not adding veteran talent, by operating at a lower payroll."

 

Well, I don't think the arguments line up quite so cleanly. I'm all for spending money and I hollered about last offseason. My point is that I don't think this is the time for the Twins to dabble in the upper tier of free agency; that doesn't stop them from pursuing the shorter-term Ryan Dempster-types of the world.

 

Spend that money, absolutely. Not spending ANY money is a mistake. My argument lies in that they shouldn't be locking up guys for five years... yet.