The Curse of the Big Papi?

[TheLeviathan]

There's no comparison in the results he's gotten, but he was certainly a pull hitter prior to being an MVP. Teams plan their approaches on guys not far in to their rookie seasons, so I don't quite see where the Twins were dead wrong in trying to get him to develop an ability to handle the outside pitches even back then. That exact ability is what has allowed him to remain so successful.

 

Teams weren't shifting that much back then. TK and his crew were notorious for being suffocating on players about their approach. I get wanting to help players develop a fully rounded game, but it was very clear by his comments after he left that Ortiz felt he was playing out of his comfort zone as a hitter under the Twins.

 

And in a less suffocating environment his production took off. So you can claim the Twins were "helping him", but by the results it looks very clear they were hindering him.

[jokin]

....... he could only DH, he wasn't the fan favorite and he had upset management.

 

I guess Twins managment really showed him, didn't they now?

 

People, Ortiz has proven to have likely been the missing post-season gonad-rich piece from all of those Twins playoff runs that fell flat on their face what with all the throat-grabbers on this team during the 00s.

[jokin]

Again, in retrospect, losing Ortiz wasn't good......

 

I think this qualifies for the Understatement of the Century (thus far).

 

 

....but the move made sense at the time.

 

The Cubs trade for Ernie Broglio made sense at the time, too. Future HOFer Lou Brock was a great regular season player, but an absolute gamer in postseason, he was probably the missing piece from an already-building-into-a-very good lineup (sound familiar?) that ultimately could have put the Cubs over the top in subsequent years (like 1969). [brock's postseason slash line is .391/424/.655/.1079]

 

Rationalize all you want......and any way you wish to do so, but this was a gaffe of epic proportions.

[jokin]

I get (and agree) that it was a clear mistake.

 

However, I'm really not buying the idea it set the franchise "back" in Hershel Walker type fashion. Maybe he helps the team to be more competitive with the Yankees in 2003 and 2004 (but two wins worth?) and I don't see how he's around after that.

 

But it sure would have been nice to have gotten some decent players as a nice parting gift in return for moving Ortiz....instead of.....nothing.....

[jokin]

Saying "He would have left anyway" or "Nobody else wanted him" is a bad argument. First of all, the Twins having developed him, should have been the ones to properly evaluate his potential. Secondly, they could have afforded him another 4-5 years. Seems to me the Twins gave long term deals to Hunter, Santana, Cuddyer, Mauer, and Morneau in the mid 2000's. Ortiz could have gotten a similar deal.

 

Excellent points. The inability to either understand what they had in Ortiz, or to extricate commensurate value in a trade for Oritiz are Management 101 case studies for Epic Failure.

 

And out of these 6 players that you cited, who is going to end up being in the HOF?

 

Hunter, Santana, Cuddyer, Morneau?

Great players.....but....Nope.

 

Mauer?

Possibly, if he avoids more debilitatiing injury and sustains similar production-levels into his mid-30s.

 

Ortiz?

He seems by far the most likely to reach the HOF, unless a direct and unequivocal PED implication is laid at his feet.

[twinscowboysbulls]

I'm not suggesting the FO was all about teaching him a lesson, just giving a reason why he wasn't going to be signed long term. Perhaps these are two different arguments.. It's either the Twins didn't realize his full potential or they didn't foresee a future for him in Minnesota for one of the possible reasons I listed? What do I know though.

[Kwak]

Those who don't play "The Twins Way" won't stay long--then or now.

[Marta Shearing]

I'm not suggesting the FO was all about teaching him a lesson, just giving a reason why he wasn't going to be signed long term. Perhaps these are two different arguments.. It's either the Twins didn't realize his full potential or they didn't foresee a future for him in Minnesota for one of the possible reasons I listed? What do I know though.

 

I remember Mientkiewicz openly stated he thought the Twins kept Ortiz in AAA almost the entire 1999 season to punish him.

[twinscowboysbulls]

So he didn't want to do things their way then? Isn't that clear enough for us to move on? We don't know what went on while he was coming up? Do you actually believe the Twins will continue to put up with Sano's shenanigans if he doesn't start to make an effort to improve them? What happens to a HS kid if he expresses attitude and unwillingness to do things the coaches way? Cut or doesn't play. Same thing in college. Same thing in professional sports. We have seen the Twins do this before folks, usually trading players who didn't fit the system, Garza, Lohse come to mind quickly. Then there are players who acted like punks and learned from there talking to, Morneau, comes to my mind.

 

I guess I don't fault them for wanting players who want to do things the way they want them done.

 

Dave your point is, the twins were good, but could've been better with Ortiz.. Maybe you are wrong and he would've caused more friction than good... Who knows?

[Alex]

Excellent points. The inability to either understand what they had in Ortiz, or to extricate commensurate value in a trade for Oritiz are Management 101 case studies for Epic Failure.

 

Absolutely. No doubt there.

 

 

And out of these 6 players that you cited, who is going to end up being in the HOF?

 

Hunter, Santana, Cuddyer, Morneau?

Great players.....but....Nope.

 

 

Of those six, really only Morneau and Mauer were signed to significant long term deals, I think the others were bought out arbitration contracts and a couple extended an extra year or two. (I tried to do some research but couldn't actually find specifics, so I'm just going by the years/numbers to make educated guesses).

 

But it sure would have been nice to have gotten some decent players as a nice parting gift in return for moving Ortiz....instead of.....nothing.....

 

Absolutely, but at that point, the Twins didn't have as good of a record of flipping players late in their contracts for "good players." See the above list -- who have the Twins gotten for them?

 

Like I said, there certainly were issues with how they handled Ortiz and there are even concerns from that situation that linger to today's team about how the Twins handle players. However, even I think it's really petty and convoluted to hold this one over them for so long and I have been almost as critical of the front office as anyone here.

 

[Marta Shearing]

 

Of those six, really only Morneau and Mauer were signed to significant long term deals, I think the others were bought out arbitration contracts and a couple extended an extra year or two. (I tried to do some research but couldn't actually find specifics, so I'm just going by the years/numbers to make educated guesses).

Ortiz would have been jumping for joy had Ryan offered him a four year deal after the 2002 season. And they could have signed him for less than the 4/$32m they gave Hunter.

[jokin]

Absolutely. No doubt there.

 

 

 

Of those six, really only Morneau and Mauer were signed to significant long term deals, I think the others were bought out arbitration contracts and a couple extended an extra year or two. (I tried to do some research but couldn't actually find specifics, so I'm just going by the years/numbers to make educated guesses).

 

 

Absolutely, but at that point, the Twins didn't have as good of a record of flipping players late in their contracts for "good players." See the above list -- who have the Twins gotten for them?

 

Like I said, there certainly were issues with how they handled Ortiz and there are even concerns from that situation that linger to today's team about how the Twins handle players.

However, even I think it's really petty and convoluted to hold this one over them for so long and I have been almost as critical of the front office as anyone here.

 

 

Petty and convoluted? The fact that you acknowledge that the Twins annals are replete with talented players, both those who became "Twins Way" guys, as well as with talented, but unwilling to entirely conform guys, that the Twins have shown little ability and failure to learn (ala the Rays) to manage contracts ( and it goes both ways, no one has been held accountable for signing Blackburn long-term when they didn't have to do so- why? because he pitched the Twins Way?)) and gain commensurate value for their best players makes this whole issue NOT petty or contrived.

 

You only have just a very, very few chances at scouting, signing and developing your own HOF-level talent. Losing a player outright and/or dismissing him without commensurate compensation with a major-impact player like Ortiz is far more than just an "Oh well....can't we just move on?" dismissal. It admittedly isn't nearly a Babe Ruth gaffe like the Red Sox made, but it does come pretty close to a Lou Brock gaffe like the Cubs made- and they at least got a veteran starting pticher for their assessment mistake.

[Alex]

Petty and convoluted? The fact that you acknowledge that the Twins annals are replete with talented players, both those who became "Twins Way" guys, as well as with talented, but unwilling to entirely conform guys, that the Twins have shown little ability and failure to learn (ala the Rays) to manage contracts ( and it goes both ways, no one has been held accountable for signing Blackburn long-term when they didn't have to do so- why? because he pitched the Twins Way?)) and gain commensurate value for their best players makes this whole issue NOT petty or contrived.

 

 

Petty and convoluted, not contrived. Petty because it was almost a decade ago and everyone had a chance at him. Convoluted because we don't really know how much longer the Twins would have had him anyway and the overall impact it actually had on the team. Sure we can put forth theories of contracts, etc..but none of that means anything as there's too much time between then and now to know how it all would have played out.

 

 

That's the point I'm trying to make: nothing wrong with being upset about it, but let's keep it in perspective.

 

As for the first paragraph, you're saying I acknowledged much more than I did I my post, putting a ton of words in my mouth, which was simply about flipping players at the end of their contracts.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: Guys. A slippery slope is being descended these last few posts, each time the words are about each other rather than the points you're trying to make. Find better ways to state your positions - it's a matter of fine-tuning.

[Marta Shearing]

Like i said, had ryan been able to properly evaluate Ortiz' talent, they could have offered him a contract similar (likely less) to Hunter's and locked him up another 4-5 years. What kind of stats did he put up from 2003-2007? Who were the Twin's designated hitters those years? Ortiz would have been affordable atleast another four years, so that argument holds no water.

[Kwak]

Like i said, had ryan been able to properly evaluate his own talent, they could have offered him a contract similar (likely less) to Hunter's and locked him up another 4-5 years. What kind of stats did he put up from 2003-2007? Who were the Twin's designated hitters those years? Ortiz would have been affordable atleast another four years, so that argument holds no water.

 

More plausible (and a great deal better than what did happen) Ortiz is tendered and a contract arbitrated for '03, and then repeated for '04, and Boston doesn't have Ortiz in '04--no WS for them! and it's Ortiz batting against Rivera instead of Kubel in the '04 playoffs. Ortiz leaves via free agency after '04 and the Twins reap a nice draft choice in June '05 as compensation!

[Marta Shearing]

Any scenerio would have been an improvent. Sure would have been nice to have him in 2006. Rondell White wouldnt have been signed. No Tyner/Nevin at DH.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Google easily yields yearly MLB nontender lists back to 2003 (the year after Ortiz's). I just looked through them and couldn't really find a player/situation similar to Ortiz 2002. Most of the guys were relief pitchers. Very few were everyday hitters, and I couldn't find any that were as young as Ortiz (entering age-27 season), as good as Ortiz (120 OPS+), and as healthy as Ortiz in the previous season (125 games). There were a few decent players, but most were coming off career-worst years, injuries, and/or were due a lot more money (third time arb). The closest guy to Ortiz was Edwin Encarnacion, who wasn't as good a hitter as Ortiz at age 26, was a third-time arb player (at least 3 times more expensive), and even he wound up signing back with the same team for his age 27 season at a discount over the previous season.

 

Did teams learn from TR's Ortiz mistake? Possibly, but I haven't seen any evidence that guys with Ortiz's combination of age, record, and modest salary were non-tendered before 2002 either. TR may not have been alone in under-valuing Ortiz at the time, but if no other GM has made this particular mistake before or since, it's hard to give TR much sympathy in that regard.

 

It would be interesting to hear some candid thoughts from TR on the subject -- I'm pretty sure it wasn't any one thing, but it would be interesting to hear what the prime factors in the decision were (and what the team has done since to learn from and correct those mistakes):

 

- undervaluing OBP+SLG skills

- undervaluing age

- overvaluing fielding / unwillingness to embrace a young full-time DH

- overvaluing/misdiagnosing health

- manager's doghouse penalty

- overvaluing ~$2 million salary relief

- overvaluing LeCroy

[Kwak]

Google easily yields yearly MLB nontender lists back to 2003 (the year after Ortiz's). I just looked through them and couldn't really find a player/situation similar to Ortiz 2002. Most of the guys were relief pitchers. Very few were everyday hitters, and I couldn't find any that were as young as Ortiz (entering age-27 season), as good as Ortiz (120 OPS+), and as healthy as Ortiz in the previous season (125 games). There were a few decent players, but most were coming off career-worst years, injuries, and/or were due a lot more money (third time arb). The closest guy to Ortiz was Edwin Encarnacion, who wasn't as good a hitter as Ortiz at age 26, was a third-time arb player (at least 3 times more expensive), and even he wound up signing back with the same team for his age 27 season at a discount over the previous season.

 

Did teams learn from TR's Ortiz mistake? Possibly, but I haven't seen any evidence that guys with Ortiz's combination of age, record, and modest salary were non-tendered before 2002 either. TR may not have been alone in under-valuing Ortiz at the time, but if no other GM has made this particular mistake before or since, it's hard to give TR much sympathy in that regard.

 

It would be interesting to hear some candid thoughts from TR on the subject -- I'm pretty sure it wasn't any one thing, but it would be interesting to hear what the prime factors in the decision were (and what the team has done since to learn from and correct those mistakes):

 

- undervaluing OBP+SLG skills

- undervaluing age

- overvaluing fielding / unwillingness to embrace a young full-time DH

- overvaluing/misdiagnosing health

- manager's doghouse penalty

- overvaluing ~$2 million salary relief

- overvaluing LeCroy

If you're waiting for the Twins to accept blame for the Ortiz decision, you will be waiting forever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you're waiting for the Twins to accept blame for the Ortiz decision, you will be waiting forever.

 

Not really waiting for anything, just noting another thing it would be interesting to discuss with TR.

 

I think I know what you are getting at, though: this isn't an organization with many regrets, as long as they do things "their way."

[Alex]

Not really waiting for anything, just noting another thing it would be interesting to discuss with TR.

 

I think I know what you are getting at, though: this isn't an organization with many regrets, as long as they do things "their way."

 

I very much appreciate the research, though I'll admit I'm still confused by the release in terms of the actual transaction. Was it a non-tender situation? I thought it was a release after he passed through waivers?

 

I agree it would be interesting to hear his own reflection on that.

[Alex]

Moderator's note: Guys. A slippery slope is being descended these last few posts, each time the words are about each other rather than the points you're trying to make. Find better ways to state your positions - it's a matter of fine-tuning.

 

My apologies. I could have used a better word than petty, though I still think it's fair to use "convoluted" when we're talking about some very hypothetical and dependent situations that include a lot of if-then (trade value, extensions) 10 years in the past.

[Marta Shearing]

Not really waiting for anything, just noting another thing it would be interesting to discuss with TR.

 

I think I know what you are getting at, though: this isn't an organization with many regrets, as long as they do things "their way."

Well, they do consider themselves the model organization that every other organization tries to emulate.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I very much appreciate the research, though I'll admit I'm still confused by the release in terms of the actual transaction. Was it a non-tender situation? I thought it was a release after he passed through waivers?

 

I guess they were going to non-tender him, but they wanted the 40-man roster spot a few days before the nontender deadline, so they simply released him (which required he pass through release waivers first).

[jokin]

Petty and convoluted, not contrived. Petty because it was almost a decade ago and everyone had a chance at him. Convoluted because we don't really know how much longer the Twins would have had him anyway and the overall impact it actually had on the team. Sure we can put forth theories of contracts, etc..but none of that means anything as there's too much time between then and now to know how it all would have played out.

 

 

That's the point I'm trying to make: nothing wrong with being upset about it, but let's keep it in perspective.

 

As for the first paragraph, you're saying I acknowledged much more than I did I my post, putting a ton of words in my mouth, which was simply about flipping players at the end of their contracts.

 

Contrived or convoluted, either way, in the context of my usages of the words, they were synonymous, and were used condemnatorily on your part towards attacking someone, somehow, for supposedlly coming up with a past-due sour-grapes-gripe-and-grouse, and supposedly for presenting a weak and flimsy case against how TR (mis)-handled the Ortiz affair. The evidence is that quite the opposite was the case. It was apparent to some of us at the time that Ortiz was a TK and Gardy whipping boy, and history has certainly borne it out that of that emergening group, he had the best potential leadership qualities and key-production propsects, therefore, this wasn't contrived or convoluted second-guessing, this was a gaffe of epic proprotions.

 

You can provide grist for the real "reason" for the move if you wish- a) TR blinded by the roster and payroll processes and unable to see the forest for the trees, outright penny-pinching, cc) playing favorites for less tangible reasons than potential production value, ie, absurdly (unjustifiably) deeming Twins Way LeCroy as Ortiz's equivalent value player, d) a mollification of field level coaches by getting rid of a "difficult" player....etc....But none of this ever has, or ever will wash, and misses the greater point.....this was, and is, a justifiable indictment of a too-insular organization that is unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes... (As others have noted, sadly, I doubt that for one moment that they have ever regarded non-tendering and/or releasing Ortiz as a "mistake").

 

Ortiz's public comments concerning how he was coached as a Twin, followed by numerous other ex-Twins before and since, only add to the pile of evidence in the matter. (And this does cause obvious concern with the next wave soon upon us, especially the aleady-identified strong personalities like Sano, Berrios, Gonsalves and Rosario).

[Alex]

Jokin,

 

You did see my apology, right? As I didn't mean to come off as severe as you apparently thought, and I chose the word convoluted carefully as the discussion was branching into, IMO, a lot of unknown hypotheticals about long term contracts and trade results. It was my stance that at the time, they weren't doing/getting much of either for the players listed. I'll agree that's a problem within the organization but it isn't/wouldn't have been unique to Ortiz's had he stayed with the Twins.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said about the Twins or even disagree that the Ortiz handling was a mistake. My opinion is that while by itself it may have been a horrible one it doesn't go as far as franchise ruining or killing, as was mentioned earlier. But, I'd agree that it is symptomatic of some poor organizational practices.

[Marta Shearing]

Maybe not franchise ruining, but their playoff appearances from 2003-2006 could have turned out much differently.

[Alex]

Maybe not franchise ruining, but their playoff appearances from 2003-2006 could have turned out much differently.

 

Possibly, yes.