Arizona's Cautionary Tale

Nicely done - it is similar to the way everyone loves the back up quarterback when things go bad, but seldom does the number two shine when put in the spotlight.  I am like the rest of Twins fans, excited to have new leadership - it at least gives us some hope and TR lost all credibility with most of us.  The question is - does a new leader improve us?  Is the coaching staff changing too?  Is ownership and other upper management ready to change with a new leader?  Nothing is for sure, but at this point any change is better than the rut we are in. 

Standing still and doing nothing is also a choice....when a train is coming at you, it is a bad choice. The premise that somehow changing things is more risky is not backed by facts at all.

On the literal reading side......no, no one wants them to hire people wholly unqualified for the job that have zero experience.

I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good example because many of the moves they made were practically universally hated the moment they occurred.  They were a laughingstock the moment they made the Miller trade, when they sold a pitching prospect, etc.  

 

It wasn't a team just going all in, it was a team who had no idea the value prospects held, and sold them for 25 cents on the dollar.

 

But when you are so singularly focused you risk these sorts of mistakes. There is a lot of chatter here about always trying to win and pushing all your chips in. The problem is that unless you win every move you expose yourself to huge risks with long term ramifications.

I don't think we'll have much fun discussing whether the Twins should avoid not knowing the rules when it comes to trades, international free agents, selling 1st round picks, trading away a top 10 prospect in baseball for a mid rotation starter... because we'll probably have universal agreement

I don't know, we had a 7-10 page thread in which the bulk of the commentators defended the Oakland Donaldson deal.  You'd be surprised what side of things people will stand.  We've also had a near annual "The White Sox are gonna be awesome!" thread.  

There are people that will commend aggression for aggression's sake under the guise of "you should always try to win more games".  I don't think all of Arizona's moves were as clearly mistakes at the time as you seem to think they were. 

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

Your "aim high" analogy makes more sense if you imagine aiming a bazooka at your house to get the bird nesting under the roof.  Yeah, you MAY get the bird, but for sure you're getting your house too.

I appreciate, however, you helping to make the point to alarp that I was just arguing.  Under the guise of suggesting the alternative to spending your assets like a drunk sailor is the Twins nickel and diming, you completely miss that there is a vast middle ground of sanity that is far more advisable.  

I think being a smart GM is a lot like being the smart manager of anything: know when to press and when to back off.  Read the context of your situation and act accordingly.  Always slow-footing and never taking risks isn't reading the context.  Charging like a bull into every opportunity isn't either.

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

I don't think the choices are choosing between going all in and just sitting back. The big issue to me at least is making intelligent and rational decisions and simply advocating change for change sake.

Change for change is a bad thing. Change b/c we've properly identified the problem is not.  I find most people/orgs aren't very good at problem solving personally.  But if you don't understand the actual problem, the solution will almost always make things worse.

I know people are change averse......but everything changes every day. Everything. The inability to adapt to change, and to respond appropriately, that is what we are talking about here, imo. 

Sometimes you should go all in. Sometimes you should be very cautious. Pointing out that AZ shows that change is bad, which is an exaggeration of the OP's point, I think, is harmful to most companies. Companies need to change every day, if you aren't changing, you literally cannot be improving. 

I'm not sure what the OP's point was, exactly. Was it that if you change, things can go badly? Well, sure. Things can also go badly if you sit on your hands and hope things get better. 

One of the things that needs to be mentioned is that there has been a lot of decisions made by the owner (eg, the Greinke and Hale signings) and that is not a good situation.  So a lot of their situation is because of the owners and not their FO...

BTW.  I think that a rebuilding team has no business signing over their prime veterans to multi-year contracts and it would be the worst thing the Twins could do...

BTW.  I think that a rebuilding team has no business signing over their prime veterans to multi-year contracts and it would be the worst thing the Twins could do...

Part of the problem is getting teams to recognize what they are.  How often do we sit here and have to argue that the team should be rebuilding?  Or acting like a rebuilder?  Only to have people pop on and dismiss the notion altogether.

You'll have some that look at any situation, regardless of talent and outlook, and say "78 wins is better than 77, to hell with 2018".  I think that's part of the thinking that was flawed in Arizona.  Again, read your context and understand where to attack to make yourself better.

Part of the problem is getting teams to recognize what they are.  How often do we sit here and have to argue that the team should be rebuilding?  Or acting like a rebuilder?  Only to have people pop on and dismiss the notion altogether.

 

You'll have some that look at any situation, regardless of talent and outlook, and say "78 wins is better than 77, to hell with 2018".  I think that's part of the thinking that was flawed in Arizona.  Again, read your context and understand where to attack to make yourself better.

AZ won a lot last year, made the ridiculous assumption that their players would all get better this year (ignoring what other teams have done, and possible declines in their own players' performances), and decided they needed to trade for and sign SP.

Sounds a lot like what the Twins could have done this off season......and kind of did. It appears the Twins assumed Buxton, Berrios, Sano, Duffey, Rosario would all get better this year.....and that they didn't need to add players. 

similar analyses of flawed teams (plus AZ lost it's best player for most of the year)....