Commitment Issues

Actually, we are discussing if/when a team should go all in, or go all out. I put a small parenthetical in one post among several, saying I thought the Twins could have acquired Tulo last year. I'm willing to concede that was a bad idea.

 

Can we now return to the point of the thread?

What about Lucroy?  Would that have been a good idea?  What trade that actually happened would have been a good move for the Twins?   We would all like to trade for a great player without trading great prospects.  That is the fallacy that always exists in these discussions.

Colorado got better prospects by taking on Reyes and his salary than they would have had they not done that.  The Twins could've taken on the entire Tulo contract and sent back lesser prospects. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that.  

The Twins have gotten equivalent production from the SS position without taking on the $22M in salary and therefore don't have what will likely be another contract like Mauer's on the books until 2021.  That money instead can be used for a productive FA once the team is once again contending or to keep our key players long-term. Think Royals with the ability to go out an add another key piece through FA.  I am not sure what's difficult to understand about that. 

Colorado got better prospects by taking on Reyes and his salary than they would have had they not done that.  The Twins could've taken on the entire Tulo contract and sent back lesser prospects. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that.  

They had Tulo on the market for months. It wasn't about the money, it was about getting the best possible prospects back.  They traded a star, they needed a future star

 

IMO, and YMMV of course, trading prospects for RP with multiple years of control, but not wanting to sign such pitchers (the whole point of the thread).....that seems like an odd strategy to me.

Players under team control are much cheaper. Before you say Jepson remember that he was dur to be a free agent after this season.

When did we start discussing Lucroy on this thread? I am baffled by this entire part of the conversation, since, that's not what the thread is about. It is about the consistency of the approach and the process of rebuilding this roster. If we want to revisit points I've already conceded, we can do that.......If a team had dealt for Lucroy last year, it would have cost less than it will this year, and they'd have him and his results for the year......

 

A good trade last year? Either trading for RP sooner, or not dealing for only 1, would have been better than what they did, imo. 

 

I don't know......it is super, super, super unlikely that acquiring help last year would have made a difference, other than the bullpen (which many pointed out as a weakness before the year started) and a CF option.....neither of which they did.

 

IMO, and YMMV of course, trading prospects for RP with multiple years of control, but not wanting to sign such pitchers (the whole point of the thread).....that seems like an odd strategy to me.

I have said all along (look back) that the question right now is not if the team has a problem with making a big deal but should the team be making a big deal.  These deals have either happened or have been proposed here.  Is it not relevant to ask if they would have been positive long-term deals for this organization.  The whole point is that there is a lot of complaining here about something the Twins wont do when if fact they should not being doing that type of deal right now.  What's the problem?  Fans want it right now and many are obviously willing to throw away the future for instant gratification.  

Complain If they don't do anything when they get into contention but to complain now is ridiculous.  Yes, they have not made this type of deal in the past but they also did not sign $180M extensions in the past either.  There is a good chance Ryan won't even be here when they are in contention.  So, why all the belly aching now?  

Maybe the problem is my expectation of fans being reasonable when the term fan is derived from fanatic.

How did he build around them? By ignoring the bullpen, littering the rotation with overpriced #4/ 5 starters.  Where did extending Phil Hughes with 2 years left on his deal fall in building around Buxton/Sano?  I could go on but I think you've got the point.  

 

The Twins haven't won a single playoff game in 12 seasons, and are about to lose 90 for the 5th time in 6 years.  If you think a GM who has been around for 20 years deserves MORE time, we probably aren't going to agree on much.  

 

In what other sport or what other organization would a front office be allowed to continue after showing this level of incompetence over such an extended period of time?

So hold up here.  You can have a plan (build around Buxton and Sano, duct tape until then) and still alter the timeline along the way as might happen if you break a wrist or tear a UCL.  When you have a delay you get place holders.  

Why would he surround Buxton and Sano with MLB ready talent now?  They're not ready.  Which is why I said let's see what happens this year, and expect to compete next year.  

How exactly has extending Hughes hurt the team?  His injury perhaps.  He's out for the year and his innings are going to Tommy Milone because May is just average, Meyer is broken, Berrios isn't up yet, etc.  We've given May and Berrios the opportunity to stick.  Neither ran with it.  Other players have, like Rosario, Kepler, etc. and we've fixed them in the roster and moved vets aside, like Hunter at the end of last year.  

I'm just saying if you're still agreeing with the general plan and not calling for a build from scratch moment...  I mean, aren't you curious to see if the team can turn things around and build off the decent end to the first half?

Wait, we gave MAY the opportunity to stick?  Are we talking rotation here?

Best FIP in the rotation when he was demoted, best K/9IP when demoted,  2nd best BB/9 when demoted, 2nd best xFIP when demoted. Most WAR when demoted.  3rd most WAR as a starter for the whole season even though he only started 15 games.

All that while having a .344 BABIP against (.300 is average).  Meaning that was due to regress (we all got a taste of regression with Santana) which helps the other numbers.

And he got demoted

Berrios got FOUR starts.  I guess Chargois got his chance to stick too.

Yet Rosario was able to stick, a guy who can't even get on base 26% of the time and has an OPS in the low .600 playing a corner OF spot....

As far as ''Which is why I said let's see what happens this year, and expect to compete next year.'  We've been reading that quote for a few years now and I'm guessing next year we'll see the game quote.  Goal posts keep moving.

I am curious to see what 2017 and 2018 look like. Why would I want Terry Ryan to be in charge of those teams when he's proven over 21 seasons he isn't up to the task.  Why can't I be curious without him around?

So that I get.  I mean if it's more of a body of work thing and not a "fire him because his team did worse than expected this year" thing.  To me, it just seems that a lot of posters wanting change at the top would just basically follow the plan Ryan is following anyway.  I don't think firing Ryan based on his overall record and failure this season would be unwarranted.  I just think it would be an odd move if we plan on still following the current diagram.  Basically, I'm not convinced the plan won't work, if you're upset that it could take a year or half a year longer than hoped to get results, I can't blame you.  To me, I'm fine being a little patient, and feel we have little reason to change until we see what Ryan does at the deadline, through waivers, and off-season.  If you say the plan took too long and it's Ryan's fault, then fire him.  If you think his plan was awful anyway, then fire him.  I tend to think he was holding the team together with staples and duct tape, it all came undone this season, but if Hughes, Santana, Perk and Jepsen could have kept it together for one more season, or if certain youngsters would have stepped up, then perhaps we would have had a nice bridge into next season rather than just having to endure.  

if you want to compete next year....where does the talent come from, if they aren't here this year? Are you expecting a bunch of minor league callups to produce next year?

 

if you are going to argue May got a shot, we'll disagree, see the post after you with all the stats. 

The usual methods I'd think.  Many of the pieces may be on the team.  Several might be added through trades and free agency.  A couple maybe from the farm.  A couple from FA, probably a little from the DL...  

How has May not had shot?  He's been with the team steadily for 2 years.  He's made a roll for himself and stuck.  Sure I'd like to see him get another shot at the rotation, but that's not up to Ryan, and I strongly suspect he'd end up in the same spot.  

Remember the original premise is that the plan is Buxton and Sano (with Berrios and Kepler probably).  If they're All-Stars or gold glove winners next season, we've made enormous upgrades.  The rotation may still need some help, but a full year of Duffey (if he keeps learning), and Berrios makes the whole rotation look a lot better.

I'm not saying that we will contend next season.  I said I'm not convinced we won't, and unless we've lost faith in the plan (Bux and Sano) then we might as well see if it actually works before blowing everything up.

Twins have many more starting pitcher prospects in the mid minors than almost any other club.  How will they turn out, I do not claim to know, but most of them should be here in 2018.  A couple of years later than expected due to injuries but that is life.  Except for catcher and Polanco's final position, we seem to have most of the team here as far as position players go. 

Only thing I want to see work out is to trade some of the higher priced players at this time, spend money in the offseason on a catcher if you feel that is the need(also some bullpen types)  and prepare to sign an ace in the 2017 or 2018 offseason.  By that time most of Mauer's money will be off the books and most of the young players will not be having big paydays yet, so there is a window there.

TR has proven to be able to change, so despite this year being disappointing, timeline has just moved back a bit.

If you bring in a new GM, that person might feel they have to change things, and that does not have to be for the better.

Now in the off chance that all but one of the younger pitchers fail, that is a different issue, then you are talking about evaluating and drafting talent.  That is what you change GM's for.

I agree it is more of a body of work thing. I do have a strong bias towards someone who is not stuck in his ways, who constantly leans along with the competition, stays current, and is willing to alter his approach when something is not working.

That is my opinion in life, not just for a baseball GM. Let's just say Terry Ryan has never really provided that warm fuzzy feeling in that regard.

Ryan should have known the Twins of 2015 were not going to win the World Series. 

The plan has been to shoot for 2017 and beyond.

Trading away any 2017 asset for 2015 was stupid.

You have to know the timing of your team - Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, ......

The Jepsen trade was done by a GM who either feels the pressure to get into the playoffs for his ego or truely doesn't understand about team construction timing.

A few years ago Theo Epstein traded away his best pitcher who still had another year and a half on his contract to get a top prospect (who played last night at SS). He knew his team timing was for 2016 and beyond.

No he didn't. King Theo was ready to rock and roll in 2015.

The question you have to answer before asking why they did not attempt such a trade is should they have been in the Price/Hamels market?  When you say “they   Thompson is a top 50 SP prospect.  Williams is #58 and Alfaro is a catcher ranked #86 prospect.  It would have taken Berrios, Kepler, and one other top 100 ranked plus a couple lower ranked guys like Chin-Wei Hu to equate to what the Rangers gave in trade. 

 

Are you really saying the team should have considered such a move when it is obvious they were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention?  Should they have given up the very players that likely get them to contention to be a little better for 3 years if he does not regress as he will be 35 at the end of the contract.

 

I would prefer 6 years of Kepler + 6 years or Berrios + 6 years of Gordon or Jay or whoever else it would have taken for 6 years, plus the $67.5M over 3 years that could be spent on a very good FA SP.   I just don’t understand why so many posters here want us to give away our future for a player that makes us a little better than the terrible team we are now.  It’s a very good way to stay bad or mediocre.  I really don’t think there is not a GM in baseball that would consider this trade for 30 seconds given the Twins status.

Bingo!