Do the Twins Have One of Baseball’s Best Front Offices?

19 minutes ago, nova_twins said:

Most fans don't have the knowledge or intellectual capability to evaluate MLB front offices. 

Not to mention the decisions themselves - front offices have access to vastly greater amounts of information than fans do. 

Given those underlying realities, the survey results seem valid to me - baseball execs are a small group that know each other fairly well.

Hi, Thad

On a bell curve, #8/30 is above average, not elite. Maybe top 3-4 would be elite. 

Above average FO, below average ownership, arguably below average luck, the results have been pretty much what should be expected.

Another ignored element of this is that Falvine agreed not to clean house when they arrived. That added significant extra challenges, but as part of a longer term philosophy that predated them. 

I saw the title of this article and started laughing.  This is such a divisive discussion amongst Twins fandom it almost feels like a click-bait article. 

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

From the same author, recently no less:

 

I wouldn't be hanging my hat on those numbers. I don't even know what they represent. But the Twins 20 is far from the Dodgers point total. And the fact they're tied for 8th place total is closer to whoever is 30th than it is 1st. It also looks like one can be good at identifying evaluating and developing talent. But what puts the Dodgers in a different stratosphere is an owner who is willing to spend. And the Rays counterpunching back and saying, now hold on a minute. And @USAFChief. Thank you for pointing out this article. Which is hilariously being used by both sides of the discussion. 

I was a big fan of this FO. IMO they have handled pitching pretty well. The pipeline although has been slow to develop & so far the top product has been Ober & they have tweaked quite a few outside pitchers to benefit us. The usage is trending the right way. 

A couple of things I dislike the most. 1st thing is that they are tight-lipped when you don't want them to be & open their mouth when they shouldn't (ex: shifting Graterol to pen before trading him). 2nd is they never admit to their mistakes & always double down. IMO a good FO says the buck stops here.

MN has always maintained a good culture even before Falvey. This is the main reason that separates MN from the rest of the teams. This FO has been pretty lucky in other teams approaching them w/ decent trades. What makes me nervous is when nobody is offering any good trades, this FO is terrible in initiating trades & seems to be a target if a team wants to unload (a) player(s).

Analytics are a good thing but if your philosophy is off (all or nothing high priority- defense & small baseball not important) analytics won't help you (poor player evaluations & development go hand in hand with this). You also have to know when to go with your gut. I have been patient w/ them & if you don't care about competing at the top level they are fine. But if you want a World Series team we need to go elsewhere.

I don't understand how people are beefing with this article. The Twins are tied for eight place, with less than half of the points of the teams ahead of them with zero 1st place votes. 

Based on success in the past five and a fifth years, this front office is objectively better than the FOs of the White Sox, Tigers, Royals, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Mets, Marlins, Pirates, Cubs, Reds, Giants, and Rockies. That's 15 teams, at least, that the Twins are better than.

Then, you have the Padres, Yankees, and Phillies, who have spent oodles of money and made risky trades in search of a World Series they haven't won. Also, the Nationals haven't done squat in the last 4 years, and the Astros have a brand-new coach and a 2nd year GM while being one of the worst teams in baseball so far this year.

That leaves the Twins and nine other FOs (Orioles, Rays, Guardians, Rangers, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks) at the top. Seems pretty reasonable to be ranked 8th or 9th. 

12 hours ago, HoskenPowell said:

How much $$$ is tied up in Farmer?????   Should have been spent on a starter.

About $6M or enough to get a terrible starting pitcher.

No. A strong organization builds on what they have to get stronger. This season we had a chance at building a stronger pitching staff. But instead they let Gray go to save money hoping Varland would step in. He wasn't ready. So we took a step backwards. They just do what the Pohlads allow and that is to make money and not focus on going deep in the playoffs. That's why they hired Rocco. He is a "Yes" man who won't rock the boat. So if making money is the standard they are good. If going deep in the playoffs then not so much.

8 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

2025:

Lee - Correa - Julien - Kirilloff/Miranda…IF

Lewis - Buxton/Castro - Larnach/Martin…OF

Jeffers/Vazquez

Farmer - Santana - Kepler salaries gone and a budget increase of $20M to high $140’s …that’s $42M to spend to supplement the rotation & DH or OF spot.

Rotation is more than competitive & Pen is solid.

I do not see why, with decent health, the club as assembled would not be competitive for the AL Pennant?

Is this delusional?

Question. Where do you get the payroll (budget) increase number from? 

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Most fans have EVERYTHING they need to evaluate a front office.

The Twins front office has mediocre as a ceiling for their successes so far, which is why they're on the final year of their contracts and the hot seat for their jobs.
 

You are right, we have decades of watching the Pohlads operate. That is why you should reevaluate your evaluation. Their seats aren't even slightly warm. 

Case in point, DSP's continued employment. Once the Pohlads pick you, you are very picked.

21 hours ago, ashbury said:

Not much substance to the article, but that's okay, it's a subjective topic in the first place. 

My main reaction is that IF they're one of the best, and haven't come particularly close to winning a World Series in 7 seasons, it just demonstrates what an unlevel playing field the smaller markets compete on.  Six different franchises have won the WS in those 7 seasons, suggesting a certain kind of competitive balance.  But only Washington is even close to what is meant by "mid-market" these days.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned and need to adjust my rooting interest.  I should pick a sentimental team, as the Twins are, and then pick a second team to follow that actually has a chance.

Meanwhile, good luck, FalVine.  Front offices have gotten smarter during my lifetime* and the latitude for being significantly better gets smaller every year.

* I take only a little credit 😀

The winning a world series metric has become an idealistic measure over the past 20 years.  There have been two teams in the bottom half of revenue to win the WS over that period of time and none since Falvey took over.  KC got there by being terrible for a very long time.

If we use 92+ win seasons.  There has only been (41) 92+ win seasons among the bottom 16 revenue in the past 20 years.  26 of them were produced by Cleveland (7), Tampa Bay (6), Oakland (5), Twins (4) and Brewers (4).   The other 11 teams managed a grand total of (15) 92+ win seasons.  That's 15 seasons out of a possible 300.  Teams in the bottom half of revenue have won 92+ games in 13% of all seasons.

Maybe we should all pick a 2nd team.  I just accept the reality that it's far from a level playing field.

I would say they are middle of the pack. They have done enough good things that they are certainly above many teams but have made enough mistakes/deficiencies that they can’t be considered one of the best. 

Wasn't going to comment other than my short LOL on page 1 but I just can't get past the lunacy of signing players like Gallo, Santana and Margot and the trading for injured pitchers that happens WAY to often. Add in the acquisition of 1 year wonders like JLopez, and the crop of bullpen arms they went after this off-season and IMO they take too many chances on players that have no consistant track record. Last but not least is the spreadsheet culture and platoon to death or pinch-hit at all costs avenue they have committed to that doesn't really equate into anything but inconsistancy on the field. Do you know how to have players never learn how to hit against an opposite handed pitcher? ....... By never giving them enough opportunities to do so.

On 5/4/2024 at 8:16 PM, chpettit19 said:

 I don't believe their strategies will lead to a World Series, but do believe they'll continue to fight for central titles. 

Do they build winning teams or not?

Which of the teams in the bottom half of revenue do you believe are following strategies more likely to produce a WS winner?  Based on previous posts I am assuming you believe spending and therefore spending capacity influences winning.  They obviously can't follow the Dodger's strategy, so, which team with the same spending capacity would you prefer they follow?

Should they follow the strategies of the teams that have had a better win record since 2017?

25 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Trading for extreme injury risk pitchers because they'll be "cheaper."

Extreme platooning.

Prioritizing short side platoon bats over everyday players. 

Strict 50/50 catcher split when 1 catcher is clearly significantly better. 

Refusing to move on from veterans until August in the name of depth to not risk a bad young player being forced into that spot being held by a bad old player.

Building a team that relies on full health so each piece can be perfectly fit into their specific role in order to succeed. 

None of those are spending capacity based, but yes, spending more does help. That's an owner thing, though, so not something I brought up. There's plenty of baseball strategy things that have nothing to do with spending that I disagree with, though.

I understand you would manage the team differently but that's not at all what I asked.   I asked what team is employing strategies that would be more likely to lead to a WS.  You have stated repeatedly that's all you care about so it seems appropriate to ask what team is following strategies that promote this goal unless you don't believe any team in the bottom half of revenue understands how to build a WS winner. 

BTW ... spending ability is not an "owner thing".  It's a revenue thing.  It would be so great if a TD writer would put together a comparison of payroll as a percentage of revenue.  Then, we would know just exactly how the Pohlad's rank in terms willingness to spend.

Again, the question is which team(s) are following strategies more likely to produce a WS winner.  Is there a team we should follow or is there not a single team in the bottom half of revenue that understands how to build a WS winner?