Your Turn: What Do You Want From A GM?

I guess I find some of this amusing.  On one end, we castigate the Hughes extension and Nolasco signing (side note, Nolasco was one of the more desired FAs of his class with the most coveted guy being our own Ervin Santana).  On the other, we want them to go out and get guys.  FA pitching rarely works.  For that matter, big FA contracts rarely work. We were in that situation to begin with due to the farm system's failure to produce decent pitching, and I really think a replacement for TR goes back to finding someone who can draft and develop decent players, with a big focus on the development given the sheer number of young players in the majors or high minors right now.

Plug a hole or three with FAs, not build the team out of free agents. 80% of the SP were FA or a guy they got for Sam Fuld........Also, it isn't their job to sign FAs, it is their job to sign the right FAs more than they sign the bad FAs.

It isn't just process that matters......

There don't appear to be many TR supporters on this thread, saying they pretty much want TR, or someone like him. I think those that want him gone are just talking to each other on this thread, and most of what is interesting to say has already been said.

Basically, I want a leader that knows that the world changes, and that to stay on top you need to innovate and either change with the times, or ahead of them. One that knows that it isn't good to have pretty much only people that grew up in your company in leadership positions, that you need to bring in outside ways of thinking and doing from time to time. One that communicates well to employees, and has a clear plan for them to execute.

I could go on and on, but what I want is a modern executive, that knows about baseball. There are dozens of pages on the internet about leadership and strategy and innovation. I want a leader that embraces much of those ideals.

Man do I hate being late to the part. Especially on a thread like this. Thank you Seth for posting such a wel, thought out piece. (As well as establishing the appropriate parameters)

A lot of tremendous thought here, and I would expect nothing less from the TD family. A special shout out to Rosterman, Levi and Brian for some lengthy, smart and well thought out ideas. I'm sure I'll repeat a lot of ideas here, but then again, they are things I think.

I have to say, ideally, it might be best to hire a president first, let him oversee the organization and then make his GM hire. But we are talking about GM here, so I will concentrate on that aspect.

BACKGROUND:

My choice doesn't have to have been a GM before. I honestly feel the Twins job would be a hot one. Call me crazy, and some will, but despite at least some financial restrictions that an LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, etc don't have, I've never really felt that Twins ownership didn't care. Nor have I ever felt they were as tight fisted or cheap as been alleged at times. Conservative and prudent, sometimes too much so, yes. But, IMO, when the Twins had a team that could compete, they have stepped up the payroll. While certain signings and extensions the past few years have been perhaps misguided, they did step up.

A new GM will have solid ownership, if not ideal ownership. He will have one of the best facilities in all of baseball. He has a tremulous facility in Ft Myers and one of the best milb systems around.

But despite my belief this is a great opportunity, I almost don't want a GM who has held the title before. Just my opinion, but I don't know if an Epstien would come here vs a top market. Also, if a former GM is available, there must be a reason. Yes? I'd prefer a younger GM open to new ideas who has been the right hand man in a quality, we'll run organization the past few years. Some mention the Cardinals, Cubs and Ray's as examples. My hope is he would have held positions with at least one additional organization to bring different ideas and perspectives with him.

He doesn't have to be a traditional "scout". He just has to be well organized and a good overall baseball guy who is good and smart with people. Part of his job is to NOT be the be-all and end-all, but to surround himself with good people.

ON THE FIELD:

I want him to embrace the complete package. Baseball has changed over the years, especially with new stadiums and inter-league play. It used to be teams tailored their teams to their home stadium in many ways; turf vs grass, size of stadium, stadium dimensions, etc. I don't believe this is nearly as true as it used to be.

Despite being very different sports on the surface, I feel there are a lot of parallels between makes a quality football team as well as a quality baseball team. Excelling in a single aspect of your game, or two, isn't enough to consistently win or be competitive for potential championships. I want a GM who believes in a balanced and deep roster. Not everyone has to be a slugger, or a Gold Glover, etc. A roster should be built with versatility, while embracing all aspects of power, hitting, defense, OB, speed, pitching, etc. In other words, not a hodge-podge of 1B and DH types and just tell your manager and coaches to figure it out.

My GM also has to have a manager who communicates well, uses his entire roster, is not afraid of some of today's metrics... (though I simply don't believe metrics are tell the whole story)...and embraces such simple things as platoon/match up situations, advancing runners, guys knowing their roles, etc. Sounds strange to say, but I want a young TK as a manager.

THE DRAFT AND PLAYER DEVELOPMENT:

Like the construction of the ML team, the draft should also be handled with a sense of variety and "completeness". While each draft is different...stronger in certain aspects, stronger in HS vs college talent...the BPA is always a great approach. Especially in baseball where you already know that you have a bit of a crapshoot as to will actually "make it", and it will take years before a prospect to reach the majors. But as much as possible, try to split your draft between HS and college talent, position players and pitching.

The past few years, the Twins have moved on from "solid" pitchers who had the potential to maybe move quickly, to more power arms. A late development to be sure, but a step in the right direction. Not every arm has to throw 95, but you can teach pitching, but you can't teach velocity.

Every year, I think a flyer or two should be taken on an out of slot, potentially hard to sign prospect. You take a shot every year on a guy or two like this, you will get at least a couple signed. They could make a difference.

My well organized GM will make sure that the guys he has running the minors, and coaching in the minors, all share similar ideas and philosophies. EVERYTHING from how my players stretch, to how they travel, to hitting and pitching approach, is the same at every level. This provides continuity and familiarity and helps not only with development, but with advancement to the next level.

While every prospect is different in their development, I agree with a more aggressive promotional approach in the lower levels. Promote, develop and challenge. If promotions slow down a bit, it should be at the AA and AAA level.

MEDIA AND RELATIONS:

Just be transparent. Just be honest and up front about things. I don't need a spin doctor telling me good we could be, or pat yourself on the back for some milb signing. If you have a plan, an idea, a thought, just be honest and transparent. NOTE* honestly, as fans, we want to know everything we can. That doesn't mean we HAVE to know everything. Just don't BS us.

FREE AGENCY:

Simple, aND as already stated, go in big for the 1 or 2 guys who can actually make a difference. But enough with mediocre moves. Despite the 20/20 results, initially, taken by themselves, there was nothing wrong with the Nolasco, Hughes or Santana signings. The problem is all 3 of them. Not only could that money have been spent elsewhere now, but it's currently handcuffing efforts to move them and move forward.

Keep dumpster diving. My new GM would still take flyers on guys for middle relief and bench spots. He would look for guys coming off injury, or former quality prospects who didn't cut it. These are cheap flyers, and once in a while you get lucky. You don't build a team this way, but you do find solid, helpful options here and there.

THE CURRENT SITUATION:

This is hugely disappointing, to say the least. I agree with the statement previously that Ryan should just own it and tell the Pohlad's as much. As much as possible, July 1st if not sooner, this should be about 2017 and beyond.

If Ryan wants a legacy and feel good exit, he should do everything he can to trade, bargain, dump veteran players and contracts to clear the way for the future of the franchise, and help pave the way for a big second half influx of Twins youth.

I agree that trading for even more prospects may not be the right move necesarilly. But what if it were possible to acquire a decent bullpen arm or solid catcher? That could actually help.

I'm sure the Pohlads, like any sports owner, wouldn't be crazy about eating contracts. But not only is it the cost of doing business sometimes, but it changes the roster dynamic for the future with players, in most cases, earning the minimum.

I admit, I'm really disappointed in Molitor. It will be up to my new GM as to who the best man is to lead my team. But Molitor, as a player, was all about hustle and execution. I'm just not seeing his intensity reflected on this squad. And considering his previous coaching stink and knowledge of so many of our prospects, I'm really frustrated and disappointed how he's handled many of them. He may not have made this mess, but I also don't think he's handled this year, or his players, in the right way.

It seems to me the topic at hand is what are the requirements for a (possibly) new GM, not a rehash of the mistakes of the past.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent.

Diehard,

I think we need to take a step back. We are middle ground in terms of payroll and you probably only have 6-8 teams with a real definitive leg up there. So the other 22-24 are looking at the same draft pool, international pool, and free agent pool. The fact is we are 29th in wins since 2011 even with a middle-ish payroll.

So it isn't as simple as darned if I do, darned if I don't. The other teams are making better decisions about players to acquire or doing a better job developing them after they do (or both).

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't think it means what you think it means.  You won't be going out and getting that 150M FA (and for the record, I'm not sure that's the right approach anyways as those contracts rarely work out).  I've also noted that there's a huge contradictory view here on TD about FAs in general.  No one respects the fact that when you guarantee a contract, that means the guy is going to be around.  This isn't the NFL where we can just cut Rickey after two years of non-performance.  He signed a 48M deal, and he's going to get paid that regardless. There's a time and a place for cutting loose (and I think we are getting very close with Nolasco), but one or two FAs, even well placed ones, won't fix this mess.  And yes, to a good number of posters on this site, I really do think it's as simple as darned as you do and darned as you don't (to be PC).  You may not be one of them, but let's not pretend that this is non-existent on these forums.  There's plenty of it here, and it's pretty obvious.

I have stated that the focus needs to be on drafting/development.  The Twins haven't been that bad in the drafting/signing area really since Bill Smith.  Development is a different issue, and I've been without question rather critical of Gardenhire in that area, and I'm really not a fan of how Molitor is doing it thus far either.  I realize that those aren't the only two involved in the process, and perhaps there does need to be fundamental changes at the coaching levels all throughout the system.  I don't really know; I'm no expert there.

I do take issue with the idea that everyone is making better decisions.  That's definitely true in some cases, but every team makes minor league signings.  Only on TD do we complain about that.  Just about every team does the dumpster dive/scrap heap signing.  Only on TD do we complain about that.  We ignore the ones that work (Abad) and complain about the process when it doesn't.  Every team has people complaining about how fast/slow prospects get promoted, and somehow on TD we complain about both, despite the evidence showing that the Twins tend to be on the fast side of that. 

There's definitely some better decisions to be made here (I've stated on many occasions where I am with those), but based on all those plans we wrote out in November, we'd all still be looking at this same train wreck, with perhaps a few more wins at best.  So yeah, I'll reiterate what I've said previously in that we really need to approach this with a little bit of humility. 

Do you think knowing the internal workings is needed, or do you think we could use standings to evaluate?

 

One of 5 teams that haven't won a playoff game in 11 years, and the 29th best record in baseball over the past 5.  If we aren't allowed to use that to assess, what can we use? What would you consider poor performance if this doesn't qualify?

To an extent you have a point (particularly the 11 year metric), but 29th in baseball over the last 5 ignores how long it takes to rebuild a franchise, especially since that really didn't start moving forward till 2013. 

To an extent you have a point (particularly the 11 year metric), but 29th in baseball over the last 5 ignores how long it takes to rebuild a franchise, especially since that really didn't start moving forward till 2013. 

How long should it take? When do we get to judge the number of 90 loss seasons as too many? I just want to know, because the goal posts seem to move a lot.

How long should it take? When do we get to judge the number of 90 loss seasons as too many? I just want to know, because the goal posts seem to move a lot.

This, 100x this. We are now in the 6th year of the "rebuild" and things have actually gotten worse (we are going to lose 100+ most likely)

Some people might toss out the Pittsburgh and KC examples, but those are the exceptions to the rule and those 20+ year droughts were HUGE failures during that time.