Not sure if this is your research or not, but regardless of who's it is, it's nice work, and they are points worth making. My reaction to this is very much in line with DaveW's response. In my opinion there are about 5 general ways organizations are run in MLB. 1) Acquire talent by spending huge money - Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, etc 2) Acquire talent by spending some money and trading prospects - Detroit, St Louis, Seattle, Toronto, Cubs, etc 3) Acquire talent via the draft - Houston, KC, etc 4) Movers and shakers with no fear - Tampa, Oakland, Atlanta, Miami, etc 5) The rest. Depending on the year, some teams go about thing slightly differently, but the teams I've listed have been fairly consistent with their approaches. The Twins are firmly in group 5. Group 5 is boring. Group 5 is frustrating. Which isn't to say that it can't work, but given the results from the last 15 years... good sometimes, bad sometimes, never great, it feels like maybe it's time to mix it up a little. I feel like in the last few offseasons they've maybe tried to mix it up. Hughes, Nolasco, Santana were all brought in on free agent contracts that, at the time, were the largest we've handed out. It helped improve an atrocious rotation. But results have been I'd say average. They've traded players, who were either still under team control or had very team friendly contracts (Span, Revere, Hicks). I wasn't a fan of the Hicks trade, but the jury is still out. The others I think we'd say have been relatively poor. At the end of the day, we've been in group 5 for so long that management just isn't that good at dipping its toe in the other groups. Terry Ryan is used to Group 5. Group 5 is safe. Group 5 doesn't get people fired. Terry Ryan is actually not bad at Group 5. But is Group 5 going to get us where we all want to be?