JB_Iowa

I missed that LEN3 comment but I keep going back in my mind to the Sinker report of the October 1 phone call with season ticket holders when Gardenhire indicated that they are missing a veteran leader in the clubhouse "Fan tells Gardy his team lacks clubhouse leader. Gardy: Just because you're a veteran doesn't mean you're a leader. We're in search of that." I'm not putting all of this on Mauer. I don't think he can change his personality but I also don't think it brings much energy to his teammates. I remember a story from a few years ago when even Morneau said they didn't see much of Joe on road trips -- he tended to hole up by himself (presumably studying batters as I recall the implication.) I really hoped that Morneau could regain his health and become that clubhouse leader they needed but it just never seemed to happen. It is one of the things I hope they look for in a trade or free agency (and one of the things I think they do miss in Cuddy). It is also one reason I have some hesitation about trading Perkins because he does seem to provide leadership in the bullpen although that may not translate to the clubhouse overall.

Great post, JC. Thanks.

I've really never posted to this thread but thought about it as I was looking at strikeout numbers this morning. We all know that Twins pitchers struck out the fewest batters this year but did you know that: -they struck out 99 less than the Astros (the 2nd lowest AL team)? -American League teams averaged 1235.74 strikeouts per pitching corps while NL teams averaged 1211.66? (remarkably similar) -the variation from the average in the AL was incredible -- the Twins were 250 SO's below the average while the Tigers were 192 above the average; the NL was much more "compact" with the Rockies being 147 below the average and the Reds were 84 above -the Yankees were the "mean" in the AL with 1233 while the D'Backs were the mean in the NL with 1218 (the mean in both leagues was surprisingly close to the average in both leagues). -the pitching staffs of the remaining four playoff teams struck out: Tigers (1428); Red Sox (1294); Dodgers (1292); Cards (1254); the teams that lost earlier in the playoffs/wild cards/playin games lost: Reds (1296); Pirates (1261); Braves (1232); Indians (1379); Rays (1310) -Braves at 1232 had the lowest number of strikeouts of any playoff team Disclaimer: I took the figures from baseball reference and think I got all of them from the Pitching column not the batting column. If I screwed up on any of them, I apologize. Raw numbers: [TABLE=width: 128] [TD=width: 64]Twins[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]985[/TD] Astros[TD=align: right]1084[/TD] Orioles[TD=align: right]1169[/TD] A's[TD=align: right]1183[/TD] Angels[TD=align: right]1200[/TD] Royals[TD=align: right]1208[/TD] Jays[TD=align: right]1208[/TD] Yankees[TD=align: right]1233[/TD] White Sox[TD=align: right]1249[/TD] Red Sox[TD=align: right]1294[/TD] Mariners[TD=align: right]1297[/TD] Rangers[TD=align: right]1309[/TD] Rays[TD=align: right]1310[/TD] Indians[TD=align: right]1379[/TD] Tigers[TD=align: right]1428[/TD] Rockies [TD=align: right] 1064[/TD] Brewers[TD=align: right]1125[/TD] Padres[TD=align: right]1171[/TD] Marlins[TD=align: right]1177[/TD] Cubs[TD=align: right]1184[/TD] Phillies[TD=align: right]1199[/TD] Mets[TD=align: right]1209[/TD] D'Backs[TD=align: right]1218[/TD] Braves[TD=align: right]1232[/TD] Nats[TD=align: right]1236[/TD] Cardinals[TD=align: right]1254[/TD] Giants[TD=align: right]1256[/TD] Pirates[TD=align: right]1261[/TD] Dodgers[TD=align: right]1292[/TD] Reds[TD=align: right]1296[/TD] [/TABLE]

His wife needs to get him on her running program ASAP.

What difference does it make WHAT the system is? It's not working.

Another take on the salary issue: Cardinals, Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers prove payrolls still matter - MLB - Ben Reiter - SI.com I had read the Jaffe article on payroll equality earlier so it was nice to see SI do a follow-up on advancing in the playoffs.

Thanks for the chuckles and smiles. Wish I had started my morning with this article!!

Pilgrim, you are right and that's why, unfortunately, I think a lot of it does come down to money (I wasn't really arguing with you Puck, just trying to clarify). The Rays, Oakland and the 2002-2009 Twins were all praised as having success on low budgets -- and they did. But the fact is that without the extra $$$, their success generally ends/ended early in the playoffs. I think that down the road the Twins have the ability to add pieces that could push them to a little more playoff success but they'll have to take some risks as well. My big issue is that I don't trust Terry Ryan to do that but we've been over that ad nauseum. But before they even reach that point, I want to be sure that the Twins STAY a mid-market team in revenue and part of that is to put a good enough product on the field that they can continue to draw close to 3 million even in down years (and that is a concern since attendance fell below 2.5 million this year per ESPN). It is a tricky balance -- and one that requires some on-the-field success even while rebuilding so that attendance and revenues don't nosedive before the prospects "arrive".

What we're looking at here is long-term strategy/success, isn't it? Not just a return to relevance next year? All of these threads are starting to run together for me because it seems like it is coming down to $, $, $. And, if so, isn't the question whether the Twins can be -- and STAY -- a mid-market team rather than fall into the bottom tier in revenue? And if they can do so, how do they translate that revenue (that is certainly greater than that of the A's, Rays, etc.) into success knowing that they will NEVER be in the same revenue category as the Yankees, Red, Sox, Dodger, etc. Part of it may well be revisiting the 50% rule (or 52% or 54%) so that becomes an average over a period of years (7-10) rather than the "rule" for A particular year. If, in these years of futility, they said that they were harboring dollars for "better days" so they could really make a run when prospects arrive, I'd could accept that but it has never been their business model and it still isn't something that they talk about.

GREAT post, Siehbiscuit. While I agree with mikewantswins that each team has to find their own path to success, there are obviously some strategies that the Twins could adopt from the Cards (and some other teams). I was struck again, this morning, though by the "Money Factor". Before the playoffs began, SI had an article about how this year's playoff roster was the lowest average payroll. And that was true when the playoffs began. But when you look at where we are at going into the Division Series, we have 3 of the top 5 payrolls in baseball and the Cardinals at #11. It seems to me that the Braves' success is very similar to that of the Twins. A lot of regular season success but limited playoff success (although not quite as dismal in the 1st round as the Twins). The Cards seem to have been able to move beyond that. Although they have a bit more revenue than the Twins, its not so much as to put them into a different tier. It would be well worth it to study some of their strategies.

I actually think this is the crux of the issue -- not the "fraud" question but "would you be satisfied with JUST a return to the success of those teams in the 2000's"? And for me, the answer is NO. It isn't "World Series or Bust". It is "SOME PLAYOFF SUCCESS or Bust". To me there is a vast difference between being unwilling to take the chances needed to add pieces to give you a stronger chance in the playoffs and saying you HAVE to win the World Series. I'm not convinced that Terry Ryan will ever take those risks. I would consider a repeat of 2002-2010 with the same playoff record to be a gigantic organizational failure.

I think the Twins were a very solid baseball team from 2004-2006. They had a strong winning record against the AL East (59-42) with a winning record against every AL East team except the Yankees but they were still 8-10 against the Yanks. They were 127-100 against the AL Central, again beating every team but the White Sox against whom they went 27-29. They were 50-54 against the AL West having some trouble against the Angels (10-15), beating up on Seattle (16-11) and pretty much holding their own against Oakland (12-15) and Texas (12-13). They cleaned up in interleague play where they went 32-19. But there is a real turnaround beginning about 2008 and continuing to 2010 when the Twins began to meet with almost utter futility against the A L East with their winning percentage against the division dropping below 40%. They kept it pretty much even against the West (actually an improvement from earlier years) and had a 60% or so win rate against the Central and continued to clean up in interleague play. Several years ago I started to keep a spreadsheet of how the Twins did under Gardenhire by team. I used that for the conclusions stated above. I didn't bother updating it this year (and I'm not sure 2012 is complete) because it got too darned depressing. Overall, the Twins definitely benefited from a weak Central and from interleague play. But what really hurt was the way the East strengthened -- because they also were representative of what was needed to win in the playoffs not just in the division.

This is from an SI article by Tom Verducci today on how the Red Sox "turned it around": The offseason plan was built on four cornerstone ideas: hold contract lengths to three years, even if it meant overpaying on an average annual value; find a manager, unlike the last one, familiar with the Boston landscape and AL baseball from, oh, maybe the last decade or so; seek out extroverted baseball rats who would watch the game from the top step of the dugout and not behind a bucket of fried chicken in the clubhouse; and pack the lineup again with hitters who grind out at-bats. That last cornerstone turned out to be the most important reason why the Red Sox dispatched the Tampa Bay Rays in four games in the AL Division Series. Read More: Relentless Red Sox grind their way into ALCS - MLB - Tom Verducci - SI.com Don't get me wrong -- I don't think that the Twins are in the same place that the Red Sox were last season. They've lost more, have little on the current shelves and less overall money BUT, I do think there are some interesting concepts here: 1. Shorter term Free Agent contracts with an acknowledgment that they may have to "overpay" per year. The Twins have the "short term contracts" idea down pat -- they just don't seem all that willing to overpay (put Mr. Pohlad's money to work, Mr. Ryan). Not going to rehash this but there was a good Twinkie Town article recently about overpaying free agents. 2. Manager -- well the Twins definitely have a manager familiar with Minnesota and AL Baseball but somehow implicit in the Boston turnaround was also the need for a NEW manger; 3. Extroverted Baseball Rats -- this is an area where the Twins are lacking. Even Gardenhire has acknowledged the lack of a clubhouse leader and the Twins often seem dead in the dugout (I know, losing does that to you but you gotta turn it around sometime and the Twins seem to grind down extroverts); 4. Pack the lineup with hitters that grind-out at bats: drives me nuts to watch a Boston game cuz it takes forever but they clearly do grind out bats as opposed to strikeout, strikeout, strikeout (and quick at that) Is this a game plan for the Twins to turn things around? Not by itself but there are clearly some concepts here that the Twins could adopt.

I know and frankly, their window is starting to close a little anyway. But as you sit through some of these games, you realize how valuable a closer is to a good team ... and how dubious his value is to a lousy team. (Not saying there isn't any value cuz I've posted before about how it may be valuable to a young team to have someone reliable to close it out if they ever manage to get a lead but its hard to watch the closer struggles in the post-season). On the other hand, TB which is on its 3rd pitcher even though the game is only in the 4th inning and the score is 0-0. Very weird.

Thing I'm thinking about: How much the Tigers could use Glen Perkins. (Geez, Benoit).

I think it can be more than that. In the case of the Twins, it can be a way of "bridging the gap" while waiting for prospects to arrive. I have wondered why this tweet from Howard Sinker during the October 1 Twins conference call with season ticket holders hasn't gotten more play on Twins Daily: Howard Sinker ‏@afansview 1 Oct Fan tells Gardy his team lacks clubhouse leader. Gardy: Just because you're a veteran doesn't mean you're a leader. We're in search of that. The Twins could very well use free agency to bring in someone who can provide that leadership. I'd have to go out and look at the boards on whose available and I havent' done that yet but Free Agency would certainly be a perfect way to fill that need.

Thanks for the heads up.

I wish I understood the Nishioka failure better. I realize that scouting a pitcher is not the same as scouting a SS but Nishi was such a massive failure, it is very hard for me to have any confidence in the Twins putting so much money in the Tanaka basket. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I hope the Twins have a good grasp on what went so dramatically wrong with Nishioka's transition before they decide to try it again with Tanaka (and a lot more money on the line).

Dave St. Peter, at that same news conference announcing Gardenhire's return, proudly called Ryan "the most disciplined general manager in the game." Being disciplined is good. Being stubborn is not. When the question is only money, as it is with most free agents (let's face it, nobody is blocking much talent now), Ryan needs to lean toward the less stubborn side and take a few more risks. Put your boss' money where his mouth is, Mr. Ryan. We'll all be watching this winter.

I would have probably adopted the Cardinals (one of the 6 "markets" that covers Iowa). I probably would have been better off .... but I've been a Twins fan since '65 so I would have been pretty sad/mad about it but by now my sad/mad would have worn off and I'd probably be a happy camper with the Cards of the last few years. (OTOH, I could have adopted the Royals and it would have been a long decade).

GO PIRATES!!! And, its time for the weather to warm back up again. Too darn early for this.

Haven't noticed any others yet. I'd love a Pirates-Rays series but that is looking pretty dim for the Rays. If the Series ends up being Dodgers-Red Sox, I won't be watching much.

Season ticket renewals, anyone? Seriously, I think Pohlad pretty much stays out of it on the money front; however, I also think that part of the thought process in re-hiring Terry Ryan as GM was a love for his frugal ways. The Pohlads don't need to put the brakes on player payroll because they know that TR is more conservative than they are. I'll be interested to see how all of this plays out. Until I see genuine movement into the free agent market, I will remain a skeptic. And yes, they may have to "overpay" in dollars especially when they aren't willing to pay in years. I'm not sure what "short term" means exactly but I'm betting that 3 years stretches it. (BTW, the Twinkie Town article on "overpaying" in dollars and years to get free agent movement was an intriguing one: Bringing Free Agents to a Losing Team: The Loss Leader Strategy - Twinkie Town).

It looks to me like RB did pretty well with his predictions in general. At least as well (or better) than most of the paid prognosticators.