bird

Don't miss the point though. No one said they outbid every other team for him, but they DID outbid every other bidder, did they not? The point is, it's a matter of personal perspective, and while one person will focus on Park as a cheap long shot, another might think of him as a fairly expensive but worthwhile risk. A third will want to hammer the point that they didn't break the bank to get him for one reason or another. The point is that one person's opinion is that we don't have a better alternative to Hicks and that Murphy is a backup caliber catcher, and that another person may not totally agree and would phrase things in a less negative light. As for Sano, I'm listening to Molitor and others and waiting to see rather than forming an opinion about something I cannot credibly pass judgment on.

We may not like the fact that the Twins haven't announced a deal we like during the meetings. But to describe the Twins as Inactive is farcical. We hardly have the slightest inkling about what goes on.

Or, one might phrase it this way: he got a catcher who is better, created an opening in the OF for a better player, and outbid every other team for a middle of the order bat, thereby improving the team at three spots in the order, perhaps more if one considers the positive effect Park's bat might have on Plouffe's and Sano's production. He's not bringing back Duensing or Boyer, so he's even "touched" the bullpen. I'm not sure what people would have him do other than find a LH reliever and a 4th OF, which he's working on, or trade or sign an ace for $200M, which he's not working on.

Maybe I'm being fooled (probably am), but I felt better after listening to what Ryan said during his interview with MLB.com yesterday. Essentially, he said the team has quantity but needs to upgrade the quality, and he was quite clearly referring to pitching. This leads me to think they're focused on perhaps a single target, and this would be an understandable departure from past years when there were lots of holes to fill. For me, I will be disappointed if Ryan fails to find one upgrade that meets or exceeds the Jepsen Standard. Sipp and Bastardo types. My hunch is the internal BP options will be a pleasant surprise to us in 2016, but they need that one high-leverage lefty.

I might be misreading this, but I detect a hint of criticism. Is there something you would have done differently? IIRC, Stewart was very widely viewed by the draft experts to be the 4th best prospect in the draft class. The Twins picked 4th. Was there a lot of criticism at the time about the pick? Of course, the development people might've stunted him. There's always that theory I guess.

This is pretty clear to all of us.

I wouldn't plan on big futures from either Walker or Arcia. We better just hope for a surprise improvement from one or both. If Kepler is the stud that a couple sources are now projecting him to be, it at worst means we have another valuable trade chip. I'd hope those guys are only concerned with their own development. Arcia in particular better have a sense of urgency.

I can see why you think this, but I get this sense that he means what he's saying, for better or for worse. Ryan just doesn't strike me as a posturer.

Maybe it's unwarranted, but the Twins are displaying confidence that: 1. Sano can thrive in the OF 2. Park can handle MLB pitching 3. Murphy can settle in as a MLB average catcher 4. Mauer can do better than we saw in 2014 5. ??? This will be interesting....

Ah, the irony.

My disappointment regarding Pinto occurred two years ago, when it became clear that, after a decade of minor league ball, his catching skills were still below MLB standards in the eyes and minds of the pros who saw him in action every day and were able to competently assess every aspect of his performance. And unfortunately for Josmil, his battle with concussions probably puts the nail in the coffin on his future as anything other than a DH. It might be a long shot for him to become league average as a DH as well.

Dammit, jokin. There goes our starting CF.

Ooh, that's harsh. . Think of it another way though. Those excess assets, in this case Burdi and Kepler, which theoretically represent an overpay, could be traded for equal value elsewhere, right?

So they took a chance on Bard instead of going with the sure thing? Impossible.

I think we as a TD community have arrived at a perhaps shaky consensus that Ryan, and the Twins overall, can be fairly described as conservative, and an even shakier consensus that Ryan is basically risk-averse by nature. Over the years, I've rarely read a post from someone claiming Ryan took too much risk. OTOH, it's not uncommon for the risks taken and the aggressiveness involved in some of his moves to be discounted here. If we were only debating strategy, I think it would be fairly easy for those on different sides of the debate to say: "I see the merits of your argument, but I personally would prefer they follow the strategy I favor." The more rigorous debates would then be about contextual and historic circumstances, things like changes in revenue streams, stage of the rebuilding cycle, comparisons among teams' successes and failings in things like the draft, the value of FA versus in-house moves.... Inevitably, the conversation devolves into a "discussion" about Terry Ryan. When it does, things get messy, because there is a much more disparate view of what impact Ryan's personality and nature have on the whole process, of what his personality really is, and then of course there's the occasional demonizing that goes with it. I'm known to be a defender of Ryan, but I acknowledge his flaws as I see them. I believe he's less flawed than many, and I think his strengths are many and often woefully under-appreciated. I'm a proponent of a strategy that takes into account and puts into context both the financial implications of transactions and the team in general and the stage of the rebuilding cycle. Despite my very advanced age (my AARP card arrived before Chief's), I'm patient as a fan, and tolerant of mistakes. Ryan has failed to act aggressively when an opportunity presented itself on a number of occasions over his tenure. I understand the viewpoint that these failings are inexcusable. The reason I don't call for his head on a stick when this happens is because I think it's VERY likely that the next GM comes in and makes different mistakes, more mistakes, more catastrophic mistakes. Billy Smith mistakes that set the cycle back. I focus on the strategy instead, and accept the fact that the execution will be imperfect, especially when our fate rests so heavily on the performance of a very diverse group of young athletes. (Yes, this is a debatable strategy tradeoff.) Maybe I'm too conservative too. I can live with that label. But I hardly think that if I am, that I'll accept being told I settle for mediocrity. That would be nonsense.

For sure, the results have been a mixed bag. I'm still unwilling to concede that the "strategy" is flawed. I base that on the overall history of failure of all picks for all teams past the top half of the first round. The injury history for these high-velo pitchers is almost shocking. But the Twin's track record is definitely spotty going back to Shooter Hunt, Carlos Guttierrez, and Billy Bullock. Since then, injury, and not faulty selection, is to blame for much of the subdued optimism: Bard, Chargois, Melotakis, Jones, Romero, Landa, Curtiss, Cedaroth, and a few others. Expectations maybe got a little out of control (pun intended) regarding Burdi and Reed. But those two have issued zero walks in about 20+ innings so far in Arizona, so things are looking up for them. And we have others in the pipeline too: Peterson, Booser, Rosario, Jorge, etc., let alone guys who may still emerge like Pressly, Tonkin, Graham, and Meyer. It's important to note that every one of the pitchers named here possess good velocity, and that I'm not talking about guys like Hildenberger, Baxendale, Darnell, Rogers, etc. Something tells me that before the end of the 2016 season, relief pitching might be described as a real strength rather than a catastrophic weakness.

#1 by a long shot for me was Ervin Santana being a cheater. 2. Arcia being utterly futile in every respect. 3. Mauer. Sigh. 4. Kennys Vargas, Danny Santana , and Josmil Pinto going 0 for 3 in terms of establishing themselves as part of the future. 5. Alex Meyer.

So, the second Park is signed, you'll agree it was an aggressive move to outbid everyone for his services?

I have yet to find a single person, ever, who has credited Hunter for the Twins winning double-digit more games. Have you?

Fantastic job with the homework on this guy, thrylos. We should root hard for this man.

What a meandering thread. First we have Shane Robinson becoming the starting CF, and now we have Rob Antony becoming the GM at the start of a new era. And all because the Yanks traded some guy not named Ryan.

Hunter and AJ is a deeply flawed analogy on a number of levels. The most relevant one is Hunter joined a 72-win team that was yet to get production from its best prospects. I know that some discount the "intangible" story that gets reinforced constantly (Cashman most recently), but the risks are not at all similar now with Murphy. And the risks with AJ are very much greater than they were with Hunter if for no other reason than where the team is now in the cycle.

Let's think about it another way though. Teams have to get power and extra base production from somewhere, The chances of getting to from C, SS, 2B, or CF are generally limited. That's the reason historically that teams look to the corners for that kind of production. So, a team can sacrifice that type of production from one or two corners, but only if they're getting it elsewhere, right? I think you might be right when it comes to the Twins, but that's assuming your 2016 power production comes from 2B, 3B, DH, and ???. The caveat about "corner OF type" is that power production has to come from somewhere else if Mauer is manning 1B for example.

My sincere condolences. Been sad myself since Duensing's release.

I doubt this seriously entered into Ryan's calculus, do you?