bird

Or, alternatively, with you as the GM, Arcia would've been given the chance he so richly deserved. Projecting his AAA numbers onto 50 games with the Twins? We'd have been inhaling the fumes from Detroit and Chicago as they zipped past us in the standings.

This is an exaggeration.

Two questions: 1. Exactly what problem did Shane Robinson's meager 50 starts cause for the Twins last year? 2. Exactly which young talent languished in the minors last year? Two answers: 1. Shane Robinson wasn't a problem worth any angst last year. 2. Buxton wasn't ready, and Arcia was a mess. And the nice thing is that in 2016, Buxton will very likely be ready early and Kepler will likely be ready late. In the meantime, as posters are trying to explain, the offseason has just begun. Not sure why we have all the angst about Shane Robinson's past or virtually unknown future.

Tongue in cheek. The point, which apparently was missed, is that we can tediously argue the trade on the basis of our own personal opinions about the future performance of the players involved. No one's opinion constitutes evidence, nor do Steamer projections. The trade served a purpose, which was to upgrade the lineup at two spots. Everyone is free to opine about whether it will do this. You opine that they needed more and predict the outfield will be downgraded. Good for you. The board is split on this.

I too was hoping they'd land a bigger fish, and was expecting we'd be parting with a more valuable player than Hicks (Plouffe?). I get the Bernie Williams fear but have no strong opinion about that. I have to assume that those experts analyzing the deal are in the range, and we're not seeing opinions about a lopsided deal. Because of that, and the whole addition by subtraction thing of Suzuki taking a seat on the bench more regularly, I'm OK with it. I'm assuming Murphy is a measurable upgrade over Suzuki. I'm assuming Hicks is replaceable at no real additional cost by someone (Buxton?) with similar or better defensive and offensive performance. I'm assuming Hicks continues his struggles from the left side. Maybe those are big assumptions, but I like it that we still have Kepler and Berrios and Plouffe and our first round draft choice, and I also assume one or more of those were going bye-bye if we landed Lucroy or Norris or Wieters, all of whom have their own warts to go along with the added costs. So, we can "over-value" Hicks, "under-value" Murphy, or think one of the big fish is so much better as to warrant a vastly steeper price. If Ryan felt the same and then STILL pulled the trigger on this deal, well THEN I'll agree he intentionally aimed low. As for the past "aim low" phenomena, remember that guys like me honestly believe there's a time to aim high and a time to aim "lower". I concede Ryan's risk-averse nature as a flaw. But as you know from reading what I've written in the past, I believe we're finally at a point in the cycle where the GM is within a half-season or so of facing that "one last piece" moment. This offseason had the shortest to-do list for the Twin's GM that I can remember in maybe four decades, so we're close and he didn't part with anyone who gets us even closer, yet upgraded two positions with this one trade in my view. It might not be this offseason, but I think he's going to eventually surprise us. In the meantime, he's making the task a lot harder for the likes of Detroit and Chicago.

Buxton being better at the plate in 2016 than Hicks might be doubtful, yes, but hardly as doubtful as DaveW's description of Hick's gold glove defense, 20 HR's and 20 SB's. Was that this year? :-) But let's not obscure the irony of describing Hicks as something other than a "non-special" player, attaching that label to Murphy, and then declaring the decision to be just another example of a concerted effort to produce mediocrity despite the liklihood that Hick's replacement and Murphy's addition, let alone Park's, will improve the offensive production from three spots in the lineup. Immediately.

DaveW, your love affair with Hicks is pretty much the epitome of settling for mediocrity. He must play baseball The Dave's Way. In one move, the offensive lineup improves at two positions (Buxton will immediately be more productive than Hicks in my opinion, and Murphy will play against most RH starting pitchers in place of Suzuki). I see quality moves so far that improve the team offensively at three spots in the lineup. Before bashing Ryan for not landing Lucroy, or Wieters, or Norris, tell us what the price would have been. The moves Ryan has made have been 100% additive. How is that a sign of mediocrity?

Wonder if Zunino's ever gonna figure it out.

Again, since Ryan played an extremely instrumental part in building the 60-person staff that's been involved with very aspect of the success of every one of the players you mentioned, you're absolutely right, Mr. Sixel. Ryan hasn't done a thing except help them lose lots of games so they pick earlier.

I fear AJ as a cheap version of Suzuki in 2016.

Now let's cross our fingers that the goal is a starting catcher so Suzuki can play a perfect role as a backup. And not just AJ.

A couple thoughts: I'll take Sano in LF over either Arcia or Hammer any day. Sight unseen. Not that this is any big consolation. Plouffe and Hicks for Lucroy? Even the worst GM in the Milky Way isn't dumb enough to make THAT trade.

Not a big believer in the sophomore slump thing as a predictable event, but Ryan might be inclined to hang on to Plouffe and Dozier for one more season precisely because of his experiences with "sophomores": Hicks, Santana, Vargas, Arcia... I'll plug the Offseason Handbook here by alluding to the fact that Ryan bluntly said the failings of Arcia, Vargas, and Santana were probably the biggest disappointments last season. Ryan is exceptionally patient though, and my guess is his patience has worn out with one or more of those guys. My bet is he's had it with Arcia.

Funny, but I might place the exact opposite odds. Ryan doesn't strike me as being capable of posturing. I also think he's had some recent painful experiences, some self-inflicted, with unready players that are haunting him and will make him reticent to part prematurely with either Dozier or Plouffe. He was stung by Hicks, Arcia, Santana, Vargas, and Pinto in the last two years, and still has to worry about Rosario and Buxton too. I think the Sano OF thing is real.

Maybe you could have held your breath after all.

Yeah, I agree with your first two sentences. Radke was never an ace. James Shields? He's a 1/2. Whereas Radke was a 2/3. What makes me uncomfortable is that Ryan probably disagrees with me, based on his love affair with innings pitched and blinders in place about other qualities. But in fairness, it's not that easy to find guys who, year after year, will give you front-end performance, especially due to the injury factor. Right now, Ryan has a bunch of fence-sitters in the rotation. In a good year, they can fall off the front-end side, and in bad years they can become back-end guys. Such is the fickle nature of things for pitchers, so I can't completely diss him for liking durable innings-eaters with quality, i.e. guys who are usually 2/3 and sometimes 2/3. That's what he has with Hughes, Santana, and maybe Gibson. Give me five guys in a rotation who have a fairly decent chance to give me a 2/3 year and I'll take my chances that some guy like Price pitches like a 2/3 come playoff time. That is, if my other choice is a 9 figure contract.

Ryan also wasn't keen on his makeup.

Never fear, it'll eventually become a discussion of Terry Ryan's 17 years of futility.

Just answer the question, Mr. Ashbury. Yes or no?

I agree. When the Twins can't get past the Yankees in the playoffs, it's the manager's fault and the GM's fault. When Toronto is knocked out in the first round, the GM is a failure. Or it can't be held against him. Or he's still a success. Or maybe we're applying a ridiculously irrelevant standard that doesn't prove squat about a GM.

I understand the question, but don't fully understand your need to pin all the "blame" on someone. Why is it so difficult to grasp that things can be caused by a myriad of factors? Why is it so difficult to grasp that not all factors contributing to things can be controlled by the person at the helm? Go ahead and pin some of it on Ryan, thrylos. I do. To answer your question about which people to scapegoat, I place more "blame" on Carl Pohlad and his early advisors than on any other individuals. But there are numerous factors that explain the absence of the Twins and about a third of the other organizations from an appearance in the WS, most of which involve the economic structure and economic disparity in MLB. But let's not go into this (again). It's too likely that any explanation of a contributing factor to the WS drought will be met with the standard and predictable "making excuses for Terry" BS. PS. There is some luck involved.

And of course for other fans, it's Always going to be: "It's Terry's Fault." In both cases, they're misguided, jokin.

No, just that this fact tells you absolutely nothing. But we were discussing Anthopoulos. I don't have an opinion about the quality of his performance. I see Dombrowski as similar in terms of viewpoint. I see Dayton Moore as very similar to Ryan in terms of viewpoint. I think the consensus opinion regarding Moore is that, finally, he's been vindicated to an extent. A comparison of where Dayton Moore is (back to back WS) versus where Ryan is (a team that missed the playoffs by several games) as an indicator of prowess borders on ignorance to me. Because I see the Twins moving on a similar path to KC's, I'm feeling pretty good about things. Ryan isn't perfect, and neither are AA, Dombrowski, or Moore. You'll find a few people on every one of those market's version of TD that blame the GM for every inadequacy of their team. I think those people are myopic.

In their minds, the Royals were on the cusp of excellence when they traded Wil Myers for Jim Shields. They were essentially in the place the Twins probably are right now. They were only widely considered to be failures by fans who couldn't envision what was in store for their struggling prospects Cain, Moustakis, and Hosmer, etc. Things changed for the Royals because they finally began having draft success in the past decade, like everyone else has had in the past decade when they draft a top 10 guy. Their success has almost nothing to do with some imaginary abandonment of an imaginary no-trade policy on prospects. They drafted well, like everybody does who has high picks, over the past decade, and kept most of them. Cain and Perez have more to do with where they are now than Cueto or Shields.

I think you're wrong. Count the number of players on each roster who were drafted in the top 10 of their draft year. The point is Dayton Moore would never have gotten to the place he is without them. Ever.