bird

No idea, but clearly a bad decision.

I remember that game.

Loved this, Peanuts, thank you. Made me think of my years in the asset management racket, listening to portfolio managers and stock traders not hearing each other. On one side of the table, which was not round, you had the portfolio guys talking about people in companies making decisions about strategies. On the opposite side the traders were seeing the ticker tape and the statistics, convinced the portfolio managers were about to make a bad call and they'd have no control over it. Kind of like fans.

I'm sure my memory will fail me, but long ago I had the privilege of sitting with Young Andrew during a spring training game and having him explain the whole operation to me during the course of the game, but that was years ago. At the time, the baseball operation reported tithe president, as did the Operations, Marketing, and Finance areas. It could be that Smith got asked to help out with contracts and stuff in between the Gebharts and Krivsky's, but Smith was always viewed as "not a baseball guy", even by himself.

Yeah, I agree. "hugely positive" overstates it.

C'mon back at ya. :-). Smith never reported to Ryan. He was not his right hand man regarding the GM duties. I can't speak for any grooming that went on. Clearly not enough though. And word around the org was that Smith wasn't the consensus-builder that Ryan was. So, bad recommendation, Mr. Ryan. People close to the Pohlad organization will tell you they trust the people they put in charge, yes. Until they don't. They get kudos for being loyal to employees, but the promotion from within thing seems to be mainly a Twins thing. But I think you're right, if Ryan had supported someone else, Smith would not have ascended. Wayne Krivsky, that darn traitor.

Small thing perhaps, but while Ryan was the predominant influence regarding Smith's ascension, hand-picked might be a bit strong in an organization known internally for having a consensus-building culture.

Billy Smith gets too much blame and too much credit. I know, he was the GM, but: 1. Smith did not render a single opinion about who should be drafted. For all practical purposes he had nothing to do with the draft results. 2. There were some colossally bad trades during his tenure, but let's keep in mind he probably got a bit of advice on those moves and shoulders partial blame, not all. 3. My understanding is that the expanded international budget was influenced by MacPhail, Jim Pohlad, and Bill Smith more than anyone because they had Carl Pohlad's ear prior to and at the time Carl finally capitulated. Smith gets way way way too much credit for the Sano signing. Others were heavily involved in the negotiations. But I think he deserves credit for a lot of the good things in the transformation of the Twin's international scouting and development infrastructure that go unnoticed. 4. Unfortunately for Smith, the most lasting and damaging aspect of his tenure are those trades. The consensus is they deepened the trough and lengthened the cyclical recovery time. 5. When his bosses look back at Smith's entire body of work, it will be on balance hugely positive, primarily because of his contributions internationally and in Fort Meyers, in my opinion.

It is a rule. All teams are signators to an agreement to abide by these rules. Breaking them is unethical because it cheats others, regardless of the consequences that must be paid. It's cheating, and it's wrong. Other teams are damaged, and whatever fines are paid do not necessarily repair the damage to them. The cheaters are willing to risk that the consequences will be less than the reward of hoarding something that was meant to be made equitably available. My understanding is that the rules say a team shall not go over the cap, and if they do...rather than saying "teams shall be permitted to go over the cap, but..." And in the ethics business, the rule of thumb is to honor the intent of such an agreement. The allotments serve an intent and going over is dishonoring those with whom you have agreed. Being willing to pay a consequence means nothing. Is burglarizing your neighbor OK because you're willing to risk that the consequences will be worth it? Is speeding OK because you're willing to pay the consequences?

I get this and agree in theory, mike, but who would you have signed to a one year deal? How is a GM supposed to appease you? If he finds the kind of "make good" guy, like a Marcum, and he doesn't make good, he should be canned. If he signs the guy who requires a long term deal, its either a bad player or a bad contract time after time. We have to remember that guys like Phil Hughes are scarce. Why do you think it goes from not being quite ready to not good? Players can be both good and not ready. Just because Meyer only lasted 5 innings today, walked 6, gave up 4 hits, and only threw 44 of 87 pitches for strikes, is he no good all of a sudden? Maybe he's just not ready. It's not Terry Ryan that wants it both ways, as you suggested earlier. It's us as fans.

Not only do we not know for sure if they have allotment money left, but my understanding is they have until July 1 to sign any straggler. As much as some might like to issue an indictment for them maybe not spending every dollar, it's premature. Blowing through the cap is breaching an agreement. Having spent the greater portion of my corporate career intensely involved in authoring ethical codes of conduct and in the process becoming acquainted with ethics professors from many of our finest schools, I am certain there is not a single professor out there who would say breaching the agreement is ethical. They are cheating all of us by doing so, period.

Good points, Chief, and well made. You had originally stated that "good" GMs block prospects all the time. I don't think it's that simple. These situations are fluid. I believe "good" GMs look for opportunities to make room for their most promising prospects. They can't just snap fingers and make opportunities appear. Good GMs make room for elite prospects like Mauer, Hrbek, Morneau, but the timing isn't always perfect. Guys come up and struggle for all teams. And isn't it nebulous territory to think of all these guys-May, Meyer, Tonkin, Buxton, Rosario, Burdi, etc.- as either ready and therefore blocked or not ready and therefore unblocked? But I get it, the best team the Twins will put on the field in 2015 will stink, regardless of whether it stinks with the kids on the field or the veterans. My opinion is that Ryan is just being his typical conservative self about moving the prospects up en masse. I don't believe in rebuilds either, but I trust the odds regarding elite prospects. I didn't trust non-elite prospects like Becker and Stahoviak. I don't trust Josmil Pinto and Taylor Rogers. I thought the odds were pretty good that one of Morneau or Mauer was gonna make it, just like I think one of Sano or Buxton is gonna make it. Ryan's strategy is frustrating for sure, but not necessarily a horrible one. You must love how the Tigers have built their team, right?

Not that it has any real significance, but I found it interesting that only seven players mentioned here have NOT made it onto someone's rankings at one time or another, even if it was as #50 (O'Rourke). And of those seven who were never ranked, Hamburger, Bernier, and Fryer all have MLB service time.

I agree with most everything here. The way I see it, Ryan is doing precisely that. He's "blocking" May and Meyer, because his field people are giving him feedback that leads him to believe neither is going to suffer from a few more minor league starts. Many fans are up in arms about this. He's blocking Tonkin, Burdi, Reed, and others with Boyer, Duensing, Stauffer and others. This is not a decision made by the GM in a vacuum. They made a call. Lots of fans are up in arms about this. And right or wrong, he's blocking Buxton and Rosario right now, because he's convinced both need a little more seasoning. Most fans are not up in arms about this, however. Instead, they're up in arms over Hicks, Robinson, and Schaefer. They want a better player to be blocking Buxton. Not sure where this "A" ball stuff is coming from, but the Twins are making judgments about readiness based on real-time personal observations, not based on what level someone's at. Criticism of Ryan is warranted over his misjudgments regarding CF following his good judgments (my opinion) in trading Span and Revere. He didn't have a remotely acceptable backup plan in year one. His year two backup plan was better but still not good, and it backfired a bit. This year's backup plan, while imperfect, was acceptable to me, with Rosario, Hicks, Schaefer, and Robinson all in place, and I think it might be a good deal in the end. Why? Because he avoided the alternatives of trading away valuable assets for a temporary (possible) upgrade or signing a FA (maybe but not certainly) upgrade over what he has given Paulie to start the season. If you think Buxton is as uncertain as you suggest, or is 54 months away as mike wants wins suggests, then your concern becomes more understandable than if you think Buxton is here for good by September as jimmer suggests. So, I don't think the GM punted, nor do I think he's misguided in banking on Buxton making it. You make it sound like Buxton is just one more crap shoot out there. If I judge Ryan on his entire body of work regarding the CF problem (the Span, Revere, Hicks, Santana, Fuld, Robinson, Schaefer, Buxton moves, and even all the Maestro-type guys), he keeps his job, even with the obvious mistakes considered.

Absolutely, if I'm GM of this team in 2015, I'm reserving CF for Buxton for as long as one year, ESPECIALLY given what I know about top OF prospects that have have earned the kinds of accolades Buxton has gotten. Damn right I'll take my chances that one of Hicks, Rosario, Schaefer, or Robinson can hold down the fort in a year where .500 is your wildest hope.

I'm one of the rainbows and sunshine guys on TD. A veritable Positive Nellie. And yet, I agree with every one of your five points. So, I have some questions, but I only want answers from people who believe they know what TR doesn't know. Let's confuse arrogance and knowledge. 1. Schaefer isn't a starting OF. Doubt you'll find 2% of the people on TD disputing that. According to the author, Ryan doesn't know this. So, all you geniuses, what would you have done? Attract and sign a one-year FA placeholder for Buxton this past winter? Play Hicks? 2. Well, duh, of course Nolasco, Milone, and Pelfrey are not good. So, would you have stuck a Luger to Scherzer's temple and forced him to sign on the line which is dotted? Think back, and promise me you didnt criticize TR for passing on Shaun Marcum. Do you miss Fuld? Are you so darned prescient that you know with absolute certainty that May and Meyer would have made these first two starts and fared well? Did you predict Santana's situation? And if/when May and Meyer become rotation fixtures, will you be front and center praising TR for making those trades? 3. The bullpen appears to be shaky at best. So, of all the options available to Allen and Molitor, who would you have brought north? Would you have signed a pricey FA or traded for a frontline reliever this winter? Who then, and what would you have had to give up? If the bullpen ends up surprising you on the upside, maybe when Burdi, Reed, and others are MLB-ready, will you still hold this vast knowledge edge on TR? 4. Pinto? Sorry, what's your point? That TR's an idiot? 5. Well, on this point, we all agree. Including the unknowledegable TR.

I have one favor to ask, in all seriousness, of my friends on here who have a fervent belief that the entire, or even primary cause of the last four years of futility is FO incompetence. I realize it's hard for some to fathom, but some of us equate the futility with some combination of factors that certainly involves mistakes as part of the cause, but doesn't signify incompetence. We're not holding the FO blameless. And those of you among this group who take great pride in your statistical and analytic capacity, I'd ask you to acknowledge that causation is always the hard part, and none of us are gonna get that part completely right. Our conversations are much more interesting and civil when we talk about what we might see as a mistake as opposed to talking about a perceived mistake as a sign of incompetence. A little balance and fairness can go a long way. Thank you.

Four years of 90 losses? Link please?

Good suggestion. When I open a thread and immediately receive the information that the Twins have lost 90 games for four straight years, I'm eternally grateful for the insight. You know, that information is starting to sink in too.

God I hate rainbows and sunshine.

My first thought. Turn it into an opportunity and sue for "breach of contract." Not much to lose and a lot to gain in ridding yourself of this scumbag cheater.

This stays our little secret, slash. Remember their slogan: "Supplies are limited, but the fun is not."

So true. Thankfully for me, the birdwatching is spectacular during spring migration. I'll check back with you guys in late May when the kids start to get called up, the trade deadline rumors start to fly, and the prospects all begin to exceed our expectations down in Chattanooga.

Let's hope your town can dodge THAT bullet.

Don't feel bad. I babysat them.