bird

You aren't asking a rhetorical question, are you? Another pet peeve of mine, using some random quote, ignoring all else, and then bringing a person's honesty into question.

I think this is spot on. The Twin's farm system "atrophied" to middle of the pack status. It has never been as bad as Detroit's, Chicago's, or the A's systems are right now. Several factors contributed to the system reaching its low point. The draft order was the biggest culprit, but not the only one by far. Ryan's share of the blame for that is not large, IMO. And since then, the budget's gotten much bigger, the whole department is clicking, and the draft order will be favorable for the 4th year in a row. Which means Ryan's soon in line to get TOO much credit. The problem that led to the Santana debacle and other such catastrophes is still there IMO. The lack of a disciplined and strategic approach to managing player assets is Ryan's Achilles Heal in my view. It's been masked by his accomplishments at getting something for fringe assets like Hollins and Fuld.

In fairness, I think one can state that the evidence supports the financial capacity is there to sign elite FA's, and I think there is logic to support that the Twins would be taking on a greater burden of risk (future "financial flexibility") than these richer teams. We 'll have all winter to hear the arguments and complaints and conjecture, but I'll throw my two cents out there now about why the Twins are unlikely to sign Scherzer or Lester . The first penny is that Ryan will decide whatever the winning bidder is paying is way to much for what they're going to get. The second reason is that Ryan will decide he can find what the Twins need elsewhere at an acceptable level of risk. He'll be satisfied with a pitcher who they see as a likely #2-3 starter, because they think they can fare well without a #1-2 starter as long as they have four guys they see as #2-3 starters in this league. Just my theory here.

Yes you can. The rankings of farm systems is a relative ranking, right? So why can't you say they have an amazingly deep system with plenty of high-end talent and simultaneously claim that individual players within that system, even top 100 talents like Rosario, have limited ( probably a better word than little) trade value?

that's cool, but if you're the GM, you gotta make a few predictions and place a couple bets here about 2015. you can't just go outside the system to find sure fire guys to play while relegating all the youngsters who still have something to prove to the minors. No guts, no glory: put these guys on the left side if you bet they would be plus contributors in 2015 and on the right side of the line otherwise. Arcia, Santana, Vargas, Meyer, May, Pinto, Sano, Buxton, Hicks, Rosario, Polanco, Berrios, Pressly, Tonkin, Oliveros, Milone, Pelfrey, Parmelee, Achter, Guerra, Pryor....you gotta make the call, and then you gotta fill the holes, and you gotta guess which holes are temporary and fill them accordingly. So, Ryan just can't ask for a wake up call when Buxton and Sano get there, he has to make a projection about it and live with it. And then be tarred and feathered by all the meanies at TD when a result goes bad.

I agree with this, but I'd point out that we wouldn't necessarily HAVE to give up a Berrios or Meyer in a trade to solve say, the corner OF problem. Jason Adams was KC's 16th best overall prospect, down 10 spots from the beginning of the year. For the Twins, he isn't even our 16th best PITCHING prospect. We might be able to bundle lesser (to us) prospects and not mortgage our most optimal future at all. May alone might now fetch better than what he and Vanihole fetched a year ago.

Probably a topic for a different thread, but I don't get the level of angst and pessimism about Sano and Buxton. One prediction of almost a zero chance they contribute at all next year. Really? I mean, last time I looked, Morneausie, Spansie, and General Soreness were all playing at very high levels, and Buxton is already ripping it in the batting cage and slated for the AZL, and Sano is recovering very well too. We have to remember that both of these guys are being talked about with superlatives never uttered about Gaetti and Puckett, and yet, reading some of the comments here, you'd think they're the second coming of Scott Stahoviak and Rich Becker.

I agree with this in general, but with the caveat that it can make sense to trade from any surplus. Even prospect surplus.

Brilliant!

I'm sorry, mike, but this is so irrelevant. Which of the other off-seasons were featuring a rotation of the current quality? And if you are critical of starting 2015 with Hughes, Gibson, Nolasco and some combo of Meyer, Milone, May, Pelfry, and about 5 other back-end candidates (BTW, I am, and threw out an idea), please offer a thought to complement your complaint. I'm sure the mods will give you a special dispensation to offer ideas on a thread about offering ideas.

So what would you do this winter?

But what are your IDEAS?

I want Ryan to be aggressive yet selective. Now he has trade ammo, he has a boatload of cash and an owner telling him he can spend it, and we're at the right stage in this three-year rebuild to go for quality. In past years, he's made his moves and banked on unproven or comeback players to come through. Hicks being the poster child of this. My wish list is a corner OF with two-way skills, hopefully more promising than say Victorino. If Hicks gets his act together, fine, you have a "surplus". Second, a frontline starter. A proven guy, not a projection like Meyer. In my mind, Hughes is a 2-3 guy, Gibson a 3-4 guy right now, Nolasco a 4-5 guy. Everyone else a 5-6 guy for now. Harsh grades, yes, but we have the money and the trade surplus to get another 2-3 guy or better ans slough off our back end surplus for low level prospects. Last, find me a catcher with at least Suzuki's offensive profile and better defense. Suzuki might regress, and would fetch something at the trade deadline.

Every one of these criticisms, to me, is right on the money, nick. As you know, I push back on what I perceive to be overly harsh or unfair criticism, and these are fair. And we would likely have enjoyed a few more wins in a given season were the Twins earlier adopters of these practices. You made your point so sensibly. No crazy hyperbole, no clownish conclusions, and no character assassinations or name-calling. We should all emulate you. And the Cards of course. But not the Rays. Definitely not the Rays.

Great call by the Whities for sure. They were highly motivated to take the extra risk here. A few other teams had similar motivation. The Twins and others not so much. At the time, Chicago was looking very old on paper. Their farm system was horrible, ranked as no better than third worst in all of baseball. One of their biggest needs was a replacement at 1B. Another need was to make an off-season splash to re-energize their fan base.So they took a gamble and it looks like they hit the jackpot. Hahn looks like a genius right now because Abreu and other moves look like big winners. Good for them. Still, chastising and harshly criticizing teams that passed on a particular opportunity is narrow. Hahn needed pitching too. He passed on Hughes. Does that make him incompetent or risk-averse and Ryan a risk-embracing genius?

Agreed! Bring me a catcher too, Santa.

Please don't accuse me of that manner of intellectual dishonesty, jokin. We were discussing drafting and development. You broached the topic. You are fully aware that each of these teams partially attributes their success on the field to things other than their own pipeline. Things like good trades, fA signings, and the like. So don't pull out the "understatement" stuff. They're good at drafting and development, maybe better than average. right now, the rankings aren't flattering. E When it comes to drafting and development, no team is at a disadvantage against the others EXCEPT in the burden imposed by being low in the draft order. You know this to be true, don't you? I mean, EVERY team has the resources to scout, draft, and develop talent, and every team is committed to this to some extent or another. But some teams, Detroit for example, have chosen to rely less on their own pipeline, right? So you see how nonsensical it is to challeng what I asserted by suggesting we compare the results on the field? Do you want to argue that Detroit is better at drafting and developing players than your beloved Rays. Of course not. I won't respond to your last three sentences and ask that you refrain from that tactic, as it appears to me to be an attempt at condescension, frankly.

The assertion was about drafting and development.

Please go back to the 20 international prospects I named and answer two questions: 1. How did the Twins end up being the team to sign these guys? 2. How many teams can you uncover who have a better list of 20 international prospects? That is all.

Ah, my favorite! The Rays and A's have talent pipelines far inferior to not just the Twins, but most teams in baseball. The Cards are almost as loaded as the Twins. Each of these organizations do a decent job of scouting and developing, but the Twins are better than both the Rays and A's at drafting and developing players, both through international and domestic channels. You aare one of the many who bought into the belief that the Rays, after a decade or so of top picks, we're these geniuses. Those teams are just as likely to benefit from hiring away our scouts and expanding their philosophical horizons a bit as a result. I listed 20 international prospects in an earlier post. I'll give you a head start, jokin. The Cubs. Now find me two other clubs with as much international talent in the pipeline. yes, you may include the brilliant Cards and A's.

To clarify what the situation was, the decision involved millions up front in costs to improve their Dominican operation and to establish the ill-fated Venezuelan Academy (political turmoils that still greatly strains efforts there). In addition, this extra infrastructure, which includes the now five dozen employees and all their annual expenses, requires many more millions each and every year. So connecting some story about a single player and the building of organizational capacity that puts you in a position to compete for talent year in and year out is futile and the epitome of irrelevance. You have to get off the Miggy Cabrera horse and see the whole picture.

If you insist that having people with relationships and connections, scouting and nurturing relationships for years, has nothing to do with successfully signing these Latin players, then it doesn't make a lick of sense to talk further on the subject. So, you're dead right.

Sorry, no cite for you, but I'm sure if you wanted to get to the truth of it you could. My first conversation on the topic and most thereafter, were with Ryan's predecessor, who was and is a personal acquaintance, and it was towards the end of his tenure that the problem was "highlighted". From what I was told, with abundant humor, it took a lot of convincing to get the Old Man to pony up, and it probably wouldn't have happened if his boys didn't help the baseball people gang up on him. I recall there were some short articles about what they were up to. The beat writers with access back then were a very weak lot, led by Sir Sid, so not much was written. But it was a big deal, a watershed change, in the organization. There were probably only paltry signs of improvement in results in the first few years. They expected this to be the case as scouts made connections, reputation got built, etc. And sure, they had decided back then to avoid Japan, which was the hotbed for stupid spending for awhile, and instead established a beachhead in Australia. You seem to want to criticize them for that. Why? And for employing more assets than any other club on Europe as well and paying a record amount to a European kid? Why focus on the fact that the bonus was a mere $800k? What is that supposed to tell us? And why is spending on infrastructure and scouting talent and travel budgets and the like irrelevant? That's a nonsensical and misguided opinion in my view. These foreign kids are still controlled by their sponsors, and while things are changing, up until now having those competent and connected scouts in place to nurture and manage relationships and maintain a visible presence has been extremely relevant. Your best prospects aren't coming from BA's list, you know. There 's no draft order here. Whether BA ranks them or misses on them or doesn't know they exist (the most probable thing), they're being scouted and approached by many teams. They're being courted by teams for years in many cases. And exactly what do you mean by a "different class of player"? Exactly what class are Arcia, Pinto, Santana, Sano, Rosario, Vargas, Polanco, Kepler, Jorge, Thorpe, Minier, Diaz, Romero, Rosario, Landa, Beresford, Vielma, Ortiz, Ramirez, and Hu in? Can you name me three teams in all of baseball with a clearly superior talent pool of foreign prospects than these 20 guys?

Agreed, that wasn't a fair portrayal. But mike, if your superiors stopped by your cubicle, told you to turn off TD and step into a performance review, how fair would you think it was if they told you that, not only do they find most of what you do disappointing, but proceeded to tell you that you don't try because you fear failure, you sit around paralyzed by fear, and that you live taking little action, wouldn't you find that to be an unfair and hurtful portrayal of you?

This is not at all true and it's a cheap shot. You're the one perpetuating myth, my friend.