Major League Ready

The entire point was that it would be ridiculous for my consulting firm to take this position. I even conceded that using a consulting form as an example could confuse the point. I then offered a more concise analogy that it would be unreasonable for his customers to expect the exact same result as a firm with twice the budget. It is absolutely absurd that anyone would argue this point. Accepting that there are limitations that might necessitate a rebuilding period is an entirely different premise than "we cant expect to win" That is just another fanatical response. Remember, the original point was that the Twins have an exceptional record when compared to the other teams with revenue restrictions. All I am arguing is that there are realities associated with being a team with less available revenue. I am making a point that down cycles and rebuilds are inevitable. You want to argue that we should not expect or accept them. Which position is supported by history?

Once again, you have ignored they are in a rebuilding phase. Are you trying to say that it is not normal for teams to spend less during a rebuilding phase or if you a prefer, a phase when the team is not in contention? It would appear, you want them to do something other teams deem to be a bad practice unless I wrong that other teams do not spend at their highest levels during a rebuild phase. Houston had a payroll around 30 million in 2013 and $52M in 2014. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2013/ The Marlins, As, Pirates and Padres had a payroll of 36M, 66,72, and 73 respectively. I don't know for sure but I would guess these teams have stadiums were funded by the public. At least the padres and Marlins could say they were rebuilding. The A's and Pirates were obviously past their rebuilding phase as they were 90+ win teams. The point being. You have an expectation that teams spend every available dollar because they get public funds but teams don't spend money just because they can. That is a ridiculous premise.

There are three problems with your argument. 1) The Twins spending has been consistent with the rest of the league in terms of percentage of available funds spent. If you want to use the public funding argument, it would be appropriate to argue the entire league should be investing in whatever manner you are advocating. The only exception would be teams that have stadiums that were not subsidized by public funding. Are their teams that did not get public funding for stadiums? I honestly don't know. 2) Teams don’t (and should not) spend the maximum available funds during a rebuild. One could argue the Twins spent far more on free agency than they should have as a rebuilding team. Actually, I would make that argument. The Hughes extension was premature and the Perkins extension made absolutely no sense to me. They did spend a relatively large sum on Nolasco and Santana and they did not do it to contend unless they were delusional. That was a very large investment to put a reasonable product on the field which goes against your position. This investments had a low probability of paying off financially. Many teams would have opted to suffer through the down period without spending this much a free agency so I believe there is a big hole in your argument. 3) The fact that none of the example are publicly funded has nothing to do with the validity of the argument that available budget impacts capability. What if I said “Mike, the state legislature has cut our funding in half. However, I still expect you to deliver the same capabilities and service levels as when we had twice the budget.”

I will grant you this could have been articulated a little better. Mike is an outside entity as is my firm which is why I used a consulting firm as an example. Perhaps it would have been a better example had I asked if would be reasonable for Mike’s customers to expect the same level of service as companies with twice the IT budget. Regardless, I said what if we said there is no problem with you having half the budget of other firms trying to do the exact same thing. We don’t care. Just get it done. The whole point is that this is a ridiculous assertion. You obviously agree. However, instead of concluding Mike’s position that budget did not matter was unreasonable, you conclude the consulting firm should be fired. You are not even trying to be objective. Ironically, in doing so, you just helped proved the point at the core of this which is fanaticism does not promote reasonable thought. If you did not like this example, were the other two not sufficient to make the point? Unless they too were flawed you elected to ignore the validity of the point. Again, just more evidence of fanaticism leading to an unwillingness to be reasonable and objective.

For starters, I used revenue not spending as the basis of comparison. You seem to think how much they spend is a product of desire to spend. I am absolutely certain ability to spend is a product of what is left over after expenses. You keep insisting they wont spend but neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that their spending is more conservative than other teams in the same revenue range. Everything I can find (primarily Forbes) indicates their profitability is at best middle of the pack most years. The one exception is Detroit who has an aging owner willing to lose millions for another shot at a title. This insistence they WONT spend is an incredibly parochial point of view back. Do you live in a million dollar home? Why WONT you spend the money? I would not expect you to care if the team is profitable not. That is a very different thing than understanding their resources are limited and those limitations will make it impossible to spend to spend our way to success. Let’s turn this around. I believe you indicated you were in IT. If you were promoted to CIO tomorrow and my consulting firm came in and said “Mike, we are going to give you half the budget of other firms your size but we expect the same level of capabilities, response times, and service levels”, would you feel this is reasonable. What if you were a sales manager and as VP of sales said ”Mike, sales team #1 has 12 people, a budget of $2.5M for sales staff, support and expenses. The quota is $10M I want you to hire 12 people but your budget is $1.25M and I expect the same production of $10M.” Would that seem reasonable to you? Since you like the entertainment analogy, what if you were a movie executive and the studio gave you $100M to produce a movie but expected the same revenue as a film with a $200M budget. Are any of these scenarios even remotely reasonable? Of course not, if we were presented these scenarios in real life we would I am pretty sure we would consider the person proposing these scenarios to be quite unre4asonable. I would go so far as to say our description of said person to or friends and colleagues would be pretty harsh. Yet, this is a common position for sports fans. I think the problem is created because fans somehow think that sports teams should not care about the bottom line. Explain to me why it is reasonable for players to treat the game as a business but owners should not.

How were you going to trade for "difference makers" without giving up top prospects. The team was in contention last year because they hit at an unsustainable pace with RISP and it did not require as many wins as normal to be in contention for a wildcard. I might go along with your thinking if we were in contention because we had a great team that was a piece away. You are also using being in the hunt for a wildcard as being in contention. There was no way they were winning the division and that was abundantly clear. The wildcard does not even get you a series any longer. Its a one game playoff or put another way, even if you get the wildcard, you have a 50/50 chance of playing in a series. Its no surprise that Fans look at this fanatically but a a leader should look at this set of circumstances and have zero interest in leveraging the future for a team that had no real chance in the playoffs. I would not this set of circumstances as contending.

Many people here have insisted we have sucked for a long period of time. About 6 months ago, I posted the win records for all of the team with roughly the same revenue or less revenue than the Twins. Only Oakland had a better win percentage since the turn of the century. That's a very difficult fact to overlook. Too many people fail to acknowledge relative revenue when evaluating win/loss over a long period of time. It might be time for a change. I don't know. Anyone who thinks they can make that call with the information we have available has likely not taken part in any such exercise. Evaluating leadership and management practices requires a much more systematic approach with all of the information. That list of information is long and includes many things I have never seen mentioned here.

The Twins or any other team with a lot of young talent with any GM with an IQ above room temperature is not going to trade away their chance to be relevant for one superstar, even Trout. It is a good way to assure mediocrity or worse for a long period of time. To complain that our GM would not do it is to complain that we don't have a GM that would make this incredibly bad decision.

If you are a Financial Analyst by trade, you know that the relative value of this type of calculation is a product of the assumptions. Assumptions should be judged by the relative degree of certainty or variance. In this case, you assumptions are highly suspect. For starters, the rookie replacement player would have to be historically good to increase attendance in any given game by 5,000. Even if that happened, said replacement pitcher would only start a dozen games at home so your calculation of increasing attendance by 300,000 is off by 5X even if the replacement pitcher is historically good. Of course, those odds are very low. You also assumed this increase was immediate. That is not at all realistic. It would take time for this mythical rookie to generate anywhere near that level of interest. You have also assumed with absolute certainty (by way of your calculation) that there is no chance whoever you are replacing can’t turn it around or that the rookie is with certainty much better. So, from a business perspective, I would say that the odds generating any additional revenue is probably moderate and the odds of generating the type of revenue increase you have projected are extremely low.

You are starting with a false premise. That being Kepler must be here. Take him out of the equation and its not nearly so hard. Plus, there was a lot of bit(#1ng about the bench. Now its a problem if we have good bench players. Here is the bigger problem with you complaint. Would you rather Arcia failed or that they had not given him a chance? Had they given him a chance without a good ball-back-position, you would be complaining about that too.

The in-shape version of Arcia looks faster and more agile. He looks waaaay better than Young and quite a bit better than Willingham. I would say his D is acceptable if he performs offensively to his capability. Rosario is certainly better defensively but Arcia could OPS 100 points higher. I would be take that in an instant if Arcia reached that potential. Granted, it is not ideal to have Sano and Arcia are in the same outfield.

Sorry, I meant to quote the poster that said he did not want a soft tossing lefty in the pen. In other words, I too was thinking it screams long reliever. That's ok. Milone could provide some value in that role and it makes room for one of Meyer/Berrios/Duffey. Let's hope Nolasco continues to be great and makes himself marketable. As long as we are hoping. Let's hope a contender finds the need top add him and we actually get something for him. That makes room for 2 of Meyer/Berrios/Duffey.

Does it really matter how hard he throws if he is extremely effective during the first ABs?

I don't know if Sano has ever commented on his desire to play in the field and we would have to take whatever was said with a grain of PR salt. However, I would think that Sano and his representation would be against a strictly DH role. Players who can man a defensive position command more dollars and what player would prefer, especially with his athleticism wants to be just a DH. Point being that defying his wish to play in the field if it exists would be a good way too assure him leaving once he has the option.

Fair enough but what about the many other players that have benefited as have their teams by switching positions. This is a pretty common thing and I would guess just bet every MLB team has had a player that they decided just would not cut it at their intended position and then switched them at the major league level. Having said this, I think their is a pretty good chance this decision was a product of being at the bottom of the league in OPS last year as well as an unwillingness to accept this team had no real shot of winning the division

You speak of maximizing victories in #3 and then the future in #4. Quite often they don't go together. There are too many players to name that benefited greatly for a position change. Good thing KC's management was willing to experiment with Alex Gordon. Now, if they did this to accommodate Plouffe, that would be very short sighted. However, if they just did not believe Sano could stick at 3B, then this is all about the future and therefore a worthy experiment.

So, if 22 year olds often act immaturely, what’s the problem with pointing out that he is acting consistently with that norm? What I find interesting is that the premise the Twins FO should do everything in their power to improve the team is pretty much universally accepted. Many individuals come on here and insist the organization should spend every last available dollar of profit and perhaps being willing to take a loss. Then, when it is suggested a player and the team would be better off in the best physical condition possible, we have 14 pages of debate. For god sake, we are arguing if a professional athlete will perform better and be less prone to injury if he/she is in peak physical condition. This is an absurd argument. Do you need to be in peak physical condition to hit? Probably not but I would think it would be somewhat beneficial to be as quick and strong as possible. If not, why are so many pro golfers working out so hard? Regardless, how anyone can even attempt to make an argument that being in shape is of benefit in terms of playing a defensive position is beyond me. I would add that Bryce Harper won the MVP at 22 and his dedication to conditioning is well documented. If the Twins and Sano are willing to settle for him to be a DH, so be it. It is probably not all that important he get in shape. However, a 22 year old athlete with Sano’s tools being a DH is certainly not getting the most out of your players. It’s also not consistent with a player who wants to be great. Eating properly and working out is not exactly a sacrifice or hardship. Don’t complain about what the FO is unwilling to do and then defend an athlete who fails to do what should be the minimum … show-up in shape and stay that way.

You and others are completely missing the point. He will be a great hitter regardless of the weight so that is not the point. The weight, regardless of playing the OF or 3B is a problem. It is an absolute waste have a 22 y/o with Sano's level of athleticism and a great arm relegated to DH only. As you said, losing 20 pounds in 5 months is not a difficult task. Therefore, not getting the job done is a lack of effort and discipline. He made a commitment to the team and then did not care enough about that commitment. Don't give the sad back story about growing up in poverty either. He will make the equivalent of what a hundred average Americans will make in their lifetimes over the course of a 15 year career as a DH. It's not hard to come to the conclusion he just does not care enough about being a complete player to put in the work and/or manage his diet.

I think that premise is absolutely ridiculous. Are you really going to stand behind the idea that if he lost fat he would lose power. That an unfit athlete is better than a well conditioned athlete. That's not a stretch. It is preposterous. So, before you defend this statement, answer this question. Was he hitting absolute bombs when he was still 250 or less. This is a new level of absurd for me.

My first question is extremely simple.... Did he come to camp in better shape? I think we can all agree he did not. Therefore, why should we give him a pass? 1. Do you think being in better shape is good for an athlete in terms of performance and avoiding injury? 2. Do you think the twins, Sano, and his representations had the reported conversation about conditioning in the off-season or did the FO make it up. 3. Did he fail to live up to his commitment if #2 occurred? I think once again this can't be disputed by a reasonable party. 4. Is it unreasonable to suggest that it would be beneficial to a professional athlete who obviously has a challenge with the mass of his body and continuing to gain weight to manage his diet and work out in a way that maintains a more ideal physique? 5. For those of us who are not professional athletes, what happens when someone ignores their commitments and shows-up unprepared.

Did he lose any weight? The answer is no. How is that not evidence he did not do what is necessary? Do you think that if a 270 pound athlete work out a demonstrate reasonable dietary discipline he would not lose weight. Do you think the Sano for some reason an exception because there is obviously countless examples of other athletes, including Kennys Vargas and other members of the team this year. Phil Hughes already has a big contract as does Nolasco. They both reported in considerably better shape and they really don't have any financial incentive. Do you the statement made by the FO saying the Twins, had met with Sano and his representation and that they all agreed to an off-season program and plan to lose weight was a lie? He failed to reach the set goals. This is crystal clear unless you believe the front office lied about having discussed this with Sano. Even if there was no agreement, I don't know how anyone could suggest that Sano, his career, and the team would be better off if he managed his weight. As far as evidence and assumption goes, this is an extremely small leap in comparison to many assumptions and conclusions put forth on this site.

It is relevant because there are many people with job responsibilities and job demands that make what Ruesse is expecting from Sano look incredibly modest. There are also many people with very modest means who make sacrifices that make what Ruesse is expecting from Sano look trivial. There are many people with responsibilities to their organization or family who look at this situation and see it in this way … If Sano, his representations, and the Twins discussed on off-season diet and conditioning program as reported, this situation is very easy to assess. Sano failed to live up to his end of the agreement. He did not lose any weight. There was no injury reported that prevented him from working out. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is he did not care enough about the commitment he made to the team. What this has to do with Reusse’s article is that most people who have put forth considerable effort to succeed or simply provide for their family would view getting in shape as a very minor effort. Therefore that particular group would probably view this lack of effort where the potential financial gain is incredible as an immature act demonstrating a lack of commitment. I obviously can’t speak for every individual with the burden of substantial responsibility but I can speak of thousands of interactions with said individuals. They are likely to see this as very straight forward. Everyone involved agreed to a plan. The results are clear. Sano’s physical condition has very little or no improvement. We don’t have the results of a physical but the conclusion his conditioning has not improved is a really small reach in terms of the speculation generally applied on this site. Had Sano put in the work and exercised the requisite dietary disciple this was not a particularly difficult outcome to achieve. Therefore, Sano’s did not care enough about the commitment he made to the team to put forth the modest effort necessary to succeed. I would add that the same group is very likely to see this as a lack of commitment to being great. I suppose this is like anything else. It’s pretty hard to understand what you have never experienced. Therefore, it would be difficult for individuals that have never worked extremely hard and/or had enormous responsibility to understand where Ruesse is coming from.

I guess I understand your position now that you have added the perspective above. This is hardly a measure of a substantial effort. Is this really what you think amounts to “putting your money where your moth is”. Giving up a weekend or two. I have a number of colleagues and friends who have taken positions, especially leadership positions where it was necessary to put in 65-70/hrs week for the first few months or more and then work 60 hrs/week as the norm. In these types of positions, you don’t get paid more, it comes with the responsibility. This is not an uncommon scenario. Some of us also worked full-time while we spent 6-8 years in college and graduate school preparing for these roles. Just in case it is not obvious, that equates to long stretches of working every night until midnight and most weekends so I know about putting my "money where my mouth is" and the premise of giving up a couple weeks being a sacrifice is so ridiculous it is beyond words. So, Yes, I would think there are quite a few people who would consider eating properly and staying in shape to be a very modest effort for a professional athlete who stands to make the equivalent of 4,000 years of wages for the average person. I would add that the same group of people look at giving up a couple weeks of fun times as an extremely small sacrifice. I love Sano and his potential which is why I find it so disappointing that he does not care enough about being great and his contribution to the team on defense to make the modest sacrifice to eat properly and work-out. There are a whole lot of people in this country who are not professional athletes who do this simply to stay to healthy.

Fair enough. You have a point but how does this change the plan or the result. The team had a plan with Sano. So, I ask this of those of you who defend him. 1. Did he fail or did the FO made this up? 2. Is it fair to say that it would not be all that difficult for a 270 athlete to lose 20 pounds by watching his diet and a maintaining a reasonable workout regimen? 3. If 1&2 are true, how do you conclude anything other than he did not care enough to put in the requisite work? I guess we should also ask the question ... Is it fair to expect athletes with the potential of making hundreds of millions in a 12-15 year career to get in shape and stay that way? How can an athlete claim to want to be great if they are not willing to eat at least reasonably well and work-out?