KTryan

I don't really agree with that last sentence there. I'm not sure how you think pitching works, but there's not one right way to throw a baseball. Yes, there are good and better ways, especially depending on how you're built what you're trying to accomplish, but it's not like there's certain definable mechanical flaws in pitching that can just be "found" in the way that you find a bad spark plug something. You may see what you perceive to be an ineffieciency or a tweak to be made, but you have to realize that with every small change comes others when you're talking about a complicated, fast, coordinated motion that utilizes so many different parts of your body. I'm by no means a huge Rick Anderson fan, and I wasn't all that happy about how the FO handled the Worley thing (mostly because of the cost to acquire him, more so than thinking he was very good). However, let's not sit here and pretend one starting pitcher doing better for a small stretch, in the NL no less, is some damning indictment on our coaching staff. Some guys just don't pan out in certain situations. Phil Hughes.

I think part of this may have been the fact that he pitched his first couple games in terrible weather. Don't forget that these stats don't happen in a vacuum! I assume it might be a little harder getting a feel for breaking pitches in the cold, especially for a guy coming Florida and LA. Of course, it could just be the whole "You eally got to establish that fast-ball" mentality.

A few things here. Over a 20 year span in one of the smallest markets in baseball, especially with the rough years tending to be realllly rough, a 48% winning percentage is pretty damn good. Bill Smith inherited a very good team and did damage that we're still cleaning up. A slightly higher winning % over less than a quarter of the total time, all while starting with a better team, more resources, and a brand new stadium isn't all that significant, and it damn sure isn't impressive. Doesn't make him a bad guy, as I do agree that he was earnestly in it to win it. However, he was in it to win it this year every year, which leads to over-selling organizational capital that has been built up over many years for a *maybe* slightly better shot this year. I would argue that Ryan's approach is much better for long term health of an organization. You also mention Sano, Kepler, etc. What have they done in the majors? It's great to spend money on prospects and have a well regarded farm system, but it doesn't mean squat until they produce at the major league level. I know it's been tough being a Twins fan the last few years, but the level of pessimism and whining by Twins fans has just gotten ridiculous. OMG THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN BAD ALL FRONT OFFICE ALL ORGANIZATION BAD BAD BAD.