KirbyDome89

Sure, but if you've built a stud team you're drafting at or near the end of every round. You also may be giving up picks to sign FAs. That puts a lot of pressure on scouting and development. If your point is that they can draft and develop those players and have the same kind of success as teams drafting at the top then you're asking me to argue against the perfect GM and perfect organization. Every strategy has its strong and weak points. I was pointing out what I see as the weak point in selling a farm system.

Readily acknowledged the the second part and couldn't agree more on the first.

I've said it numerous times now, when you sell off a farm system that maximizes the present at the expense of the future. That is taking a short term approach. OMG for the last time I'm not arguing they haven't had good teams over the years. Several young players to build around? Castellanos, Iglesias, and Fulmer are the three regulars who won't be 30+ next season. Saying that is a core is pretty generous IMO.

Thats true. The point I made was those teams were able to be competitive because Detroit brought in FAs. Like I said, you can only sign so many high level FAs to multi year contracts. Eventually you're left with an old core, older FAs and no young talent. You're right, all teams fizzle out. If it was the team I root for fizzling out I would prefer that some young talent was in the system, that why I'm not totally into the fire sale on the farm.

No, the straw man is you making the argument that I said they weren't a successful team when I clearly mentioned that they were. It isn't being ignored, I addressed that in the first post I made when I said they can offset the loss of the farm by signing FAs but eventually that core starts to age and the contracts build up and thats where they are now. Yeah I guess why bother to continue building and developing a farm system, all you have do is hit on a core group of players, sell all other prospects, sign FAs, sign more FAs, and apparently never worry about a decimated talent pipeline and massive overpays to players past their prime because you'll always be good. Gotcha... We fundamentally disagree on the value of farm system and the best way to build a WS team. Thats it...

Lets say no teams have had a longer run. I'm still don't like selling off a farm system. There are ways to build a WS contender that doesn't completely mortgage your future. THAT is the point I've been making this whole time...

Its a flimsy argument to point out that a 4 year playoff stretch is short term? Ok.... Not many "legit," WS contenders miss the playoffs 4 straight seasons....07' was a bad draw with Cleveland in the division, but in 2 of those 4 years they were .500 or below, that isn't WS contending material. I said it before, the run as a whole was a success but the stretch in which they were postseason fixtures and a WS threat was 4 years. That was the reason for selling the farm.

You're killing it on the straw man arguments. "It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons." That is verbatim what I said. How do you read that an infer that I think the team hasn't been successful? You set the bar at a decade so that was the reference frame I used. Obviously including the WS appearance 11 years ago (not a decade) helps and clearly I did that when I said they had a good run with Dombrowski as GM. That would be 5 playoff appearances in 11 years. I realize people were down on them 10 years ago. I'm not one of those people from that time. I'm looking at this team, right now, and it is old and on track to mediocrity. That is a direct result of the strategy deployed. Recap: Yes they had a successful run. Yes I think Dombrowski is a good GM, if he wasn't he wouldn't continue to find work as one. Yes I think selling the farm for MLB talent is a path to winning a WS. No, I don't think its the best path. Yes I think their 11'-14' run was a result of putting all their chips on the table in the short term at the expense of the future.

The MEATLOAF....F**K!!!

Jesus lets hope it isn't quantity...

In the last ten years they missed the playoffs 4 straight. Then they went ALCS, WS, ALCS, ALDS, then missed the last 2 years. Yeah, I would say that gutting a farm system for a 4 year playoff run is short term. It was a good run, don't get me wrong, I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've watched in MN the last 6 seasons. Yep, they're an old team loaded with big FA contracts. They were garbage in 2015 and pretty good last year so mediocre isn't a bad description.

To me this sounds like ignore very real problems and just hope for the best. I can't see that helping this team in any way.

Honestly after losing 90+ in five of six seasons I don't know how much of a hit team interest can really take at this point. Those of us still left going to games and following the club are resigned to that fact that we're doomed to root for this franchise for life....

Ok, so can you show me where I said that it wouldn't work? I don't think anybody was talking about the "demise," of the Tigers during their run of AL Central titles. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my post. Every team oscillates between periods of good and bad so in that sense, yes, a downfall is inevitable, as it is for every team. I don't know why the idea that Detroit won't field a good team every year is so shocking. The goal is to maximize the number of WS contention years and minimize the bad years. I think there are ways it can be accomplished that don't hurt your long term outlook as much. If you're selling the farm to bring in high level MLB talent you're maximizing your chances in the short term at the expense of the long term future of the team. Detroit could do this because they were able to supplement the roles prospects should have been filling with large contract FAs. Its a great short term strategy to make a WS run but as the core you've built ages and the window shrinks, you're stuck with an old, mediocre team loaded with costly, multi year FA contracts at the possible expense of draft picks. Its baseball purgatory, and thats where Detroit is now. They're a fringy team that might sneak into the playoffs but is unlikely to make noise if that happens. That ceiling continues to fall as the core players age and there isn't young talent available in the minors to revive or carry the team. Thats a recipe for a long rebuild. Again, I never said he wasn't a good GM. He clearly built good minor league systems in Miami and Detroit, and he played a large part in the success of both organizations. I'm allowed to disagree with the strategy and still acknowledge that Dombrowski could have a couple WS titles if a few things bounced his way.

"Their hesitance to part with Dozier, along with their evident lack of interest in making Santana available, only underscores this." Lets hope they change at least one of those two stances this offseason...

So you didn't read the post then huh....

In fairness a large factor prolonging the crash has been the signing of big FAs. Their farm system isn't anything to get excited about but the big league team has been competitive because they can supplement with FAs. It isn't an ineffective strategy, its just more extreme. I think the biggest issue I have with it is that once the core of the team ages, you're stuck with an expensive, mediocre team with no young reinforcements on the way. Thats a long, ugly rebuild, but the Twins went the opposite route and we've seen the results of that so far....

Actually I have. Does that mean my previous post has been validated? You can keep skirting around the fact you don't have an answer for the flaws in the logic being used nor for unverifiable nature of "veteran leadership," but feel free to avoid the ad hominem advances.

Yep, that was once again the point. The post about Hunter's past teams was satirical, I don't actually believe he made the teams he was on worse. I was pointing out the massive flaw in the logic being offered up as proof that his "veteran leadership," made 2015 possible, and its absence caused the disaster that was the 2016 season. He had a great year in 2013 (1st with Detroit) but the team failed to repeat the success of the previous year. Obviously, he isn't singled out as the reason that team didn't reach the WS again, that would be ridiculous, yet when he signs with an overachieving 2015 Twins team and subsequently retires before the 2016 team horribly underachieves he is lauded as the component the team was lacking this season. You see how the logic is being applied unevenly right? If you're partial to having veteran players on the team thats fine. I'm not saying there is 0 merit in having some of those guys in a clubhouse. Veteran leadership or presence or whatever you want to call it is an intangible, meaning there is no way to quantify it, and therefore no way to know how much of an effect, if any, it has on a team.

A few bad plays? He was a train wreck defensively last year. Right now hes a 4th outfielder who can't play the outfield. He hits lefties well and is adept at getting on base so he could be a solid option for the weaker side of a platoon but his defense is just so bad it nullifies most of his value.

It was a pretty tongue in cheek post ha, but yeah Gibson is a great example. Nobody can pin down what makes a player a veteran. Along that same line "veteran leadership," isn't measurable so there is no reliable way to determine whether a player actually provides it. Apparently the Twins lack both though, so signing a 35 year old 1B/DH on the downslide of his career and adding him to the 3-4 other 1B/DH types already on the roster in the hope he provides leadership makes perfect sense....

So in his 18th year with Detroit he wasn't a leader but in his 19th season with the Twins he was? I agree the 20+ win scenario is a hyperbolic argument, but its not one that I'm making. I'm glad you see the humor in the Angels scenario, as that was exactly the point.

It always bothered me that TR played such a massive role in the mess that was the 2011 - 2014 Twins yet Bill Smith seemed to catch most of the blame. Falvey an Co. should write him a nice thank you letter for Sano, Kepler, Polanco, Gibson (I guess?), and Dozier. Smith was TERRIBLE with asset management at the big league level but I don't think he gets enough credit for the work he did with international signings and with the draft.

Are Hughes, Perkins, Santana, Dozier, and Mauer not considered veterans? How many vets does a team need to improve enough to make a playoff run? What are the qualifications a player needs to reach veteran status? Is there a specific age a player has to be? Are there statistical milestones a player has to achieve? So many questions....

A rumor about the Twins having interest in Napoli is posted. A large number of posters, myself included, don't see the merit in signing a player who is 35 years old, on the downslide, and plays a position that is already a cluster. The side in favor of bringing Napoli in cites "veteran leadership," as reason enough to offer him a contract. If you're going to say that his "leadership," justifies an offer the burden of proving the legitimacy of that claim is on you. Also to assert that his leadership will benefit the team because it can't be proven otherwise (absence of evidence) is in this case an informal fallacy as Mike mentioned above.