It's a question I'm not sure how to answer. Do you base it on postseason success? In that case, the last 20 years under Ryan have been an abject failure.

 

Do you base it on combined regular season and postseason success? In that case Ryan gets a "C". Maybe even a "D" if you take into consideration Smith was his handpicked successor.

 

On a 1-10 scale where would Ryan's 20 years rank?

One investor at a time.

One investor at a time.

 

It's a shame I can only like this once.

It's a shame I can only like this once.

 

Hey ... you're the pixel monkey mvp ... couldn't you do something about that?

After having GMed for dozens of seasons¹, I can state with confidence that I would have done much better with this team than Terry Ryan has. When, for instance, is the last time he fleeced another GM by trading 5 marginal prospects for someone's number one draft pick?

 

¹ Out of the Park Baseball, I have a 2014 season underway now

Well everyone likes to jump on Bill Smith much of which he deserves. However, his record is actually better than Ryan's at 51% wins against Ryan at 48%. No doubt Smith made some bad deals and we will never know who gave him the scouting advice to make the deals because he had to rely on others for that because he had no scouting or player eval background. How could anyone see that as a problem?

The Twins minor league system actually improved it's ranking under Smith likely because he was willing to spend some money. Does anyone think Ryan would have spent the money to sign Sano, Kepler and a few others?

The point of playing major league baseball is one of 2: Trying to win a world series or making money.

Looking back I'd say Smith was over his head but was trying to win a world series and willing to spend the bosses money to do so. Ryan, I think, is willing to do what stays in or under budget. Whatever you get with that is ok.

I'd likely give them both a D.

I think there are a few criterion here.

 

1) What did he do with what he had to work with (i.e. budget constraints, bad contracts, etc.)?

2) Post season appearances where it was expected.

3) Post season appearances where it wasn't expected.

4) Post season results

5) Farm system quality year over year.

6) Regular season results when not in the post season.

7) Knowing when to rebuild and when to go for it.

 

And this is just to start. I'd say there's a bunch more which makes this question pretty complicated.

 

Ryan ran a pretty good ship during the 2000s timeframe, though he punted on a couple of tough decisions, and I think that was a pretty big mistake. I dont' think it's fair to credit him for the successes or failures of Bill Smith.

 

As for the overall grade, I don't really think you can grade him until his body of work is complete. I can say this. If Ryan was fired today, there would be a number of teams quite willing to hire him. That, to me, says that he's doing a pretty decent job.

Well everyone likes to jump on Bill Smith much of which he deserves. However, his record is actually better than Ryan's at 51% wins against Ryan at 48%. No doubt Smith made some bad deals and we will never know who gave him the scouting advice to make the deals because he had to rely on others for that because he had no scouting or player eval background. How could anyone see that as a problem?

The Twins minor league system actually improved it's ranking under Smith likely because he was willing to spend some money. Does anyone think Ryan would have spent the money to sign Sano, Kepler and a few others?

The point of playing major league baseball is one of 2: Trying to win a world series or making money.

Looking back I'd say Smith was over his head but was trying to win a world series and willing to spend the bosses money to do so. Ryan, I think, is willing to do what stays in or under budget. Whatever you get with that is ok.

I'd likely give them both a D.

 

I agree with Die Hard, Smith inherited a good team and had 100+ million dollar payrolls. I think Smith didn't understand you can't have enough pitching (Garza trade). His moves in general were bad to good about 3 to 1.

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.

I think Smith didn't understand you can't have enough pitching (Garza trade).

 

At the time I was in favor of trading from strength. What I didn't agree with was trading away whichever pitcher would bring you the most in return. Instead, pick the one or two who you feel fit the least best with your needs, and negotiate over them for whatever you can get - if the return is sufficient then pull the trigger on the deal, otherwise stand pat. Garza seemed at the time like the surest bet to contribute, and thus was exactly the wrong one to deal, and the Rays jumped on it. So, bad trade, with full credit to Smith, but not because the idea was wrongheaded from the outset.

Success is such a relative term. First you must define success, only then can you rate it.

much of which he deserves. However, his record is actually better than Ryan's at 51% wins against Ryan at 48%. No doubt Smith made some bad deals and we will never know who gave him the scouting advice to make the deals because he had to rely on others for that because he had no scouting or player eval background. How could anyone see that as a problem?

The Twins minor league system actually improved it's ranking under Smith likely because he was willing to spend some money. Does anyone think Ryan would have spent the money to sign Sano, Kepler and a few others?

The point of playing major league baseball is one of 2: Trying to win a world series or making money.

Looking back I'd say Smith was over his head but was trying to win a world series and willing to spend the bosses

money to do so. Ryan, I think, is willing to do what stays in or under budget. Whatever you get with that is ok.

I'd likely give them both a D.

Excellent take. For all his deficiencies, Smith wanted to win, and there was plenty of money to go around. Ryan's main objective is to maximize profit for his boss. I have alot more respect for Smith. I firmly believe his desire to spend is what got him fired.

Like we did with Lirano or Go Go Gomez or Hardy or Cuddy or Ramos or Hunter, etc.

I respectfully disagree that he was fired because he wanted to spend more money. Mr. Smith, though a nice man, made some incredibly bad trades.

Yes, Terry Ryan has no interest in winning, completely logical.

 

 

Ryan's main objective is to maximize profit for his boss.

 

Any employee who forgets this probably won't have his or her job title for very long.

Any

employee who forgets this probably won't have his or her job title for very long.

Completely different situation here. The Pohlad's have made their billions elsewhere. Penny pinching with the baseball team, in spite of publicly funded stadium and insane amounts of revenue, is shameful.

It's a question I'm not sure how to answer.

 

Penny pinching with the baseball team, in spite of publicly funded stadium and insane amounts of revenue, is shameful.

 

Having trouble reconciling these two posts in the space of a few hours. In any case, we're now on old well traveled terrain and I'm done with this topic.

I dont know about anyone else but I measure mine from the taint to the tip

Yes,

Terry Ryan has no interest in winning, completely logical.

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7259[/ATTACH]

Maximizing profits is #1 priority. Winning is secondary.

Yes, Terry Ryan has no interest in winning, completely logical.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7259[/ATTACH]

 

Who said that?

Having trouble reconciling these two posts in

the space of a few hours. In any

case, we're now on old well traveled terrain and I'm done with this topic.

Threads evolve. I'm not the one who changed the subject.

As said above, this thread is well traveled territory and the responses will be pretty predictable. What I will say is this, I believe Ryan said that a major difference between him and Smith was that he(Ryan) was more patient than Smith. I do think that 2 of Ryan's strengths are talent evaluation combined with patience. Once Ryan had decided that a player had a certain level of talent and a good chance to reach it, he usually gave that player a chance to get there. The most notable exception to that was Ortiz. Sometimes, perhaps he was too patient(see Rivas and others). But often I think he gave guys plenty of opportunites to prove their worth and often it worked out. Some examples could include Hunter, Koskie, Perkins, Cuddyer and Plouffe.

 

None of this necessarily makes Ryan a great general manager, but one of things that has often hurt other franchises in baseball and even franchises in other sports such as the Timberwolves, is a lack of patience to let a plan work itself out.

Overall due to the budget and the owners wanting more millions TR has done a good job overall. The one thing that still bothers me he left during a big offseason for the Twins, Hunter walked for nothing in return and we were forced to trade Santana.

This is a loaded question and, yes, there are a few different camps who will not change their (our) minds, but all I have to say is this:

 

Let's sweep the Tigers this weekend!

Threads evolve. I'm not the one who changed the subject.

 

Really? You just turned a question on how to judge Ryan's tenure to an indictment on Ryan's motives and have continued to escalate this.

 

Moderator note, let's try to keep this civil.

Wins and losses.

Wins and losses.

 

Oh, I didn't realize that the poster had such a virulent agenda when asking the question. I took it on face value.

Maximizing profits is #1 priority. Winning is secondary.

How do you post a profit selling a product no one will buy?

Who said that?

 

It's been implied pretty obviously in more than one post here.