Interesting interview with Terry Ryan

[bird]

  On 8/29/2014 at 5:02 PM, mike wants wins said:

What I remember is Ryan always saying this:

 

"the Pohlads have never turned me down when I asked to spend money" or something like that......

 

I think it is presumptuous to believe we know what the budget was, or what the owners said he could or could not do.

 

either way, the point is, the guys he signed during those years were bad. really. bad.

 

I'm done with this, though. It isn't going anywhere. brock and I agree, others agree differently, no one is likely to change their mind.

Andy MacPhail always said the same thing. Smith too. It's not relevant that you and I "don't know" what the budget was/is. The GM has ALWAYS known what the budget is, and they have always known they can go to ownership and get approval to spend more.

 

I'm in solidarity about abandoning this constant futile exercise of looking into the past and attempting to attribute blame on GMs using whatever "facts" we have at our disposal in each of our little vacuums. I want people to tell me instead what they think the GM should focus on in the future, or at least stay in the present and soundly thrash the poor guy for all his recent transgressions.

[Mike Sixel]

Agreed, birdwatcher.....

[TheLeviathan]

  On 8/29/2014 at 6:34 PM, birdwatcher said:

I'm in solidarity about abandoning this constant futile exercise of looking into the past and attempting to attribute blame on GMs using whatever "facts" we have at our disposal in each of our little vacuums. I want people to tell me instead what they think the GM should focus on in the future, or at least stay in the present and soundly thrash the poor guy for all his recent transgressions.

 

Well said.  We can't talk about past hypotheticals because we have such a narrow view of what was available at the time.  

 

It's important also not to get too caught up in specifics about what the team should do in the future.  As drjim said earlier, it would've been nice if the team had gambled on more "rebuild value" types.  Who?  Well specifics are really hard to get into with that, it's more about the approach/mindset.  So getting caught up in specific names to back up his point would be a fruitless exercise.  His point, for good or bad, can be analyzed without that.

 

That's just one example, but relevant to this thread so I thought I'd use it.

[bird]

  On 8/29/2014 at 5:59 PM, jokin said:

Or maybe TR just saves his "better than his numbers", "consistency" and "prepared" platitudes and cliches when signing FAs and publicly considering promotion of his very best pitching prospects?

Oh my Lord. Has Ryan ever said something you wouldn't pick apart. I'm sorry, but this statement is just so far over the top. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Going back to the short Phil Miller story linked in the OP, I thought the story read verbatim from last year. ... "No one likes to lose" ... "We'll sit down at the end of the season," ... "winning takes time but fans want immediate gratification" ... followed by "fans deserve better" ...

 

The narrative around retaining Gardenhire isn't changing apparently. Leads me to believe the narrative of the 2014 season will be the same of 2013, that it was always going to be a rebuilding year. So rewind the reel and prepare to watch the same show next year?

[gunnarthor]

  On 8/29/2014 at 6:11 PM, TheLeviathan said:

I'm dramatically overstating the value of the best pitcher in baseball?

 

So much so that we should be thrilled with getting a prospect package that featured no one ranked in the top 50 in baseball?  And less than a year removed from Freddy Garcia netting Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez.  Or the massive haul Texeira landed Texas?

 

Cmon, Terry Ryan is a good GM and I like him for many, many reasons.  We'd have been better off if he had stayed as well IMO.  But defending his handling of the Santana negotiations this hard?  To me that just means we're at an impasse that I can't wrap my head around.

Guerra was ranked #35 and Gomez #52.  And Humber had been ranked #50 before his TJ surgery.  

 

The Garcia trade was a nice trade but Gonzalez had been ranked #72 at the time and Floyd was entering his arb years as a back of the rotation guy.  In 3 years in Philly he amassed -1.6 WAR and a 66 ERA+.  The Twins package was better on paper.  Additionally, Santana was going to cost the other team a ton of money - only a few teams could even conceivably be in on the trade.

 

I think the idea that Ryan destroyed any trade leverage is massively overstated by you and not supported by any facts.  Sure, other teams knew the Twins weren't going to extend him and Santana was going to leave.  So what?  That didn't change his value in their eyes.  What changed his value the most was his drop in production in 07, from best pitcher in baseball to merely a top 10 pitcher who was going to demand top dollar.  

[TheLeviathan]

  On 8/29/2014 at 7:08 PM, gunnarthor said:

Sure, other teams knew the Twins weren't going to extend him and Santana was going to leave.  So what?  

 

......So it hurt the team's leverage.  Same thing that happens any time a team's hand is forced/revealed.  The facts we have are that the offers coming in were not elite packages - they paled in comparison to what was offered for a player making similar money but not nearly as impactful (Teixeira) and rumors throughout the process were that the teams were low-balling the Twins.

 

They were only in a position to low-ball their offers because of the lack of leverage the Twins had.  Their GM handing out insulting offers to one of its star players was a mistake.  Especially when they're in their final years of team control.  

[gunnarthor]

  On 8/29/2014 at 7:22 PM, TheLeviathan said:

......So it hurt the team's leverage.  Same thing that happens any time a team's hand is forced/revealed.  The facts we have are that the offers coming in were not elite packages - they paled in comparison to what was offered for a player making similar money but not nearly as impactful (Teixeira) and rumors throughout the process were that the teams were low-balling the Twins.

 

They were only in a position to low-ball their offers because of the lack of leverage the Twins had.  Their GM handing out insulting offers to one of its star players was a mistake.  Especially when they're in their final years of team control.  

"Final years" - awesome.  

 

Regardless of whether or not there was any media report of any failed offer by the FO, every team knew he was leaving.  Everyone.  It changed nothing. At all. 

 

Every team knew that Santana was going to demand a huge extension.  It would have been silly of Ryan to trade him midway through the season as well.  

 

I gotta agree with Tobi.  There's no reason to continue this.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 8/29/2014 at 7:37 PM, gunnarthor said:

Regardless of whether or not there was any media report of any failed offer by the FO, every team knew he was leaving.  Everyone.  It changed nothing. At all. 

 

Prior to that awful offer in April of 2007, there was no certainty of what was going to happen.  That's what sealed the deal.  Had the Twins offered him something competitive, or nothing at all, they wouldn't have killed their leverage.  Or at least there might have been a chance at salvaging it, but the fact is that it was their ludicrously low offer that announced to everyone that his departure was imminent.  

 

That's on Ryan, he created that situation when it would've been far better to have done nothing at all or had the guts to deal him himself.  Even if the timing was difficult to swallow.

 

Some relevant stuff from back then:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/johan-santana/page/23

[Thrylos]

  On 8/29/2014 at 4:11 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

You're intentionally ignoring 2008 and 2009 when the Twins lost and won 163, only to have the honor of a depleted Twins team going up against the Yankees again the time they won. That's convenient.

 

Garza's influence would almost certainly have been marginal in 2010 when the Twins were very good but it's ignoring reality to mold your argument to exclude his potential impact on the 2008-9 squads that were fringe contenders.

 

  On 8/29/2014 at 4:11 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

You're intentionally ignoring 2008 and 2009 when the Twins lost and won 163, only to have the honor of a depleted Twins team going up against the Yankees again the time they won. That's convenient.

 

Garza's influence would almost certainly have been marginal in 2010 when the Twins were very good but it's ignoring reality to mold your argument to exclude his potential impact on the 2008-9 squads that were fringe contenders.

 

I was answering your question about where that team would have been in 2011-2014 if Garza and Ramos were here.   You framed the discussion not me

[Thrylos]

  On 8/29/2014 at 4:15 PM, mike wants wins said:

 

birdwacher's best post ever. he should probably retire right now,

 

seriously, I agree with every word here. Every. Single. Word.

 

including the Ortiz and Milone comparison?

[nicksaviking]

  On 8/29/2014 at 4:50 PM, drjim said:

Santana also had a no trade at the deadline. There were probably workarounds, but it wasn't as simple as it seems.

 

What it would have taken is a strategic decision a couple of weeks before the deadline to sell, which obviously he didn't do, perhaps rightly.

 

I don't give all the blame to Ryan on the Santana deal, but I do give him most.  He was after all the guy who gave Santana a no trade provision.  Santana was a 25-year-old left-handed reigning Cy Young Award winner and Ryan only gave him a four year deal, which actually only bought out one free agent year AND gave him no trade provisions.  That was a terrible deal for the Twins.  Hindsight would have suggested a 6 year deal was in order, and while hindsight is foolish to dwell in, conventional wisdom would suggest now and at the time that a four year deal is largely inadaquate

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 3:06 PM, TheLeviathan said:

This is such a fallacious argument, I wish we'd hear the end of it in every thread.  Ugh.

Ugh is right. When being criticized for signing free agents, the critics ignore the fact that Ryan was under budget constraints. What you are looking through is a collection of players that a team did not want anymore for a free agent,  The type of player people would have liked Ryan to sign would be similar to some of the players he traded away. So the question would be was he better at dumpster diving than other GMs. Nobody really keeps track of that stat. If Zenser has a fallacious argument, so does those that rip Ryan for free agent signings as they ignore the constraint. Signing players with a 3 WAR ceiling, or years removed from elite status is not going to make you a better team. It is stopgap until a younger player develops. The argument that he does not make the team better with free agency does not play as he is limited in what he can sign.

 

Too funny on the Mike Lamb comment. Smith signed Lamb.

[Winston Smith]

Ryan has been the GM for 15-16 years. Besides the 2002-06 period his teams have been mediocre or worse.

 

In those years they have won one playoff series. I have a real hard time understanding how that record gets you a lifetime job.

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:03 PM, Thrylos said:

I was answering your question about where that team would have been in 2011-2014 if Garza and Ramos were here.   You framed the discussion not me

You use Garza vs Pavano. Try Garza rather than Blackburn or the bottom of the rotation instead.

[nicksaviking]

  On 8/29/2014 at 6:11 PM, TheLeviathan said:

  On 8/29/2014 at 6:11 PM, TheLeviathan said:

I'm dramatically overstating the value of the best pitcher in baseball?

 

So much so that we should be thrilled with getting a prospect package that featured no one ranked in the top 50 in baseball?  And less than a year removed from Freddy Garcia netting Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez.  Or the massive haul Texeira landed Texas?

 

Cmon, Terry Ryan is a good GM and I like him for many, many reasons.  We'd have been better off if he had stayed as well IMO.  But defending his handling of the Santana negotiations this hard?  To me that just means we're at an impasse that I can't wrap my head around.

 

You just say that because had the Twins not traded him, but instead let him walk and had gotten the compensation picks the Twins would likely have had the selections the Angels used to draft Mike Trout and Tyler Skaggs.

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:21 PM, Winston Smith said:

Ryan has been the GM for 15-16 years. Besides the 2002-06 period his teams have been mediocre or worse.

 

In those years they have won one playoff series. I have a real hard time understanding how that record gets you a lifetime job.

Ask the same question about Billy Beane if playoff victories are the bar for keeping your job..

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 6:34 PM, birdwatcher said:

I'm in solidarity about abandoning this constant futile exercise of looking into the past and attempting to attribute blame on GMs using whatever "facts" we have at our disposal in each of our little vacuums. I want people to tell me instead what they think the GM should focus on in the future, or at least stay in the present and soundly thrash the poor guy for all his recent transgressions.

What was done in the past is the past. What was done before his first retirement is ancient history in baseball time. The baseball world has changed since Ryan started. Compensation for free agents, draft slotting, IFA money pools have all changed how teams can do business. In the new environment how will Ryan fare? I am not sure, but I kind of doubt anyone else here has an answer, either.

[Winston Smith]

What does Billy Beane have to do with Ryan?

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:51 PM, Winston Smith said:

What does Billy Beane have to do with Ryan?

His tenure has been longer than Ryan's. His teams have exactly one playoff series win. He is viewed favorably and in no danger of being fired.  Should teams get rid of GMs because of only one playoff series win? It seems like an odd standard to use to judge a GM.  Beane would be why it would seem odd.

[zenser]

My original question was to this comment.
 

  On 8/29/2014 at 2:08 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

You want to finish off a build from the outside? I don't think Ryan's your guy.

To which Brock answered and I agree with this answer.
 

  On 8/29/2014 at 2:23 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

IMO, the Twins are a long way from "finishing up the build"... I'm just skeptical that Ryan is the guy to do that when the time comes.

Right now, the Twins are on the tail end of a rebuild... Maybe they're at the 75% mark. Next season, they *should* be around the 90% mark if things break right with Buxton and Sano.

Which means the 2015 offseason is when things should get really interesting. Do you start building for a winner or sit on your hands for another season?

If you want to go back to the early mid 2000s. The twins had a good core. Back with Pierzynski, Mientkiewicz, Rivas, Guzman, Koskie, Hunter, Jones, Stewart, followed by Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer. Ryan was able to supplement Bartlett and Castillo, Kubel when that core dissolved. Koskie and 3B were the only position they really weren't able to replace. When Koskie left, FA 3B were scarce. Beltre and Glaus signed a big deals the same year Koskie did. I think Casey Blake signed the year Smith signed Lamb. A-Rod signed in there too but we wont get into that. In 2009, Smith signed Crede. Other than that, it was slim FA classes between 2006-2009.

 

Maybe Ryan would have signed a bat to DH in those years, but for the most part, they were set in most positions.  Radke and Santana were in the rotation so they had their "aces".

IIRC, in 2007 the Twins signed Mauer, Morneau, and Cuddyer and picked up Hunter's option. Ryan stepped down in 2007 and Smith took over in 2008. In 2008, they signed Morneau, Cuddyer, and Nathan long term. Having the new core signed long term, Span ready to debut, I don't blame them for the offer they made to Hunter and trading Santana. They were more concerned with keeping their young core than Hunter and Santana. They also had a young Baker, Blackburn, Slowey, and Perkins along with Liriano coming off TJ.

To me, the mistake took place in the Garza trade. That was made out of desperation.  With a little patience, however, the Santana trade could have worked out.

[drjim]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:06 PM, nicksaviking said:

I don't give all the blame to Ryan on the Santana deal, but I do give him most.  He was after all the guy who gave Santana a no trade provision.  Santana was a 25-year-old left-handed reigning Cy Young Award winner and Ryan only gave him a four year deal, which actually only bought out one free agent year AND gave him no trade provisions.  That was a terrible deal for the Twins.  Hindsight would have suggested a 6 year deal was in order, and while hindsight is foolish to dwell in, conventional wisdom would suggest now and at the time that a four year deal is largely inadaquate

 

Minor details, but the contract bought out two years of FA and the no trade was only triggered by a Cy Young award, it wasn't an automatic part of the contract. He probably should have given him a longer contract.

 

On another note, this triggered another costly mistake that Ryan made, which was signing Mauer to only a 4 year deal that bought out one year of FA heading into the 2007 season. In a sense it wasn't necessary to sign the extension at that point, and in another sense, it would have made sense to make it at least a 6 year deal, especially since the original deal expired when Mauer was 28. A 6 year deal would have prevented the need for the 8 year albatross that was eventually signed. He also signed Mauer without resolving Hunter or Santana, who were closer to FA at the time.

 

Ryan was, right or wrong, hesitant to sign Santana t the years required, but if he had extended Hunter before the 2007 he probably could have done a reasonable extension, perhaps 3/45 tacked on to the last year of the deal.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:16 PM, old nurse said:

Ugh is right. When being criticized for signing free agents, the critics ignore the fact that Ryan was under budget constraints. 

 

Who has ever done that ever?  Of course he had restraints, in part that's what made his misuse of funds even worse.  Flushing 7M down the toilet on a 120M dollar payroll is bad enough...on a 70M payroll?  That really hurts.  

 

It's just one of his biggest weaknesses along with what bird mentioned earlier.  And that's ok, he can still be a good GM and have a weakness or two.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 8/29/2014 at 9:25 PM, drjim said:

Ryan was, right or wrong, hesitant to sign Santana t the years required, but if he had extended Hunter before the 2007 he probably could have done a reasonable extension, perhaps 3/45 tacked on to the last year of the deal.

 

I think it goes back to your earlier point....Ryan is just really fearful of giving out deals 4+.  He has very justifiable reasons for that, but that stance comes with consequences too.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

Just a moderator note, this has been a great thread, but let's try to keep it respectful. Thanks.

[benji21]

  On 8/29/2014 at 2:08 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

To be completely frank, I think there's plenty of evidence that he's awful at FA signings. That is easily the most glaring weakness of Ryan, in my opinion.

 

You want a guy to build a farm? Ryan's your guy. You want a steady hand to see a rebuild through to completion? Ryan's your guy. You want to trade away assets for valuable pieces in the future? Ryan's your guy.

 

You want to finish off a build from the outside? I don't think Ryan's your guy.

Yeah, he is pretty awful at FA signings.  I wish we could combine him and Billy Smith.  Smith seemed to be pretty adept at adding complementary pieces in the way that we begged TR to do when Santana, Nathan, M&M and the bunch were rolling.  Remember "we're just another starter and power bat away from a dynasty"?  TR couldn't pull the trigger.  Smith could on stuff like that.  If this really is a devil you know situation, I'd maybe like to dip my toe into the devil you don't know pond.  I always have to have what's behind door #3......Even if it is Antony (blech!)

[Thrylos]

  On 8/29/2014 at 8:34 PM, old nurse said:

You use Garza vs Pavano. Try Garza rather than Blackburn or the bottom of the rotation instead.

 

The premise here is that if the Twins had Garza, they would not need to trade for Pavano or sign Correia.  Garza would have been "the horse" and would probably made Pavano $.

[old nurse]

  On 8/29/2014 at 11:00 PM, Thrylos said:

The premise here is that if the Twins had Garza, they would not need to trade for Pavano or sign Correia.  Garza would have been "the horse" and would probably made Pavano $.

Smith makes the trade for Pavano because there was more than one under performing Twins starter that year. Besides, that year Pavano was cheap at 1.5 mill/yr. 7 mil the next year while significant, would not have been bank breaking on a winning team.Correia would have probably still been signed because there were  far too many holes in that staff. Maybe they take 2 prospects for Revere or not sign Pelfrey. Garza over Pelfrey and the AAA starters would be a significant swing.

[Thrylos]

  On 8/29/2014 at 11:14 PM, old nurse said:

Smith makes the trade for Pavano because there was more than one under performing Twins starter that year. Besides, that year Pavano was cheap at 1.5 mill/yr. 7 mil the next year while significant, would not have been bank breaking on a winning team.Correia would have probably still been signed because there were  far too many holes in that staff. Maybe they take 2 prospects for Revere or not sign Pelfrey. Garza over Pelfrey and the AAA starters would be a significant swing.

 

ok.  Let's substitute Garza for the worst starting pitcher for each of the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons.   Does that make the Twins a winning team any of those seasons?  Are these Twins teams just a third starter in a good team (because that is what Garza has become pretty much) away from competing or even away from respectability?

 

I don't think so.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 8/29/2014 at 2:16 PM, Lazarus said:

Don't agree that Ryan was responsible for the rotting of the minor league system - that responsibility falls squarely on Ryan's overmatched successor. When the Pohlad's brought Ryan back, I figured it would be a 3-4 year process to get back to respectibility and competing for the post-season. The model has fundamentally changed in that you can't do it solely through free agency anymore. There are a few players that Ryan might have signed to shorter contracts that would have made watching this team more palatable over the last three years, but those players would have had to be willing to sign here. I don't believe there were many upgrades that were willing. That probably changes a little in the upcoming years as the prospects are starting to arrive and potential free agents can better see how the team will be competitive during their contract period, but now we can be more selective - don't need 32 to 35 year olds larding up the roster.

if it's 3-4 years to get back to respectability, how long does it take to undo an entire minor league system? Smith was only GM for 5 years. And for what it's worth, we're in year 4 and year 5 doesn't look like a playoff contender either, without some pretty big offseason moves.