What is your timeline?

[Mike Sixel]

Astros are 7 games over .500, the Cubs are over .500.....the Twins are old and not over .500.

 

What kind of timeline:

 

a: do you want, not what will happen, but realistically want

b: do you expect, given where they are

c: do you think the Twins are on

 

And, do you trust the FO to get this team there in less than 2-3 years?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't really buy into timelines because, as we saw last season with Buxton and Sano, weirdness tends to happen that disrupts said timeline.

 

If not for injury to Buxton and Sano last season, we'd be a lot more excited about the Twins right now because one or both of them would be on the roster, playing every day.

 

Injuries suck, particularly when they ravage the top prospects in a very good farm system.

[TheLeviathan]

The injuries are definitely one of the biggest factors, on the other hand there is still a problem with how this team constitutes it's lineup during a rebuild.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Good question. Never seen them presented quite this way.

 

For now I will say that there's no reason Houston isn't for real. Like the Twins in 2001 who out of no where started out hot and stayed in front most of the season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The injuries are definitely one of the biggest factors, on the other hand there is still a problem with how this team constitutes it's lineup during a rebuild.  

For sure. I'm not giving them a pass, just stating the timelines are a good way to set yourself up for failure.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm imagining the contracts for building the new Vikings stadium not having any timelines. Lol not gonna fly

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm imagining the contracts for building the new Vikings stadium not having any timelines. Lol not gonna fly

Building a structure and counting on human beings to develop at the "expected pace" are not really the same thing...

[gunnarthor]

 

Astros are 7 games over .500, the Cubs are over .500.....the Twins are old and not over .500.

 

What kind of timeline:

 

a: do you want, not what will happen, but realistically want

b: do you expect, given where they are

c: do you think the Twins are on

 

And, do you trust the FO to get this team there in less than 2-3 years?

Houston could be the  2001 Twins but they could also be the 2009 Royals.  

 

I said before the season that I thought the Twins would be .500 team this year so I'll stick with that although I'm not as confident now.  But I do think this FO is on the right track.  

 

I think you also worry too much about age.  The Cubs, like the Twins rely on a handful of 30 years old as well (Lester, Hammel, Montero, Coglan).  The Astros do too.  You could make a case that the Twins should have gone with other pieces in the pen, I won't argue, but I don't care either.  

[Vanimal46]

I feel like the Twins could have been in the  same spot that the Astros are in had we completely blown up the roster like the Astros did. Sure we've been bad with 4 straight 90+ loss seasons, but the Astros were god awful. Their staff is a little on the older side, (Hello Sam Deduno) but I like their lineup they put together. And still have Mark Appel and Carlos Correa at their disposal who have yet to be included on the 40 man roster (at least according to their website)

 

Realistically I don't see the Twins being contenders until at least the 2018 season. Doesn't mean we won't see an above .500 team before then, but I'm thinking it's another 3 years until everything shapes up and we see Berrios, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, etc. get into their groove.

 

I have no faith that TR is the person that will get us to that point. I think the game has passed him by, and to get to being a contender again, we need a fresh set of eyes on these prospects.

 

 

[nicksaviking]

May 1, 2015: take time machine back to May 1, 2011 and convince Bill Smith that no, 2010 was the mirage and losing is the new norm, clean house ASAP, never having more than a couple 30-year-olds on the roster going forward. Do it or else.

 

May 2, 2011: place some money in St. Louis to win the WS and win some fat cash at the race track. Come back to 2015.

 

May 2, 2015: realize Bill Smith did not heed my advice and the team is still a wasteland.

 

May 3, 2015: take time machine to May 1, 2012 and tell Terry Ryan that no, 2010 was still the mirage, losing is the new norm, start rebuild ASAP. Do it or else.

 

May 4, 2012: place money on San Francisco to win the WS and win some fat cash at the racetrack. Come back to the future, find that Ryan also didn't herd my advice and the team is still a wasteland.

 

May 5, 2015: use my winnings to buy the Twins, replace The front office who as they clearly did not fear my warning and instead thought it would be good fun to sign 30-year-old pitchers to long term deals.

 

May 1, 2016: sit in the owners box and smile as the rubes boo because the Twins have the lowest payroll (and youngest team) in the league.

 

I just don't see any other timeline that works.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Building a structure and counting on human beings to develop at the "expected pace" are not really the same thing...

Mostly true.

 

Or, the Twins could sign or trade for a few guys who have already developed, are in their prime, and can be counted on to perform above average. That's not how I'd prefer to see it done (I like seeing guys develop from within), but it's just as valid.

[KGB]

The concern I have is that I think the FO already believes they should be there.  Last year, Ryan signed Kendry Morales because he thought we had a chance at the playoffs - we finished again with 90 losses.  This year, we signed more veterans and again the FO talked about playoffs.

 

Houston and Cubs brought up the young players and added veterans to supplement the youth.  Eventually, the Twins young players should force the issue and .500 should happen in the next couple years.  Hopefully the FO will be willing to eat some contract dollars when this happens. But I think this FO has really misread the team, resulting in a longer rebuild.

[drivlikejehu]

I'm skeptical that the current front office can put together a contending club on any timeline. They are outclassed by competing front offices, many of whom have larger budgets to work with on top of this advantage.

 

The Twins are simply unable to evaluate talent, either their own or in the free agent market. They couldn't pick the right 5th starter, couldn't put together the right bullpen, made numerous free agent signings that blew up either immediately or in short order, watch horrible defenders play the field and claim they are good... they are a clueless, incompetent train wreck.

 

Even that isn't the real problem - the real problem is that they refuse to learn from their mistakes or look outside the organization (except for limited roles). So while the other 29 clubs, well maybe not the Phillies, but while the other 28 clubs are constantly trying to improve, the Twins are inhabiting a parallel universe where their awful roster makes them a contender.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

Houston and Cubs brought up the young players and added veterans to supplement the youth. 

That's not exactly true, though.  Cubs signed tons of old guys - Edwin Jackson, Dejesus, Reed Johnson, Malholm etc.  Frankly, I think the Twins and Cubs have been doing very similar things although the Cubs have been a little healthier and have a slightly higher payroll.  

 

Houston has been a little different (although they've signed a bunch of Correia like guys too) in that they decided it was ok to lose 100 games and have a criminally low payroll while doing so.  I don't think that would have flown around here.

[markos]

 

Astros are 7 games over .500, the Cubs are over .500.....the Twins are old and not over .500.

 

What kind of timeline:

 

a: do you want, not what will happen, but realistically want

b: do you expect, given where they are

c: do you think the Twins are on

 

And, do you trust the FO to get this team there in less than 2-3 years?

a: I want them to be competitive next season. 

b: I expect them to be competitive in 2017. They have too many holes and too many young players that still need to develop at the majors for them to be competitive next season, but I honestly think that they should be .500 or better in 2017. 

c: I think the Twins mistakenly think they should be competitive right now, and that they already have built a good team.

[Mike Sixel]

I appreciate everyone taking a non-mean tone to the discussion so far. Thanks everyone.

[nicksaviking]

That's not exactly true, though.  Cubs signed tons of old guys - Edwin Jackson, Dejesus, Reed Johnson, Malholm etc.  Frankly, I think the Twins and Cubs have been doing very similar things although the Cubs have been a little healthier and have a slightly higher payroll.

I agree it's similar but the Cubs signed those guys to bridge to the prospects and most of those guys are already off the roster. Only Jackson got a long term deal and he was under 30 at the time. The Twins strangely did it late in the rebuild process and signed older guys to longer and less tradable deals.

 

To be fair though, I thought the Lester deal was pretty silly. No way that works for more than a year or two.

[Linus]

I think we are closer to being competitive than many people do.  Primarily because I think their rotation, when Santana gets back, will be much improved and I think they will start scoring runs.  I expect them to flirt with .500 by the end of the year.

 

As far as "the rebuild" I really think this is a non-starter.  You can't blow it up and go young when you had no credible prospects to bring up.  The cupboard was not only bare, it was barren.  They probably still couldn't blow it up and go completely young without throwing prospects out there that have little chance to succeed in the big leagues.  There are no easy ways out when your farm system dries up.  Plus, they've brought up position prospects about as soon as they could over the last several years.

 

I understand the Hunter frustration but the Twins were forced to go and find a corner outfielder because they had nobody internally.  Hunter was about as good as they were going to do in that poor free agent class and still keep the contract short.

 

I really don't care what they've done compared to the Cubs and Astros.  Each situation is different.

[Danchat]

My old timeline had the Twins making the playoffs in 2015, so as you can guess, that didn't work out. I don't make timelines anymore.

 

I had faith in Terry Ryan. But after an offseason of adding Torii Hunter, Tim Stauffer, and Ervin Santana (they gave him too much $$$, not the suspension) plus not patching up the CF situation has slowly but surely crushed my faith in him.

[bird]

 

The injuries are definitely one of the biggest factors, on the other hand there is still a problem with how this team constitutes it's lineup during a rebuild.  

 

I have found the construction of the bullpen to be particularly galling. I had a bad vibe about Hunter, but I had a similarly bad vibe about more than a one-year FA contract for the guys that were out there. Ryan screwed up the previous two years on constructing the OF, but I thought Hunter on a <one year plan and CF options of Hicks, Robinson, Schaefer, and Rosario coming into spring was probably OK given the two things of a "meaningless" year and Buxton very probable in September. I've been sort of "meh" on the FA signings of Nolasco and Santana, but cut more slack than most because the market and available options have both been unfavorable. The timeline question is very very secondary for me. I look at the process, factor in what can't be controlled, balance out the good and bad decisions. I cut more slack than most regarding results/outcomes that are unexpected. The Twins have been snakebit IMO. Injuries to Sano, Buxton, Gibson, Meyer have all been hugely impactful, as was Rosario's suspension. But they also have had an inordinate number of injuries to really good prospects like Melotakis, Chargois, Wimmers, and Bard that have been impediments. 

 

I think many have a definition in their mind about what a "rebuild" is that just doesn't totally square with either the reality of the situation and with Ryan's strategy. We may wish otherwise, but Ryan is dealing with a problem that got real bad real fast, and he's been contending with limitations in cash resources and tradeable assets. Like it or not, building up the third resource pillar, the prospect pipeline, was the way he's gone with obvious exceptions. The "timeline" discussion becomes an emotional hot button around here in large part because building up a pipeline is the slowest and an agonizingly uncertain path littered with many failures for each success, even among the most highly-touted prospects.

 

I know I'm in the minority here, but all things considered, I'm a big fan of the process and strategy being undertaken. I also am satisfied with the amount of progress despite all the setbacks among our key prospects and the temporary buzzkill that is Chatanooga.

[Blackjack]

I don't think the most posters here on TD take in account the 'Target Field' influence on the Twins thinking. Its a money making machine when its full. It takes a competitive .500 team to keep the casual fans interested and coming to Target Field. The Twins had a better chance of being competitive by signing a few veterans like Nolasco, Santana, and Hunter rather than watching the youngsters struggle. Then they start adding some of the hot-shot prospects in late 2015, 2016, 2017, staying competitive and .500 and filling Target Field. They make money, most of the fans are happy, make the playoffs, if they get lucky, the right batch of players fall together, and they make the World Series every 10 years. 

 

That's the timeline I think the Twins are on.

 

Can this current front office accomplish that?? Yes, if the injuries don't derail them. I think they do need to start playing .500 ball by mid-2016 or Jim Pohlad is going to get impatient and start cleaning house.

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

In general, I agree with birdwatcher, the process is important. But, Drew Butera followed the same hitting process as others (probably), doesn't mean he should have been a MLB hitter, imo. Outcomes do matter. 

 

I also feel, not shockingly, that not spending money on Cubans in their prime, and spending similar money on NL pitchers that aren't all that good, is a huge process blunder, not just an outcome blunder. They have plenty of money to sign one or two of these Cubans, they either chose not to, or refused to meet the price, or the players just didn't want to come here. None of those are a good reflection on the FO, imo.

 

I find it interesting that people seem to be implying that having any sort of timeline for success is odd. No goal w/o a timing component is a particularly useful goal. 

[jimmer]

'I find it interesting that people seem to be implying that having any sort of timeline for success is odd. '

 

Mike, seems most, if not all, businesses have short and long term goals.  I don't know of any that don't.  I imagine the Twins do as well. So yeah, you're right.  

[markos]

 

I'm skeptical that the current front office can put together a contending club on any timeline. They are outclassed by competing front offices, many of whom have larger budgets to work with on top of this advantage.

 

The Twins are simply unable to evaluate talent, either their own or in the free agent market. They couldn't pick the right 5th starter, couldn't put together the right bullpen, made numerous free agent signings that blew up either immediately or in short order, watch horrible defenders play the field and claim they are good... they are a clueless, incompetent train wreck.

 

Even that isn't the real problem - the real problem is that they refuse to learn from their mistakes or look outside the organization (except for limited roles). So while the other 29 clubs, well maybe not the Phillies, but while the other 28 clubs are constantly trying to improve, the Twins are inhabiting a parallel universe where their awful roster makes them a contender.

For the moment I'm still willing to (mostly) give the front office the benefit of the doubt. They did a decent job from 2001-2010, and that should count for something. However, I do share some of skepticism. One of the big drivers of the success in the last decade was Ryan's ability to make savvy trades, I have fairly serious concerns that those same trades are just not available anymore. The landscape of how players (particularly prospects) are valued has changed a lot: I don't know if another Santana will ever be available in the rule 5 draft again, if a Pierzynski will merit a Liriano, Nathan and Bonser in a trade again, or if a Bartlett will be available for a Brian Buchanan. Similarly, the Twins managed to get a lot of value out of drafting polished college pitchers (Garza, Baker, Slowey, Blackburn...). Are those players available like they used to be? Or have other teams caught on and are now drafting them sooner?

 

Though I'm not completely ready to write off this front office, I do wonder if their magic no longer works.

[bird]

 

'I find it interesting that people seem to be implying that having any sort of timeline for success is odd. 

 

Mike, seems most, if not all, businesses have short and long term goals.  I don't know of any that don't.  I imagine the Twins do as well. So yeah, you're right.  

 

Every business that fails to reach its stated timeline can probably trace the failure back to flaws with either the process or with the execution. I don't think anyone was saying timelines are odd here. It's just that they're a lightning rod for disagreement and it never resolves a thing to discuss them independent of a discussion about what might be going right and wrong with the strategy and execution, right?

[bird]

 

For the moment I'm still willing to (mostly) give the front office the benefit of the doubt. They did a decent job from 2001-2010, and that should count for something. However, I do share some of skepticism. One of the big drivers of the success in the last decade was Ryan's ability to make savvy trades, I have fairly serious concerns that those same trades are just not available anymore. The landscape of how players (particularly prospects) are valued has changed a lot: I don't know if another Santana will ever be available in the rule 5 draft again, if a Pierzynski will merit a Liriano, Nathan and Bonser in a trade again, or if a Bartlett will be available for a Brian Buchanan. Similarly, the Twins managed to get a lot of value out of drafting polished college pitchers (Garza, Baker, Slowey, Blackburn...). Is those players available like they used to be? Or have other teams caught on and are now drafting them sooner?

 

Though I'm not completely ready to write off this front office, I do wonder if their magic no longer works.

 

 

You articulated my biggest complaint and fear about Ryan. This is an asset management business now to a greater extent than ever before. His history is spotty when it comes to optimizing the returns for surplus/redundant assets.

[Linus]

The problem with trading your way out of the abyss is that you have to have something of value to trade.  The Twins really haven't.  Same thing for trading somebody when you have no heir apparent to take their place - all you've done is open another hole that you have to fill.

 

I know this isn't what people want to hear but its the truth.  When your farm system is depleted, you're screwed.  When you start to build a supply of good players, your team gets better and you have options to fill holes faster via trade.

 

The Twins had the perfect storm occur at the start of the "dark period".  Poor drafting / poor drafting position, serious injuries to established players and a few bad trades.  Pretty soon you are losing and your farm system isn't there for you which pretty much means you take your beatings.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The problem with trading your way out of the abyss is that you have to have something of value to trade.  The Twins really haven't.  Same thing for trading somebody when you have no heir apparent to take their place - all you've done is open another hole that you have to fill.

 

I know this isn't what people want to hear but its the truth.  When your farm system is depleted, you're screwed.  When you start to build a supply of good players, your team gets better and you have options to fill holes faster via trade.

 

The Twins had the perfect storm occur at the start of the "dark period".  Poor drafting / poor drafting position, serious injuries to established players and a few bad trades.  Pretty soon you are losing and your farm system isn't there for you which pretty much means you take your beatings.

 

so how long should that take to fix?

[old nurse]

 

'I find it interesting that people seem to be implying that having any sort of timeline for success is odd. '

 

Mike, seems most, if not all, businesses have short and long term goals.  I don't know of any that don't.  I imagine the Twins do as well. So yeah, you're right.  

I do not think there is any other business that is reliant on finding and identifing the most elite  of a field as baseball is.  Past the first few draft picks, what are the chances of finding a star player?  How many high bonus 16 year ols players become Michael Ynoa?, Timeline for a ballplayer  Trout a star young, Mcutheon at 24, Donaldson and Bautista late 20s. . The development of baseball skills is such a variable to get the star players necessary for a team to be winning.

[James]

 

so how long should that take to fix?

I have to say, this has been a really interesting discussion to read.

 

As far as how long it takes to fix this, I don't know.  A few years ago, I would have said this was the year the Twins got out of it.  At the beginning of this year, I would have said that this was about a .500.  I still think that could happen.  Of course, I was wrong about contention a few years ago because there were a few things that I didn't see happening (injuries and things).  If I were a GM now, I would think long and hard about contingency plans for some of those prospects.  

 

Long answer made short, I don't have any idea when the Twins will be able to fix this.  If people  want to compare the Twins to Cubs and the Astros, then you have to realize when their rebuilds really started.  It looks like both teams took at least 5 years of being bad before this year (and it's still pretty early in the season). So, it's tough to come to any conclusions yet.