What is your timeline?

[Mike Sixel]

 

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.

 

As the owner, would you not tell the FO, "you have x years to get us to contention", or would you just let it happen whenever it happens?

[Linus]

 

so how long should that take to fix?

Again, I think it depends on the situation.  For the Twins, I think it was probably going to take 5 years minimum because the farm system essentially had to be rebuilt and that is about as fast is reasonable to expect prospects to be drafted and work their way through the pipeline.

 

I'm not absolving the Twins of anything here BTW.  Had they not drafted relatively poorly for a period and not made several bone head trades during the same period, the road to success would have been considerably shorter (especially the bone head trades).

 

You can't turn Johan Santana, Bartlett, Garza, Wilson Ramos, etc. into nothing and not have it set you back a bunch.  Not to mention to double down on the blunder by getting nothing for GoGo and then JJ Hardy.

 

Add it all up, you have a lengthy process even done if optimally.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

so how long should that take to fix?

4-5 years if you're building internally. The Twins have done some things right, some things middling, and some things very badly.

 

Drafting: they could have rebuilt slightly faster by targeting college players but instead, they opted for a lot of prep players in the first round. I don't think any of us can complain about the results, as it has netted them guys like Buxton, Berrios, Stewart, and Gordon but it adds time to the rebuild. Thankfully, the Twins appear to always go after who they feel is the BPA in the first round, which is a sound strategy. It'll pay off in time.

 

International Signings: this is middling. They do a decent job with most IFAs but again, IFAs are mostly a 6-7 year incubation period. The big weakness thus far with the Twins here is that they haven't paid the big money to any Cuban or Asian players. They could have done a better job there.

 

Trades: the Twins were a bad team. Bad teams don't have many valuable assets to trade away and the "successful" trades Ryan made restocked the farm, which was probably the right move. Maybe Ryan could have gotten more for Willingham but holding on to him was a roll of the dice, one that didn't pay off. An argument could have been made for either case and both viewpoints were valid.

 

Free Agents: hoo boy, this is what has killed them when you get right down to it. Nolasco has been a spectacular failure. Santana has yet to throw a pitch for the team. Morales was laughably bad. Hunter is an old man (but in all fairness, who cares about one year deals?). I'll give them a pass on Santana because you just can't predict that sort of thing but Nolasco was a pretty big blunder.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As the owner, would you not tell the FO, "you have x years to get us to contention", or would you just let it happen whenever it happens?

I wouldn't put a timeline on it because things like Buxton, Meyer, and Sano getting hurt really set back the team. Instead, I'd focus on progress. Whether you think the Twins are progressing quickly enough is entirely dependent on perspective.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

 

I would have much rather had Colby Rasmus, Nori Aoki, or Jonny Gomes than Hunter, all of whom signed this past offseason for 1 year, and less money than Hunter.  The Hunter signing was at best 50% about baseball, and 50% about the money he could make the team.

 

The larger problem with the Twins is they're not committing to one path or the other.  If you want to compete in 2015, you sign Shields instead of Santana.  You sign a legitimate defensive center fielder.  And you sign better bullpen options than take a chance on me Stauffer and Boyer.

 

If you want to grow for the future, you don't sign Hunter because you need Ozzie in right and Hicks in center.  You don't sign Stauffer and Boyer because you want to see what Tonkin and Oliveros can do for a full year.  You don't sign Santana because you want both May and Meyer in the bigs.

 

Instead, the Twins chose some sort of weird middle-of-the-road hybrid, which is on neither track, and therefore was completely asinine.  This roster was constructed like a fantasy roster, as the FO clearly didn't bother to consider how a move would fit in with the rest of the team, or the types of moves their current team needed.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I wouldn't put a timeline on it because things like Buxton, Meyer, and Sano getting hurt really set back the team. Instead, I'd focus on progress. Whether you think the Twins are progressing quickly enough is entirely dependent on perspective.

 

How do you measure progress, if not across time? You just argued to set goals, by time, and measure the achievement of those.

[Dantes929]

 

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.

I don't make predictions like that but if I did, no way would I give up on 2015.   I truly believe that May and Gibson are the real deal.  Pelfrey has certainly looked great and Santana should help, eventually.   I think every hitter with the possible exception of Mauer and Plouffe can do better.    Take 3 of 4 from Chicago and things will look better.

[gunnarthor]

Unless you're a big market team that can spend yourself out of this, you're going to have these down cycles.

 

Tampa - 10 losing seasons followed by 6 winning seasons.  Losing season again last year.

Balt - 14 losing seasons followed by 3 (current) winning seasons.

Tor - 2 winning seasons in the last six.  Haven't won 90 games since 1993.  Also have only lost 90 in a season in that time frame.  

 

Det - 12 losing seasons followed by winning seasons in 7/9 years.  Also started buying out of problems.

KC - 17/18 losing seasons followed by (current) 2 winning seasons.
Clev - 5 losing seasons followed by 2 (current) winning seasons.
Chi - kind of like Tor - always around .500.  5 losing seasons out of the last 8.

 

Hou - currently on 8 straight losing seasons

Sea - 4 losing seasons, currently on one winning season.  Spent a lot of money.

A's - 5 straight non-winnings seasons followed by (currently) 3 winning ones. 

TX - 8 losing seasons in 9 years followed by 5 winning seasons.  Losing season again last year.

 

Mets - currently working on 6 losing seasons.

Atlanta - always good.  3 losing seasons since 1991.  Not a huge payroll team for all of that either.

Marlins - currently working on 5 losing seasons.

Nats - 6 losing seasons followed by (current) 3 winning seasons.

 

 

Cards - always good

Cubs - currently working on 5 losing seasons after 2 winning ones.

Pirates - lost forever

Reds - losing seasons in 10/11 followed by two winning seasons.  Losing again.

Brewers - Losing team for a decade than alternated winning and losing 2 year streaks.

 

Col - currently working on 4 losing seasons

Dbacks - 3 winnings seasons since 2003.

Padres - losing seasons in last 6/7 seasons

Giants - 4 losing seasons followed by 4 winning seasons. 1 losing season, 1 winning season.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Unless you're a big market team that can spend yourself out of this, you're going to have these down cycles.

 

Tampa - 10 losing seasons followed by 6 winning seasons.  Losing season again last year.

Balt - 14 losing seasons followed by 3 (current) winning seasons.

Tor - 2 winning seasons in the last six.  Haven't won 90 games since 1993.  Also have only lost 90 in a season in that time frame.  

 

Det - 12 losing seasons followed by winning seasons in 7/9 years.  Also started buying out of problems.

KC - 17/18 losing seasons followed by (current) 2 winning seasons.
Clev - 5 losing seasons followed by 2 (current) winning seasons.
Chi - kind of like Tor - always around .500.  5 losing seasons out of the last 8.

 

Hou - currently on 8 straight losing seasons

Sea - 4 losing seasons, currently on one winning season.  Spent a lot of money.

A's - 5 straight non-winnings seasons followed by (currently) 3 winning ones. 

TX - 8 losing seasons in 9 years followed by 5 winning seasons.  Losing season again last year.

 

Mets - currently working on 6 losing seasons.

Atlanta - always good.  3 losing seasons since 1991.  Not a huge payroll team for all of that either.

Marlins - currently working on 5 losing seasons.

Nats - 6 losing seasons followed by (current) 3 winning seasons.

 

 

Cards - always good

Cubs - currently working on 5 losing seasons after 2 winning ones.

Pirates - lost forever

Reds - losing seasons in 10/11 followed by two winning seasons.  Losing again.

Brewers - Losing team for a decade than alternated winning and losing 2 year streaks.

 

Col - currently working on 4 losing seasons

Dbacks - 3 winnings seasons since 2003.

Padres - losing seasons in last 6/7 seasons

Giants - 4 losing seasons followed by 4 winning seasons. 1 losing season, 1 winning season.

 

No one is arguing that. No idea what this post is about.

[Willihammer]

 

Unless you're a big market team that can spend yourself out of this, you're going to have these down cycles.

I don't buy that for a second. I know there is a lot of randomness in sports, but the draft is just one way to acquire talent. The A's, Cards, and Giants have avoided long stretches in the gutter by mixing it up. The A's made a play internationally and through trade. The Cards through internationals and trade. The Giants through free agency and trade. The draft is a big part, but its not everything. The Twins have done far too little trading for my taste. They could be leveraging their financial flexibility into a growth strategy but instead they seem content to let these signings play their contracts out to term (or near to it), and even double down sometimes (Doumit, Suzuki, Hughes).

[bird]

 

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.

 

A nice, crisp, and accurate synopsis of some of the key issues this team has and is facing.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree you should start with a timeline and the Twins are probably off a reasonable one now.  But it was only partially their fault, the percentage of blame that way is debateable.  

[h2oface]

 

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

It is so very interesting that the "top prospects" in the anointed very good farm system by just about all of baseball aren't helping their respective farm teams much at all, and they are now all playing (except for Thorpe and Stewart right now.....). 

 

And I would even include the Marlins with Houston and the Cubs, as it took them a total of 2 years to revamp their entire team and be competitive (unless you want to claim their slow start is significant.... which I contend is not). 

[Thrylos]

Timeline?  2015.

If the Astros and Mets are leading their divisions by 5 games and teams like the Cubs, Rays and Atlanta are up there as well, there is no reason than the Twins should not be competitive in 2015.  If not so, they would had not invested in a 39 year old and given a 4 year contract to a 32 year old pitcher with a partially torn UCL.  Those moves scream "win now".  So does not moving any of their movable assets (Dozier, Plouffe, Perkins etc.) for prospects.

 

So it looks like the Twins are expecting to win in 2015 and so am I.

 

However, if they don't, Pohlad should clear house and bring some people who are hungry about winning, have done it before, and care more about winning games than the food at Target Field, to run the team from top to bottom and build a real contender. 

 

 

 

[bird]

 

so how long should that take to fix?

 

 

This is a question Boards of Directors asks Managements when a turnaround needs to happen. In my own experience in these roles, There's an exhaustive examination of a number of possible scenarios based on the competitive landscape, existing resources and strengths, risks weighed against market opportunities, etc, etc. Often there is some urgency, which means strategy may be somewhat dictated by the importance placed on time.

 

If I was to pretend I was a fly on the wall at 1 Target Way, I'd say they came up with an arbitraryish target of getting back to .500 in four years, meaning in 2015. I can imagine a discussion about different approaches and settling on the path they did. I wouldn't doubt they've talked about the Cuban market each year, and the FA market each year and have decided to spread the International investment and try to accelerate things via the FA signings of Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana. My guess is that the other signings that have been the source of great loathing on TD (Pelfrey, Hunter, Stauffer, Boyer, etc.) were not topics of conversation at the board level per se and are considered fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things for them. The Buxton/Sano setbacks probably caused them to think that maybe .500 won't happen in 2015.

 

Any way you cut it, the question of how long it would take is almost an afterthought to every thing else once you commit to a strategy.

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't buy that for a second. I know there is a lot of randomness in sports, but the draft is just one way to acquire talent. The A's, Cards, and Giants have avoided long stretches in the gutter by mixing it up. The A's made a play internationally and through trade. The Cards through internationals and trade. The Giants through free agency and trade. The draft is a big part, but its not everything. The Twins have done far too little trading for my taste. They could be leveraging their financial flexibility into a growth strategy but instead they seem content to let these signings play their contracts out to term (or near to it), and even double down sometimes (Doumit, Suzuki, Hughes).

Again, those down cycles happened.  The A's and Twins have actually been pretty close over the last decade and a half.  Since 2001, both have had 9 winning seasons.  Twins have made the post-season 6x, A's 7x (one was a wildcard game).  Both advanced in the playoffs once while beating the other.  A's didn't have a winning record from 07-11 followed by 3 winning seasons and (it looks like) they are starting another losing run now.   Giants are similar.  Since 2001, 9 winning seasons.  Made the postseason 5x although they've obviously done better in the PS (and they've had better payrolls).

 

I'm not sure which trades you think they could have made.  A reminder that Hammer was hurt at the end of his first year with us and, with 2 years left, didn't have much trade value.  The rumor was he could get a Sean Gilmartin-type back.  Twins listened on offers on Suzuki last year but no market developed, so they kept him.  I think you can argue that they should have traded Plouffe, Dozier and Perkins but those three could also be part of the next winning team.  

 

There haven't been a lot of sign and trades either, although there have been a few.  Nothing earth shattering, as I recall, but I might be forgetting some.

[gunnarthor]

 

No one is arguing that. No idea what this post is about.

I thought the implied thoughts in this thread was that Ryan hadn't turned around the team fast enough in his three years on duty.  If that wasn't the subtext of the thread, my apologies.

 

Anyhow, I figure this is year 4 of the rebuild (or year 3 depending on how you look at what Ryan's done) and it seems on pace with most rebuilds and ahead of many.

[kellyvance]

Timeline? Well, look, you still find more diamonds in the rough at Tiffany's than you do dumpster diving. 

Here is the thing. Pitching is half the game. Not building a dominant pitching staff means you are an also ran, almost by definition. 

 

Having succeeded on a few long shots the Twins made the mistake of thinking they can do it allatime. That's just bonehead wrong. 

 

You need 2 stud starters to have a chance to win in the playoffs. Tell me any team that won the series with journeymen in the 1 and 2 spots. Not going to happen. You need studs who can win the game almost by themselves to advance. Frankie (Viola), Bert, Jack, Scott.  Those guys got er done.

 

Twins refuse to even consider going after a Price or a Shields. Why? Because they have their heads buried so deep in the dumpster, the can't see the value of having your stud pitchers dominating games 1 and 2 in a short series. Two stud pitchers equate to a .400 record by themselves. 

 

Until they realize that they need to spend the money to buy two stud starters, they will continue to cheat the fans. And if KC can bring in a guy who pitched in the college world series and have him pitch well in the WS, it makes makes no sense to keep our Burdi's 100 mph stuff in the low minors .... years away.

 

The Twins are too conservative. Ryan never gambles, except on old retreads. If you wanna contend, you gotta go for it.

 

My timeline would have Jim Pohlad and Terry Ryan forced to watch "Tin Cup" over and over until they get what going for it. means. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How do you measure progress, if not across time? You just argued to set goals, by time, and measure the achievement of those.

You're being difficult. I've explained why timelines are hard to gauge because prospects face setbacks.

 

Where would the Twins be right now if Meyer, Sano, and Buxton didn't suffer injuries and were playing baseball in Minnesota? They're basically this year's version of the 2014 Astros if that happens.

 

Unfortunately, none of those things happened and it's no one's fault. Which makes any set timeline essentially moot. Terry Ryan didn't do anything wrong with those prospects - though you can make an argument that Meyer should maybe be here today - and things just played out unfavorably for the Twins. If a timeline was set up to gauge his performance, he would have missed goals... And failing someone for missing a goal that was largely outside their control is a bad way to run a business.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

My timeline would have Jim Pohlad and Terry Ryan forced to watch "Tin Cup" over and over until they get what going for it. means. 

Tin Cup failed.  Spectacularly.  Pretty sure there isn't a lesson there.  (Unless it's the 'don't be an idiot you don't win on a stupid gamble but sure can lose on it' that Tin Cup didn't learn).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It is so very interesting that the "top prospects" in the anointed very good farm system by just about all of baseball aren't helping their respective farm teams much at all, and they are now all playing (except for Thorpe and Stewart right now.....). 

The two best players in the system are shaking off rust from missing a lot of baseball last year.

 

That's not terribly interesting, it's kinda expected. Disappointing, yes, but not surprising or interesting.

[Vanimal46]

 

Again, those down cycles happened.  The A's and Twins have actually been pretty close over the last decade and a half.  Since 2001, both have had 9 winning seasons.  Twins have made the post-season 6x, A's 7x (one was a wildcard game).  Both advanced in the playoffs once while beating the other.  A's didn't have a winning record from 07-11 followed by 3 winning seasons and (it looks like) they are starting another losing run now.   Giants are similar.  Since 2001, 9 winning seasons.  Made the postseason 5x although they've obviously done better in the PS (and they've had better payrolls).

 

I'm not sure which trades you think they could have made.  A reminder that Hammer was hurt at the end of his first year with us and, with 2 years left, didn't have much trade value.  The rumor was he could get a Sean Gilmartin-type back.  Twins listened on offers on Suzuki last year but no market developed, so they kept him.  I think you can argue that they should have traded Plouffe, Dozier and Perkins but those three could also be part of the next winning team.  

 

There haven't been a lot of sign and trades either, although there have been a few.  Nothing earth shattering, as I recall, but I might be forgetting some.

 

 

Looking at it from a high overview perspective you can make that case. The biggest difference between the teams philosophies is that the A's know their limitations, and cash in on their pending free agents to bring in more high end prospects. That's why they might have a down year or two, but eventually know another wave of prospects is on the horizon.

 

The Twins on the other hand, have either let FA's go somewhere else, or received peanuts back in compensation from trades.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last notable good trade I can remember in the TR era has been Pierzynski for Liriano, Boof, and Nathan... 11 YEARS AGO.

 

Obviously we had that stretch of Billy Smith, but TR was still behind the scenes during that time. We can't go that long without a trade going in the Twins favor.

[kellyvance]

 

Tin Cup failed.  Spectacularly.  Pretty sure there isn't a lesson there.  (Unless it's the 'don't be an idiot you don't win on a stupid gamble but sure can lose on it' that Tin Cup didn't learn).

Talk about missing the point much?

 

Going for it brings the risk of failure, or success. These guys are risk adverse, so they never really have a shot at anything spectacular. 

 

Tin Cup went for it ten times. He finally holed the ball...

 

Even if you go for it, you might only win once in ten. But that tenth time is awesome. 

 

 

 

[bird]

 

It is so very interesting that the "top prospects" in the anointed very good farm system by just about all of baseball aren't helping their respective farm teams much at all, and they are now all playing (except for Thorpe and Stewart right now.....). 

 

And I would even include the Marlins with Houston and the Cubs, as it took them a total of 2 years to revamp their entire team and be competitive (unless you want to claim their slow start is significant.... which I contend is not). 

 

 

Actually, the performance of our top prospects is a bit of a mixed bag, and that's par for the course for any organization. Also, like the Marlins perhaps, it may be misguided to claim any slow start as significant. A closer look at those who someone rates as a Twins top ten prospect:

 

The buzzkills, at least temporarily, are Meyer, Burdi, maybe Rosario, Buxton, Sano, and Thorpe due to injury.

 

On the positive side are Gordon, May, Tonkin, Berrios, Pinto, maybe Hicks, Polanco, maybe Stewart, and Gonsalves. Minier and Diaz have yet to play.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Meyer is far and away the biggest disappointment to me thus far. I expected him to dominate out of the gate and force his way onto the roster.

[bird]

 

Talk about missing the point much?

 

Going for it brings the risk of failure, or success. These guys are risk adverse, so they never really have a shot at anything spectacular. 

 

Tin Cup went for it ten times. He finally holed the ball...

 

Even if you go for it, you might only win once in ten. But that tenth time is awesome. 

 

 

I'd argue that you don't value the concept of taking measured risks in the same way many of us do, including the Twins, and certainly excluding Tin Cup. What was Tin Cup's downside?

 

You can argue credibly that the Twins are more risk-averse than, say, Illitch. That's cool. You can also argue credibly that Ryan has some risk-avoidance tendencies that make him miss an opportunity here and there. But to be fair, you have to consider the downsides of the risks you want your team to take and be a bit more understanding about why some risks are avoided and others, such as the huge contracts for Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana might be acceptable but Scherzer might not. Hell, even Illitch has his risk limits.

[Mike Sixel]

I thought the implied thoughts in this thread was that Ryan hadn't turned around the team fast enough in his three years on duty. If that wasn't the subtext of the thread, my apologies.

 

Anyhow, I figure this is year 4 of the rebuild (or year 3 depending on how you look at what Ryan's done) and it seems on pace with most rebuilds and ahead of many.

No subtextat all. What you see is what you get. I was bored with the other threads.

[Twodogs]

 

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.

That is exactly correct.  I mean if a team starts out 10 - 0 and plays just .500 the rest of the way then they finish 10 games over .500.  86 - 76 is probably pushing for a wild card.  So when a team starts out hot, they can stay up their pretty high by just not falling apart.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

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. 85 losses in 2015, over .500 in 2016, playoffs 2017

B. Over .500 in 2018, playoffs, I hope to live that long, and I'm 35

C. I think the Twins FO thinks A too, but no I have no faith that this FO can achieve such lofty goals

If A was what I wanted without realism it would involve time travel

[Kwak]

A) I want a team with defined goals and a plan that is consistent with said goals.  Options, hand-waving, excuses, and aw-shucks are not acceptable.

 

I expect more of the same, until the Twins actually have a winning season--then I expect to hear endless self-congratulations about management skill and "doing things 'The Twins Way', rather than taking shortcuts".

 

C) I think the Twins are on a river in Egypt.