Because all the bad things are Smith's fault, and Ryan is infallible and unquestionable?

handpicking Smith to be his successor was a pretty questionable call too.

 

Trading a SS and SP for a corner OF and a utility guy is a bad idea.

That's not really fair, Garza was a mid rotation guy and Barlett was an average at best SS. If Delmon would have became a 30/30 guy nobody would say that.

 

 

handpicking Smith to be his successor was a pretty questionable call too.

el oh el

'I do think Ryan makes the mistake of getting good value and then seeing it as a skill change rather than variation. Did he really believe that the Twins had done something to shift Doumit's and Suzuki's skill level?'

 

How about signing Pelfrey and, even worse, re-signing Pelfrey. He didn't even have some good parts to look at like he did with Suzuki when he gave Pelfrey the extension.

 

Has Ryan ever sold high on a player?

 

That's not really fair, Garza was a mid rotation guy and Barlett was an average at best SS. If Delmon would have became a 30/30 guy nobody would say that.

 

Plus, Garza was having issues with the team about how he should pitch and Bartlett was good only once since he left.

 

I generally think decisions made by Smith can be considered his fault. Do you suggest a different standard?

 

that's not what I said......or tried to say.

 

People here blame the lack of success on Smith, overlooking that he inherited a BARREN farm system, and a team with talent on the decline. Then, when he couldn't fix the team from the inside, since the previous GM left him with a barren farm system, he was canned.

 

There seems to be this meme here that Smith was universally awful, and they lost because of him (when it was the lack of anyone in their peak, other than Mauer), not because of his predecessor, a guy who can apparently do no wrong.

 

As jimmer points out, just look how the Garza/Young trade is discussed compared to the Span/Meyer trade........

If LAA calls about Trout for Nolasco and Escobar I sure as hell hope we don't follow your rule drjim.

 

People remember Young for the aggravating mess he became, but he was highly prized at the time of the trade. Jimmer is right that the logic was sound, just bad execution.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by TheLeviathan

If LAA calls about Trout for Nolasco and Escobar I sure as hell hope we don't follow your rule drjim.

 

People remember Young for the aggravating mess he became, but he was highly prized at the time of the trade. Jimmer is right that the logic was sound, just bad execution.

What rule?

handpicking Smith to be his successor was a pretty questionable call too.

Touche

he was praised hard for that trade and was still being so up until early this season. People saying how he fleeced the Nats (such a high prospect for such an supposedly average and declining CF), etc. And then still praising the thought process behind the trade as it started to look worse.

Oh, so now it was a fleecing?

 

I look forward to your next description of this trade.

Hard to refer to the Span trade as a fleecing. It was fair talent for fair talent. Most people thought it was a good deal but far from highway robbery (which more accurately described the Revere deal had the Twins not screwed the pooch on Worley).

the point, for me, is that Ryan is praised for that deal, and Smith is ripped for the Garza/Young deal. Young was the number 3 prospect in the minors......he hit well his first year.

 

btw, how'd he hit when they moved him off his natural position (aka, how did Arcia do when they moved him)?

 

Hard to refer to the Span trade as a fleecing. It was fair talent for fair talent. Most people thought it was a good deal but far from highway robbery (which more accurately described the Revere deal had the Twins not screwed the pooch on Worley).

well, you know, saying he was 'praised' was also 'overstating', so why not go all in and actually truly overstate by saying 'fleecing' :-)

 

the point, for me, is that Ryan is praised for that deal, and Smith is ripped for the Garza/Young deal. Young was the number 3 prospect in the minors......he hit well his first year.

 

btw, how'd he hit when they moved him off his natural position (aka, how did Arcia do when they moved him)?

that is exactly the point, but saying apparently saying Ryan was praised for the Span trade was also overstating, so, you know. :-)

Give me a single time

One

That the Twins have hired a manager or general manager from outside during the Pohlad years?

 

One

Ray Miller, 30 years ago. Geez I'm getting old.

 

that is exactly the point, but saying apparently saying Ryan was praised for the Span trade was also overstating, so, you know. :-)

 

It would stick with saying everyone thought Ryan fleeced them, fits your point better.

 

It would stick with saying everyone thought Ryan fleeced them, fits your point better.

Actually, what fits my point best is what I said the first time which was the truth but you had to scoff at because praised was supposedly too strong of word.  Smith and Ryan both traded from supposed strengths for supposed weaknesses. Smith continues to get slammed for it while Ryan was praised for it and , you know, still kind of is. Many just say it didn't work out but it was a good thought process.  Smith isn't given that same due for a trade that also didn't work out but was made using the same thought process.

 

Actually, what fits my point best is what I said the first time which was the truth but you had to scoff at because praised was supposedly too strong of word.  Smith and Ryan both traded from supposed strengths for supposed weaknesses. Smith continues to get slammed for it while Ryan was praised for it and , you know, still kind of is. Many just say it didn't work out but it was a good thought process.  Smith isn't given that same due for a trade that also didn't work out but was made using the same thought process.

 

The other difference is that Ryan was straight rebuilding at that point and Smith was rearranging the roster for a future run.

 

The Smith trade acquired a (ahem) limited defense corner of with a brutal bb rate and created holes at sp and ss that were never really filled when they were competing again.

 

I guess I shouldn't argue semantics so much, but I see "praise" as more the admiration side, stronger than mere acceptance and understanding - which is what I saw in the responses at the time. I thought the Span trade was acceptable, the thinking in a context of a rebuild made sense, but I was a little surprised they didn't get a second piece in addition to Meyer to spread out the risk. This proved to be a valid concern.

 

I was never a fan of the Delmon trade - though, like usual, I tried to give the front office the benefit of the doubt for a couple of years.

 

I applaud trying to win, too.

But I think the point being made was, these moves are made by a GM trying to win, not the moves of a GM committed to a rebuild.

I actually prefer the former..."rebuilds" are mostly a fantasy clung to by fans of teams that can't find a way to win. They seldom work. So I give credit to Ryan for finding a 40 yr old to play RF, because they had nobody better. But that's not rebuilding. And I don't give him a lot of credit, because a team shouldn't be in the position of having zero big league outfielders in the first place.

 

You can do both, look at the A's. That would be great to sign and trade for vets that you can trade right back if needed, but the free agents Ryan signs and the contracts that he gives them are not going to help the rebuild.  There should be some pause with every signing where the GM thinks, if thngs go belly up, will I be able to trade this guy and this contract to recoup some value?

 

30+ year old mid rotation starters should not be signed to four year deals, particularly when your team has been awful, no other GM wants that contract. agreed with Brock, they should have gone big, otherwise get flippable pitchers, that usually means guys with strikeout potential but have other question marks. And if you want a RF because you think the young guys aren't quite ready, yolu should be sgning one that you can trade when the young guys are ready, not a guy who's area reputation and ties to the team will make it impossible for the organization and fans to tolerate moving.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by nicksaviking

I'm with you Nick. His signings have been pretty much useless in flipping for a rebuild. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what great rebuilding has been done so far.

 

In 3-4 years, we have 3 players to show for the future competitive years that aren't draft picks.

 

The other difference is that Ryan was straight rebuilding at that point and Smith was rearranging the roster for a future run.

 

The Smith trade acquired a (ahem) limited defense corner of with a brutal bb rate and created holes at sp and ss that were never really filled when they were competing again.

 

 

What hole at SP? The team had SP depth at the time of the trade which is why we say 'trading from a perceived strength'. We supposedly still had that depth going into 2011 (remember the 6 quality SPs, only 5 spots narrative before the 2011 season, or 4 seasons later?) and they had plenty of athletic OFs when the trade happened.  What they were missing was a young power type OF (area of weakness) which Delmon was projected to be.

 

And, seriously, if we are going to talk about bringing in brutal defense, can we include bringing Hunter back and getting Willingham, and having to result to putting catchers and IF in the OF, please? And Doumit.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by jimmer

 

What hole at SP? The team had SP depth at the time of the trade which is why we say 'trading from a perceived strength'. We supposedly still had that depth going into 2011 (remember the 6 quality SPs, only 5 spots narrative before the 2011 season, or 4 seasons later?) and they had plenty of athletic OFs when the trade happened.  What they were missing was a young power type OF (area of weakness) which Delmon was projected to be.

 

And, seriously, if we are going to talk about brutal defense, can we include bringing Hunter back and getting Willingham, and having to result to putting catchers and IF in the OF, please?

 

Only if it is also stipulated that signing from a limited FA pool should have different expectations than using your best trade assets.

 

And I assume the hole at SP question is rhetorical. They traded their best SP.

What rule?

Anytime you deal a SP and SS for an OF and UTIL it's a bad idea

The Smith trade acquired a (ahem) limited defense corner of with a brutal bb rate and created holes at sp and ss that were never really filled when they were competing again.ars.

You mean like creat a giant vacuum of suck in CF?

 

Smith addressed SS with Hardy and SP with Pavano. He also added a player in Young who was widely revered around the league. The Span/Garza parallels are really an excellent way to expose this hypocrisy.

The luster was off of Young by the time we acquired him. Unless they were evaluating him by raw RBI totals, which they may have been (see Rob Antony's interview, circa 2010).

 

Trading him straight-up for Garza, in the same off season you were dealing Santana, would have been bad. Also including a starting SS for their utility guy who could NOT handle SS was terrible.

 

Only if it is also stipulated that signing from a limited FA pool should have different expectations than using your best trade assets.

 

And I assume the hole at SP question is rhetorical. They traded their best SP.

So we can talk about the hole left in CF (and leadoff too) when Ryan traded Span which is just starting to get filled by Hicks and soon Buxton)?  Oh, I forget, that's okay because it was a rebuild move.

 

Our horrible defense these last few years, which affects the pitching, is squarely on Ryan with his trades, his acquisitions, and his re-signings.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by jimmer

 

Anytime you deal a SP and SS for an OF and UTIL it's a bad idea

 

Looking back I realize I didn't mention corner OF but thought that would be assumed - ridiculous hypothetical aside.

 

You mean like creat a giant vacuum of suck in CF?

Smith addressed SS with Hardy and SP with Pavano. He also added a player in Young who was widely revered around the league. The Span/Garza parallels are really an excellent way to expose this hypocrisy.

 

Hardy came two offseasons later, Pavano was an August guy a season and a half later.

 

And as I stated - difference in timing between a rebuild and a reload.

 

The luster was off of Young by the time we acquired him. Unless they were evaluating him by raw RBI totals, which they may have been (see Rob Antony's interview, circa 2010).

Trading him straight-up for Garza, in the same off season you were dealing Santana, would have been bad. Also including a starting SS for their utility guy who could NOT handle SS was terrible.

 

Why would you criticize Bill Smith like that?

 

So we can talk about the hole left in CF (and leadoff too) when Ryan traded Span which is just starting to get filled by Hicks and soon Buxton)?  Oh, I forget, that's okay because it was a rebuild move.

 

Our horrible defense these last few years, which affects the pitching, is squarely on Ryan with his trades, his acquisitions, and his re-signings.

 

I agree on the horrible defense - that was clearly not a priority, and a mistake, especially considering the pitching. And perhaps not coincidentally when they started to emphasize it more the team has done significantly better.

 

But I do judge trades and free agent signings different.