Article: Is The Twins System Broken?

[Riverbrian]

One of the reasons that breaks the system is the cash flow. It is pertinent to the discussion.

I agree

 

I wanted to add to that discussion so I would have been the guy who would have driven it off track. So I started another topic.

 

It's on me... Not you

 

It's all good.

[Eris]

One aspect that supports the "Twins System is Broken Theory" is that they have been fleeced on many of their trades in recent years which suggests deficiencies within the organization in evaluating talent.  There is a separate (although older) thread on this topic so I won't rehash old arguments.  

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/20486-the-twins-capabilities-results-for-acquiring-talent-through-trades/?hl=eris&do=findComment&comment=414599

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

One aspect that supports the "Twins System is Broken Theory" is that they have been fleeced on many of their trades in recent years which suggests deficiencies within the organization in evaluating talent.  There is a separate (although older) thread on this topic so I won't rehash old arguments.  

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/20486-the-twins-capabilities-results-for-acquiring-talent-through-trades/?hl=eris&do=findComment&comment=414599

It's hard to say the Twins have been "fleeced" in the trade market. They've had a mixed run since Ryan returned to the helm. Span/Meyer hasn't worked out but that deal was a gamble and it's too early to give up on Meyer. Revere/Worley/May returned an abysmal Worley but it's likely May will easily outperform Revere when all is said and done (Revere has a 4.8 WAR since leaving Minnesota, May is already at 2.5). Liriano/Escobar has worked out nicely for the Twins. Hicks/Murphy, Jepsen/Hu, and a few other trades are still too early to call.

 

Dunno, am I forgetting something? That track record is unspectacular but far from awful.

 

If you want to make an argument they've been fleeced in the free agent market a bit too often, you'll get no arguments from me (and the article you reference in the other thread is about "acquisitions", not only trades). And even most of their free agent pickups haven't been terrible (non-Nolasco edition), they're just a result of the Twins being incredibly cheap (they received what they paid for with Correia, the problem was they didn't pay for someone better). If you only spend a buck fifty on someone, it's hard to complain that you only received a buck fifty in value from them.

[tobi0040]

Yeah. Smith got fleeced a few times.

 

It wasn't just that we lost in the garza trade, Gomez for hardy, then hardy for Hoey trade.....we also gave up on Hardy and Gomez too early.

[Thrylos]

You got Systems - People - Processes.  Something must be broken if the last time you met your goal was 24 years ago...

Edited February 24, 2016 by Thrylos

[Lonestar]

 

You got Systems - People - Processes.  Something must be broken if the last time you met your goal was 24 years ago...

That's not entirely fair when you are one of 30 teams and mid-market to boot.

[Lonestar]

 

I don't think it's broken, but it could use some polishing.

Not to mention balancing. And realligning. And I can't help but think something more than that.

[old nurse]

 

You got Systems - People - Processes.  Something must be broken if the last time you met your goal was 24 years ago...

There are 15 other  teams that have not won since the Twins did. I  guess winning the WS isn't all that easy

[Thrylos]

 

That's not entirely fair when you are one of 30 teams and mid-market to boot.

 

Excuses.  Tell me about KC; what kind of market are they?  Marlins?  Diamondbacks?

Edited February 24, 2016 by Thrylos

[Thrylos]

 

 

There are 15 other  teams that have not won since the Twins did. I  guess winning the WS isn't all that easy

 

So what? It is doable and it should be what a team should strive for and make sure that everyone in the organization and outside the organization knows that this is their goal.  Season in and season out.

 

Do you get that feeling from the Twins?

 

Or do you get "good enough is ok?"

 

Because if your goal is not to be the best, you will never be the best and settle for good enough...

 

Simple.

[jimmer]

 

 

Do you get that feeling from the Twins?

 

Or do you get "good enough is ok?"

 

.

With Ryan at the helm, I have always gotten the feeling that the team is built in order to try to be competitive for the division. To his credit, in the 2000s he accomplished that.

 

I have never seen him really go for it at the deadline and I've never seen him even try to build a team in the offseason where the goal was to crush the division and make a roster built to really do damage in the playoffs.  Probably why we've only been to one ALCS under him.

 

And I HIGHLY doubt any of that ever changes with him at the helm.

Edited February 24, 2016 by jimmer

[DocBauer]

Is the system broke? No. Not remotely, but it is undergoing a renovation at the moment, and the final results are not yet known.

 

I will not give credit to Ryan for everything...for one thing he wasn't here for all the moves...but the Twins have one of the top 3 milb systems around by all experts, and have had for a coupke of years now. We've seen a ML graduation for several talented youngsters, graduation with regression but still upside for a few others, and several just as talented youngsters about ready to make the move. And the overall depth in the system is still very good. Is Ryan responsible for all these moves/choices/selections? Of course not. But his people, his administration has been in charge for a lot of it.

 

Someone mentioned Ryan and the Twins coming to the decision to acquire power arms late. But then again, this change has occurred with Ryan at the helm. And while I don't have the numbers available to me right now, there were some eye opening stats given during a Twins radio broadcast last season that had virtually each and every Twins milb affiliate in the top 5 of their level in ERA, SO's and CG. I want to say they were similarly ranked in quality starts as well. The whole point being, there has been a major shift the past few years in pitching drafting, acquisition and develolment.

 

On top of these organizational changes, there have been several manager and coaching changes the past couple of milb seasons, as well as a significant changes to the Twins manager and coaching staffs. Thus, a desire to be non-complacent.

 

I'm not going to argue McPhail vs Ryan as they are somewhat different eras, and the economics of the game have changed. But in the past couple of seasons, there has been a dramatic shift in the Twins spending for FA. But like a new toy or gadget, I think Ryan and the Twins are still learning what to do with this new toy. Overspend here, underspend there, they are learning.

 

You can make the arguement that franchise success in best or only defined by WS victories. It's similar to the NFL arguement that an all time great QB is lesser or greater based upon Super Bowl victories. I just don't subscribe to theories of this nature. While winning it all is great, in any sport, there are 30+ teams every single year with the same goal. Finances make things easier, but there is no single, sure-fire way to insure success every season. At the end of the day, all you can do is build the best, most competitive team you can that can win, and have a shot at the grand prize on a yearly basis.

 

Hail the Royals. Hail the up and coming Astros and Cubs. But how many down and out of contention years have franchises like these endured? And the Twins had 4 lousy years before a fun, interesting and competitive season?

 

No, the system is not broken. It's under renovation. There may be some more tweaks needed. But right now, it doesn't look broken at all.

[old nurse]

 

So what? It is doable and it should be what a team should strive for and make sure that everyone in the organization and outside the organization knows that this is their goal.  Season in and season out.

 

Do you get that feeling from the Twins?

 

Or do you get "good enough is ok?"

 

Because if your goal is not to be the best, you will never be the best and settle for good enough...

 

Simple

There goal in the mid 2000's would be to be the best team they can be.  I cannot be so smug as to think that adding one player  would have made a difference.   Maybe because they had a few star players in Morneau, Mauer, Santana and Hunter. They had some very good players as well in Cuddy Kubel, Gomez and , Radke   Nathan was also a part of those teams   Ifs and buts aside, it always seemed as though only one of the hitters came through. Santana would pitch great, but never perfect.  They had the viable pieces. They did not come through. Good teams with a track record of doing well do not always make it. , see the Rays, See all the Atlanta teams that were great and managed one WS title.

[DaveW]

One question:

 

Is the goal to win a World Series?

 

If so: the System has clearly been broken during the TR and BS era. 20+ combined years, and they haven't even been back to a World Series. Only once did they make the final 4.

 

Last I checked there were anywhere between 14 and 16 teams in the AL during that time and 28-30 teams overall.

 

That is failure plain and simple. Until they start throwing parades for "playoff participants" or hand out rings for them, I don't see how anyone can call the Ryan era nothing but a failure to achieve the end goals.

 

Morale victories and going .500 or slightly above is for mid tier college programs. In the pros, you gotta get some hardware to "win"

Edited February 24, 2016 by DaveW

[Paul Pleiss]

Of course the system is broken, but the Twins recognized it was broken, and they're attempting to tape up some holes. They needed power arms, they drafted some power arms, and in the next couple years you'll start to see dividends of that stragety at the big league level. The question that remains for me, is, when this team is contention ready, will the front office be willing to make big ticket acquisitions (like an ace free agent pitcher) to put them over the top? Or will they still be looking to promote from within?

[by jiminy]

About the TV contract -- I believe it is undervalued, but it's not the management's fault. My memory of the negotiations was the Twins were holding out to create their own cable network, like the Yankees. This would have provided a major new revenue stream indefinitely. They were undercut in these negotiations by public pressure, including some government officials, who complained bitterly over the temporary TV blackout imposed by their opponents. This was done to undermine public support, and it worked. But it was a bitter example of short-term thinking overpowering long-term thinking. The Twins had a vision for a much better long-term model that would have maximized TV revenue forever. And they weren't allowed to hold out for it. I guess you could say they should have held out anyway and taken a huge PR hit, alienating their fans, and being turned on by government, but I don't think that's fair. And my memory is the state was even going to legislate that they get the games back on TV asap. My memory is vague though. Anyone who remembers this better than me please speak up. But my impression is, they took the long view, and the smart view, and were hung out to dry. Caving to FOX is now hampering their ability to compete and will continue to do so for many years. I'm not saying they don't have the resources to compete -- with the new stadium and revenue sharing they have plenty to field a much more expensive payroll and still turn a profit. But since the discussion touched on local TV revenue, I think this is one you can't hang on them.

[Platoon]

Major league sports are inherently cyclical. The inverse order of the draft allows poor teams to replenish the rosters. See, Twins, Cubs, Astros for examples. By most accounts these three teams had top tier MiLB systems. The question is what will each do with their bonanza? Is the Twins Way broken? There are a lot of mitigating factors involved. Market size, fan patience, structure and mindset of the parental corporation, the owners personality, the GM competence, and the GM personality. I have been, and still am a frequent critic of Ryans passitivity and aversion to risk. But he does not operate in a vacuum. He has corporate masters to please, and these are the discussions that truly do occur out of the public eye, far above the decision of who's on third! While the Twins are a more public face of the Pohlads than many of their other entities, it's inconceivable they have separate business models just for the Twins. Low risk, solid reward, day after day! It's another line item on the financial report. I think Bill Smith found this out quite quickly. If bad trades were the only criteria for his demotion, Ryan could also be gone. Ownership personalities and goals have an enormous impact. Ask the Cubs, and the Tigers. Successful? Not always. But it's always there!

[alarp33]

 

There are 15 other  teams that have not won since the Twins did. I  guess winning the WS isn't all that easy

 

In the 24 seasons since, they have won 1 single 5 game playoff series. In the past 11 seasons they have won 0 playoff GAMES.  Forget winning the WS, does that sound better?

 

The only teams to have not won a playoff game in last 11 years;

 

Minnesota

Atlanta

Seattle

Cincinnati

San Diego

Edited February 24, 2016 by alarp33

[REPETE]

 

In the 24 seasons since, they have won 1 single 5 game playoff series. In the past 11 seasons they have won 0 playoff GAMES.  Forget winning the WS, does that sound better?

 

The only teams to have not won a playoff game in last 11 years;

 

Minnesota

Atlanta

Seattle

Cincinnati

San Diego

This is a valid point.  I don't buy the "We didn't win the world series so we're a failure" argument, as 97% of the teams in the league don't!  However, the Twins of the 00's were built to win.  They won divisions, and once that happens, you're one of few teams competing for the WS.  

 

However, I don't know if you can fault "the system" for not winning playoffs.  Those playoff Twins had batting title winners, MVPs, and a Cy Young winner.  I'm not sure how much more you can bring to the post-season.  My personal take was Gardy should've been fired during that run, but a new manager may or may not have changed anything.  The players that got them there didn't perform on the big stage, and no role players excelled for two weeks.  End of story.  Doesn't mean "the system is broken".  

[alarp33]

 

This is a valid point.  I don't buy the "We didn't win the world series so we're a failure" argument, as 97% of the teams in the league don't!  However, the Twins of the 00's were built to win.  They won divisions, and once that happens, you're one of few teams competing for the WS.  

 

However, I don't know if you can fault "the system" for not winning playoffs.  Those playoff Twins had batting title winners, MVPs, and a Cy Young winner.  I'm not sure how much more you can bring to the post-season.  My personal take was Gardy should've been fired during that run, but a new manager may or may not have changed anything.  The players that got them there didn't perform on the big stage, and no role players excelled for two weeks.  End of story.  Doesn't mean "the system is broken".  

 

While I do agree that getting to the playoffs and giving yourself a chance is very important... I don't think you can easily discount the fact that they were getting to the playoffs by winning the worst division in baseball.  

 

The starting pitching behind Santana was never "World Series contender" level.  Didn't Brian Duensing start Game 1 of one of those playoff series?

[REPETE]

 

While I do agree that getting to the playoffs and giving yourself a chance is very important... I don't think you can easily discount the fact that they were getting to the playoffs by winning the worst division in baseball.  

 

The starting pitching behind Santana was never "World Series contender" level.  Didn't Brian Duensing start Game 1 of one of those playoff series?

I agree they may not have been "built to win a world series", but again, the real question is how far do you go to win NOW?  We could've traded a bunch of prospects for a rental player, or bought a free agent or two, but that wouldn't have guaranteed a World Series, and most certainly would have shortened our run of division titles, even in a weak division, as our prospects would've been gone.   

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree they may not have been "built to win a world series", but again, the real question is how far do you go to win NOW?  We could've traded a bunch of prospects for a rental player, or bought a free agent or two, but that wouldn't have guaranteed a World Series, and most certainly would have shortened our run of division titles, even in a weak division, as our prospects would've been gone.   

 

When have they ever gone in to win now, since 1991/2?

[Kwak]

 

About the TV contract -- I believe it is undervalued, but it's not the management's fault. My memory of the negotiations was the Twins were holding out to create their own cable network, like the Yankees. This would have provided a major new revenue stream indefinitely. They were undercut in these negotiations by public pressure, including some government officials, who complained bitterly over the temporary TV blackout imposed by their opponents. This was done to undermine public support, and it worked. But it was a bitter example of short-term thinking overpowering long-term thinking. The Twins had a vision for a much better long-term model that would have maximized TV revenue forever. And they weren't allowed to hold out for it. I guess you could say they should have held out anyway and taken a huge PR hit, alienating their fans, and being turned on by government, but I don't think that's fair. And my memory is the state was even going to legislate that they get the games back on TV asap. My memory is vague though. Anyone who remembers this better than me please speak up. But my impression is, they took the long view, and the smart view, and were hung out to dry. Caving to FOX is now hampering their ability to compete and will continue to do so for many years. I'm not saying they don't have the resources to compete -- with the new stadium and revenue sharing they have plenty to field a much more expensive payroll and still turn a profit. But since the discussion touched on local TV revenue, I think this is one you can't hang on them.

I think it was Comcast (and not FOX) that did them in.  The wouldn't allow a channel to be allocated for a "Twins Network".

[REPETE]

 

When have they ever gone in to win now, since 1991/2?

If by "gone in to win", you mean picking up rental players for the stretch, I agree.  They haven't.  But the bigger question is, would you rather they mortgage the future by trading future assets for said rental player, or keep future assets, and try to be relevant for the future, too.  

But if you trade a Kepler for 3 months of a rental player, and you still don't make the WS, you're in the same boat; no WS title, and a weaker team.  

 

The follow up question becomes, would you rather win the World Series once, followed by third place division finishes for 8 years, or be competitive for 8 years?  Personally, I'd love a ring, but it was nice watching them win division titles for the 00's span, too.  With some breaks, and a guy getting hot, there's no reason they couldn't have won a WS during those years.  it just didn't happen.   

[Mike Sixel]

 

If by "gone in to win", you mean picking up rental players for the stretch, I agree.  They haven't.  But the bigger question is, would you rather they mortgage the future by trading future assets for said rental player, or keep future assets, and try to be relevant for the future, too.  

But if you trade a Kepler for 3 months of a rental player, and you still don't make the WS, you're in the same boat; no WS title, and a weaker team.  

 

The follow up question becomes, would you rather win the World Series once, followed by third place division finishes for 8 years, or be competitive for 8 years?  Personally, I'd love a ring, but it was nice watching them win division titles for the 00's span, too.  With some breaks, and a guy getting hot, there's no reason they couldn't have won a WS during those years.  it just didn't happen.   

 

 

Well, I'm not proposing trading part of the immediate run for a rental......I specifically asked, when they are in the thick of being the best team in baseball.....should they, or should they not, go for it in FA or trades?

 

They were competitive for 8 years, and won 1 series, right? They couldn't part with ANY money on a FA to DH? They couldn't part with Aaron Hicks? 

 

People here ALL THE TIME, tell me this runs in cycles....and that past 5 or so years, you are on a decline in farm system....wouldn't that be the time to trade the prospects you do have, for legit players, since those prospects WON'T be on a winning team, if you believe the cycle theory?

 

On Kepler......if you think the core is legit now or in 2 years:

How does trading Kepler make them NOT competitive for 8 years? Is he the lynch pin to buxton, Sano, Berrios, et. al. being on a winner? Really? That ONE prospect is going to make or break it?

Edited February 24, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[REPETE]

 

Well, I'm not proposing trading part of the immediate run for a rental......I specifically asked, when they are in the thick of being the best team in baseball.....should they, or should they not, go for it in FA or trades?

 

They were competitive for 8 years, and won 1 series, right? They couldn't part with ANY money on a FA to DH? They couldn't part with Aaron Hicks? 

 

People here ALL THE TIME, tell me this runs in cycles....and that past 5 or so years, you are on a decline in farm system....wouldn't that be the time to trade the prospects you do have, for legit players, since those prospects WON'T be on a winning team, if you believe the cycle theory?

 

On Kepler......if you think the core is legit now or in 2 years:

How does trading Kepler make them NOT competitive for 8 years? Is he the lynch pin to buxton, Sano, Berrios, et. al. being on a winner? Really? That ONE prospect is going to make or break it?

I look back at the 91 team.  They picked up Chili Davis, and Jack Morris (among others).  Those guys performed WAAAYYY over expectatons, and weren't Young Andrew's first choices.  Going into the season, nobody said "world series", or even "playoffs".  We were just hoping they'd not be abysmal.   But the FA, Combined with some veterans, and some rookies came together, and after the season was over, we "knew" they were a very good team, partly because we caught that lightning in the bottle.

Kepler was just an example.  When teams make the playoffs, its because guys have good years, and are much more expensive to keep.  So you pay some of them, lose some, and bring up young guys to fill in.  Young guys don't always pan out, so you'd better hope you have more young guys behind them.  When you're picking 24, 27, 29, that's a much different scenario than picking Mauer & Buxton, and eventually the cupboard runs bare.  

 

But if you do get rid of a Kepler for a rental guy, two years from now when the Twins lose 90, everyone says "Ryan's an idiot; it sure would be nice to see the that all-star Kepler in a Twins jersey right now."  And if we didn't win the WS with the rental guy we got for Kepler?  Well now, Ryan's an even BIGGER idiot.     

[savvyspy]

The fact that this team hasn't won a playoff game in over 10 years, a playoff series in almost 15, and a World Series in 25 but basically is run almost the exact same way by the same type (if not the exact same) people through that entire span tell you all you need to know about this front office. There isn't anything this team does that successful organizations are looking to from an innovation standpoint. 

 

Ryan and the entire front office seem like nice people but from a results standpoint they have been complete failures on almost every front. They are dinosaurs whose time has passed them by.

 

From drafting, free agency, roster construction, giving ridiculous contracts to marginal players, lack of interest in analytics, that they won't even entertain platooning players, complete disregard for defense, and finally, their arrogance that this failed outdated approach will somehow work in the future if they just keep doing it.

 

Any success this team has is done in spite of their front office not because of it. Frankly, Molitor should have been manager of the year last season. He took a 65 win roster and almost made it a playoff team when his top players (Perkins and Dozier) really struggled down the stretch. Any hope I have for this year lies SOLELY with my confidence in Molitor and the natural talent of Sano overcoming anything this team is trying to do to change his swing and foolishly putting him in the outfield where he's never played before.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I look back at the 91 team.  They picked up Chili Davis, and Jack Morris (among others).  Those guys performed WAAAYYY over expectatons, and weren't Young Andrew's first choices.  Going into the season, nobody said "world series", or even "playoffs".  We were just hoping they'd not be abysmal.   But the FA, Combined with some veterans, and some rookies came together, and after the season was over, we "knew" they were a very good team, partly because we caught that lightning in the bottle.

Kepler was just an example.  When teams make the playoffs, its because guys have good years, and are much more expensive to keep.  So you pay some of them, lose some, and bring up young guys to fill in.  Young guys don't always pan out, so you'd better hope you have more young guys behind them.  When you're picking 24, 27, 29, that's a much different scenario than picking Mauer & Buxton, and eventually the cupboard runs bare.  

 

But if you do get rid of a Kepler for a rental guy, two years from now when the Twins lose 90, everyone says "Ryan's an idiot; it sure would be nice to see the that all-star Kepler in a Twins jersey right now."  And if we didn't win the WS with the rental guy we got for Kepler?  Well now, Ryan's an even BIGGER idiot.     

 

Still haven't answered the question, though....when they are in contention, and great, should they close an obvious gap, or keep the prospects around for the future?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I look back at the 91 team.  They picked up Chili Davis, and Jack Morris (among others).  Those guys performed WAAAYYY over expectatons, and weren't Young Andrew's first choices.  Going into the season, nobody said "world series", or even "playoffs".  We were just hoping they'd not be abysmal.   But the FA, Combined with some veterans, and some rookies came together, and after the season was over, we "knew" they were a very good team, partly because we caught that lightning in the bottle.

I don't if "abysmal" is quite right.  Last place in 1990, but we won 74 games.  Tapani, Guthrie, and Erickson all pitched less than full seasons in 1990 but were really solid when they took the hill.  Similar for Shane Mack on the offensive side, a Rule 5 bench player to open 1990 but a plus starter by the end.  We were also expected to address the sink hole at 2B with 100 prospect Knoblauch.  Not to mention holdover standout performers Puckett, Hrbek, Harper, and Aguilera.  (Plus Junior Ortiz and his .335 batting average )

 

There was a solid basis for optimism that year, or they wouldn't have been so aggressive in free agency.

[REPETE]

 

Still haven't answered the question, though....when they are in contention, and great, should they close an obvious gap, or keep the prospects around for the future?

Mike, we may be arguing the same thing.  I don't have an "answer".  In fact, that's exactly my question.  Which is better?  Sell off the future for a legitimate run at a World Series, which may or may not pan out and get us there, or stay in contention for a few more years?  

 

If they sell the farm for a rental player or big time FA, and win the World Series, but are looking at 500 for the next 10 years, I'd probably be OK with that.  But if they sell the farm, and still don't win the World Series, like Toronto last year, if they fall into obscurity, 2 years later, everyone says they're a horribly run FO.  

However, if they stand pat with a very good team, and hope for a lot of luck to win the World Series, but continue to be relevant in a division run for the next 4-5 years, that certainly makes baseball much more interesting for a longer time.  I'd be great with winning a World Series, but I hope it's not at the expense of the farm system.  Spend money in the offseason for the years it looks like we're ready to win, but don't give up the future.  As for the 2016 team, I think it's time to see what we have in the young kids, then in 2017, pick up pieces to fill holes.