Article: Your Turn: What Do You Want From A GM?

[alarp33]

 

  On 5/25/2016 at 7:01 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

The big thing with the Hughes deal is that moving out of that band box in NY to a pitcher friendly TF was supposed to help reduce his HR rate, making him a more valuable pitcher.  In 2014, he looked like he took a step forward as well.  His peripherals were also favorable, it wasn't like he did that posting a Joe Mays like 5K/9 while doing what he did.  There was some dislike to the contract, but yeah, in general most of TD was pretty happy with both signings. 

 

Lest we also forget, pitching was pretty thin at those times as well.  Tyler Duffey had a decent season in AA with a K/9 under 7 (no one expected his peripherals to continue to improve as he rose up the chain).  Meyer was the closest to the bigs and even then he was a bit of a question mark with a high BB rate.  May was in the majors after a surprise season in AAA, but was really bad.  Berrios received a handful of starts in AA and watched his K rate drop pretty significantly.   Like it or not, counting on all of those guys to progress (and not get hurt) is risky in and of itself.  Hughes was the first decent pitching season we saw in MN in several years. 

 

This was, like it or not, a risk proposition.  You can add 3 more years to a young pitcher at a reasonable rate.  If he performs again, that contract is easily tradable.  If he regresses, it's still tradable.  Hughes fell flat on his face.  That's the difference. 

 

Fair points, but largely ignored the fact that he was under contract for 2 full seasons.  Pitching being a little thin really shouldn't play into it at all, he contractually could not have gone anywhere until 2017 at the earliest.  

[jimmer]

  On 5/25/2016 at 7:05 PM, alarp33 said:

Fair points, but largely ignored the fact that he was under contract for 2 full seasons. Pitching being a little thin really shouldn't play into it at all, he contractually could not have gone anywhere until 2017 at the earliest.

and if we felt we absolutely had to sign him for longer you at least wait another year to see if he can come close to repeating what he did in 2014. No rush at all to sign him after his first year of a three year contract. Also, Hughes didn't fall flat on his face last year. He went back to being the pitcher he had always been. Edited May 25, 2016 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 5/25/2016 at 7:01 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

You can add 3 more years to a young pitcher at a reasonable rate.  If he performs again, that contract is easily tradable.  If he regresses, it's still tradable.  Hughes fell flat on his face.  That's the difference. 

I disagree that his current contract is "easily tradeable" even if Hughes didn't fall flat on his face.  How many pitchers have been traded with similar commitments remaining?  And for what return?

 

Meanwhile, the list of pitchers traded with 0.5-1.5 years remaining, for solid returns, is quite long.

 

Not that it would have been impossible to trade Hughes after his extension, but he ceased to be a valuable trade asset when we signed it.  At best, we pushed the most favorable trade opportunities down the road 3+ years.

[Deduno Abides]

  On 5/25/2016 at 3:25 AM, Sconnie said:

im with you on the statistical analysis part. What I want most in a leader is someone to lead, who values statistical analysis, understands it, and hires a good team to run it and influence/drive philosophies centered around the team core talent management strategy. Bench coach and someone in the AGM level of role should be the stat head team leaders. GM and Manager need to be the ultimate of people/player managers.

Statistical analysis is important, but even more important is mental flexibility to understand and be able to adapt to changes in thinking and outcomes; someone who can learn to find new ways to have an advantage over the competition, whether it is statistical analysis, health care, mental approaches, or whatever, instead of repeating how he achieved moderate success 15 years ago and stubbornly refusing to admit to and learn from mistakes.

 

Oh yeah, and the ability to keep his mouth shut about minor flaws in players, instead of using the press as his alibi communicators.

[Kwak]

 

  On 5/25/2016 at 3:20 PM, Brandon said:

1. With Hughes the options were 1. He could have a second good season and cost over 100 million to extend or 2 he could have played out his contract and been a free agent we couldn't afford or 3 the 3 year 42 million extension he did sign which put him under contract through age 32 or 33. We all loved that extension at the time.because we all thought we were getting a number 2 starter for number 3 starter money.

2. Perkins also provides a hometown hero. There is something to be said for things like that for the casual fan and signing him to an extension for 60 to 70 cents on the dollar so he can stay here is a gentleman agreement for a no trade clause.

Pelfry was a bad signing. But it occurred when we had no pitching options and as a whole inexpensive and he wanted to be here. He was solid the year we contended. That makes his cost worth it.

Capps, I was no fan of Capps but he cost less than other closers. I would have resigned him for less if I thought he could save 30 games a year at a cost of 60 cents on the dollar. Especially with the other financial commitments we had back then. But I would prefer he be signed as a middle reliever or not at all.

Gigantic flaws in philosophy.

 

1)  The need to extend Hughes past three years--even if was very successful.  Hypothesize his continued success for discussion purposes.  Hughes is only one pitcher and several are needed, trade him off after 2.5 yrs to a top contender for a bucket of prospects.  Added benefit to a trade--money not spent on Hughes is used to sign top amateurs and retain up-and-comers. The Twins were in rebuild mode and Hughes (others too!) were signed to be a bridge to the rebuilt (and contending) team.

 2)  The Twins weren't a contender--nor would they until the filling pipeline of new talent proves themselves  competent MLBB players--years are required! 

3)  Foolish for the Twins to commit huge money (and years!) to a 32-plus year-old Hughes.  The Twins wouldn't "be there" yet, his (expected) gigantic salary can be better spent on multiple younger players. 

4) Hypocritical to claim "...poor, mid-market team" and then claim it's a priority to spend $100MM+ on a 32+ year old starting pitcher.

[old nurse]

 

  On 5/24/2016 at 9:27 PM, d-mac said:

Gerrit Cole, Anthony Rendon, Francisco Lindor, George Springer, Jose Fernandez, Sonny Gray, Kolten Wong, Joe Panik, Jackie Bradley Jr, and Trevor Story all say hi. 

Yup,  Pretty much first round picks before the Twins picked on your list. Hello

 

[Willihammer]

The Hughes extension is a good snapshot of some of TR's weaknesses IMO.

 

1. An over-commitment to free agent acquisitions. Particularly the multi-year contract signees. Hughes had an outlier performance, something other GMs would recognize. His trade value probably wasn't that high, but I have to believe a trade opportunity would have been there, if Ryan had pursued it. But he has built this image of the Twins as the anti-Marlins. It sounds callous to say, but sometimes the best thing for the franchise, is to uproot a player and ship him off. They do it every time they recall or option the Buxtons of the system- Buxton has a wife and kid too. But for whatever reason TR cultivates this image that if you sign with the Twins you don't have to worry about being flipped and I believe that costs him trade opportunities.

2. Poor appreciation for the forces of regression. Kinda ironic because a big part of the justification for signing Hughes in the first place was, his HR/FB would normalize into something resembling league average if he moved into a more league average home park. But Hughes' HR/FB in 2014 wasn't just normal, it was 6th-lowest in baseball. A correction in 2015-18 seemed completely possible, if not likely. And then there was the K/BB rate which was the GOAT, practically screaming regression.

3. Poor appreciation for age related decline. Again, sort of ironic because the other appealing thing about the original Hughes contract was that Hughes was one of the younger free agents in the class. But instead of letting him walk at age 30, Ryan made sure he locked Hughes well into decline years.

4. Lousy timing. As mentioned already, there was no point in extending a player likely to regress, with 2 years remaining on the contract. Not trading him- okay, maybe a deal wasn't there. Maybe. But to go so far the other way and extend the guy? Just completely unnecessary. It turned an asset into a liability, and will handcuff the team when all the young talent they've drafted during this downturn is ready to audition in 2016-2018.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Great post, Willihammer (and hopefully ties this Hughes tangent back into the thread topic -- those are a few qualities we might like to avoid in a GM).

[Brandon]

 

  On 5/25/2016 at 3:33 PM, jimmer said:

we didn't all love the hughes extension when it happened. Many people hated it because the chance for repeat was extremely unlikely. Also you forgot some options. We could have traded him if he had a good 2015. We could have let him go at the end of FA or made him a qualifying offer if he was worth it and got a pick if he didn't sign. Lots of options and our GM picked the worst one because he had an out of body season. Most GMs look at a players body of work, see a season out of character, and don't bet it gets repeated.@

You need to go back and reread the comments when the extension occurred.  we were happy. 

[Minniman]

 

  On 5/24/2016 at 2:22 PM, Brandon said:

The year before we signed the 4th best starting pitcher in free agency and Torii, extended a Cy young calibre pitcher for 3 years and 14 million. We all thought the Nolasco signing was good at the time.

 

Why do people say things like that?

 

We did not all think the Nolasco signing was good at the time.

 

Some of us did not like the Torii signing either. That signing was too much too late.

 

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I guess I find some of this amusing.  On one end, we castigate the Hughes extension and Nolasco signing (side note, Nolasco was one of the more desired FAs of his class with the most coveted guy being our own Ervin Santana).  On the other, we want them to go out and get guys.  FA pitching rarely works.  For that matter, big FA contracts rarely work. We were in that situation to begin with due to the farm system's failure to produce decent pitching, and I really think a replacement for TR goes back to finding someone who can draft and develop decent players, with a big focus on the development given the sheer number of young players in the majors or high minors right now.

[Mike Sixel]

Plug a hole or three with FAs, not build the team out of free agents. 80% of the SP were FA or a guy they got for Sam Fuld........Also, it isn't their job to sign FAs, it is their job to sign the right FAs more than they sign the bad FAs.

 

It isn't just process that matters......

[Mike Sixel]

There don't appear to be many TR supporters on this thread, saying they pretty much want TR, or someone like him. I think those that want him gone are just talking to each other on this thread, and most of what is interesting to say has already been said.

 

Basically, I want a leader that knows that the world changes, and that to stay on top you need to innovate and either change with the times, or ahead of them. One that knows that it isn't good to have pretty much only people that grew up in your company in leadership positions, that you need to bring in outside ways of thinking and doing from time to time. One that communicates well to employees, and has a clear plan for them to execute.

 

I could go on and on, but what I want is a modern executive, that knows about baseball. There are dozens of pages on the internet about leadership and strategy and innovation. I want a leader that embraces much of those ideals.

[jimmer]

  On 5/25/2016 at 9:44 PM, Brandon said:

You need to go back and reread the comments when the extension occurred. we were happy.

why? I rarely concern myself with groupthink. To me, and many people I chatted with at the time, the move was disliked the extension immediately after it was made. Same thing with the Suzuki move. And for some of the same reasons, like having unsustainable career years. To me it was clearly and obviously bad for the reasons given.

[jimmer]

  On 5/25/2016 at 9:50 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

I guess I find some of this amusing. On one end, we castigate the Hughes extension and Nolasco signing (side note, Nolasco was one of the more desired FAs of his class with the most coveted guy being our own Ervin Santana). On the other, we want them to go out and get guys. FA pitching rarely works. For that matter, big FA contracts rarely work. We were in that situation to begin with due to the farm system's failure to produce decent pitching, and I really think a replacement for TR goes back to finding someone who can draft and develop decent players, with a big focus on the development given the sheer number of young players in the majors or high minors right now.

people slam the Hughes extension because it was made after a career year, when there was plenty of player performance to believe it wasn't sustainable, and because it was made at least a year early, if it had to be made at all. TR took a good original signing and then blew it with the unnecessary early extension before seeing if Hughes could repeat, or come close to repeating, his 2014. Edited May 25, 2016 by jimmer

[FormerMinnasotan]

One important thing for me is a GM who has player development as a high priority. The Twins have far too many prospects, especially starting pitchers who do well in the minors and fail miserably. Since the Twins won't ever sign an ace, they need to fully develop a pitcher who can meet those credentials. Also with player development, when you have a top talent (see Buxton) you actually develop him more thourghly so he is ready to take on Major League pitching.

[jimmer]

 

  On 5/25/2016 at 3:14 PM, spinowner said:

 

What it comes down to is that you can take the best people and the best evaluation methods and still wind up with a team on which many players have a worse-than expected season. That's what we are seeing this year, and I don't think any GM could have forseen or prepared for it. Sometimes you have good luck and sometimes you have bad luck.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.  Are you saying the Twins have the best people and the best evaluation methods?

[DocBauer]

Man do I hate being late to the part. Especially on a thread like this. Thank you Seth for posting such a wel, thought out piece. (As well as establishing the appropriate parameters)

 

A lot of tremendous thought here, and I would expect nothing less from the TD family. A special shout out to Rosterman, Levi and Brian for some lengthy, smart and well thought out ideas. I'm sure I'll repeat a lot of ideas here, but then again, they are things I think.

 

I have to say, ideally, it might be best to hire a president first, let him oversee the organization and then make his GM hire. But we are talking about GM here, so I will concentrate on that aspect.

 

BACKGROUND:

My choice doesn't have to have been a GM before. I honestly feel the Twins job would be a hot one. Call me crazy, and some will, but despite at least some financial restrictions that an LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, etc don't have, I've never really felt that Twins ownership didn't care. Nor have I ever felt they were as tight fisted or cheap as been alleged at times. Conservative and prudent, sometimes too much so, yes. But, IMO, when the Twins had a team that could compete, they have stepped up the payroll. While certain signings and extensions the past few years have been perhaps misguided, they did step up.

 

A new GM will have solid ownership, if not ideal ownership. He will have one of the best facilities in all of baseball. He has a tremulous facility in Ft Myers and one of the best milb systems around.

 

But despite my belief this is a great opportunity, I almost don't want a GM who has held the title before. Just my opinion, but I don't know if an Epstien would come here vs a top market. Also, if a former GM is available, there must be a reason. Yes? I'd prefer a younger GM open to new ideas who has been the right hand man in a quality, we'll run organization the past few years. Some mention the Cardinals, Cubs and Ray's as examples. My hope is he would have held positions with at least one additional organization to bring different ideas and perspectives with him.

 

He doesn't have to be a traditional "scout". He just has to be well organized and a good overall baseball guy who is good and smart with people. Part of his job is to NOT be the be-all and end-all, but to surround himself with good people.

 

ON THE FIELD:

I want him to embrace the complete package. Baseball has changed over the years, especially with new stadiums and inter-league play. It used to be teams tailored their teams to their home stadium in many ways; turf vs grass, size of stadium, stadium dimensions, etc. I don't believe this is nearly as true as it used to be.

 

Despite being very different sports on the surface, I feel there are a lot of parallels between makes a quality football team as well as a quality baseball team. Excelling in a single aspect of your game, or two, isn't enough to consistently win or be competitive for potential championships. I want a GM who believes in a balanced and deep roster. Not everyone has to be a slugger, or a Gold Glover, etc. A roster should be built with versatility, while embracing all aspects of power, hitting, defense, OB, speed, pitching, etc. In other words, not a hodge-podge of 1B and DH types and just tell your manager and coaches to figure it out.

 

My GM also has to have a manager who communicates well, uses his entire roster, is not afraid of some of today's metrics... (though I simply don't believe metrics are tell the whole story)...and embraces such simple things as platoon/match up situations, advancing runners, guys knowing their roles, etc. Sounds strange to say, but I want a young TK as a manager.

 

THE DRAFT AND PLAYER DEVELOPMENT:

Like the construction of the ML team, the draft should also be handled with a sense of variety and "completeness". While each draft is different...stronger in certain aspects, stronger in HS vs college talent...the BPA is always a great approach. Especially in baseball where you already know that you have a bit of a crapshoot as to will actually "make it", and it will take years before a prospect to reach the majors. But as much as possible, try to split your draft between HS and college talent, position players and pitching.

 

The past few years, the Twins have moved on from "solid" pitchers who had the potential to maybe move quickly, to more power arms. A late development to be sure, but a step in the right direction. Not every arm has to throw 95, but you can teach pitching, but you can't teach velocity.

 

Every year, I think a flyer or two should be taken on an out of slot, potentially hard to sign prospect. You take a shot every year on a guy or two like this, you will get at least a couple signed. They could make a difference.

 

My well organized GM will make sure that the guys he has running the minors, and coaching in the minors, all share similar ideas and philosophies. EVERYTHING from how my players stretch, to how they travel, to hitting and pitching approach, is the same at every level. This provides continuity and familiarity and helps not only with development, but with advancement to the next level.

 

While every prospect is different in their development, I agree with a more aggressive promotional approach in the lower levels. Promote, develop and challenge. If promotions slow down a bit, it should be at the AA and AAA level.

 

MEDIA AND RELATIONS:

Just be transparent. Just be honest and up front about things. I don't need a spin doctor telling me good we could be, or pat yourself on the back for some milb signing. If you have a plan, an idea, a thought, just be honest and transparent. NOTE* honestly, as fans, we want to know everything we can. That doesn't mean we HAVE to know everything. Just don't BS us.

 

FREE AGENCY:

Simple, aND as already stated, go in big for the 1 or 2 guys who can actually make a difference. But enough with mediocre moves. Despite the 20/20 results, initially, taken by themselves, there was nothing wrong with the Nolasco, Hughes or Santana signings. The problem is all 3 of them. Not only could that money have been spent elsewhere now, but it's currently handcuffing efforts to move them and move forward.

 

Keep dumpster diving. My new GM would still take flyers on guys for middle relief and bench spots. He would look for guys coming off injury, or former quality prospects who didn't cut it. These are cheap flyers, and once in a while you get lucky. You don't build a team this way, but you do find solid, helpful options here and there.

 

THE CURRENT SITUATION:

This is hugely disappointing, to say the least. I agree with the statement previously that Ryan should just own it and tell the Pohlad's as much. As much as possible, July 1st if not sooner, this should be about 2017 and beyond.

 

If Ryan wants a legacy and feel good exit, he should do everything he can to trade, bargain, dump veteran players and contracts to clear the way for the future of the franchise, and help pave the way for a big second half influx of Twins youth.

 

I agree that trading for even more prospects may not be the right move necesarilly. But what if it were possible to acquire a decent bullpen arm or solid catcher? That could actually help.

 

I'm sure the Pohlads, like any sports owner, wouldn't be crazy about eating contracts. But not only is it the cost of doing business sometimes, but it changes the roster dynamic for the future with players, in most cases, earning the minimum.

 

I admit, I'm really disappointed in Molitor. It will be up to my new GM as to who the best man is to lead my team. But Molitor, as a player, was all about hustle and execution. I'm just not seeing his intensity reflected on this squad. And considering his previous coaching stink and knowledge of so many of our prospects, I'm really frustrated and disappointed how he's handled many of them. He may not have made this mess, but I also don't think he's handled this year, or his players, in the right way.

[tobi0040]

Diehard,

 

I think we need to take a step back. We are middle ground in terms of payroll and you probably only have 6-8 teams with a real definitive leg up there. So the other 22-24 are looking at the same draft pool, international pool, and free agent pool. The fact is we are 29th in wins since 2011 even with a middle-ish payroll.

 

So it isn't as simple as darned if I do, darned if I don't. The other teams are making better decisions about players to acquire or doing a better job developing them after they do (or both).

[old nurse]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 3:32 AM, tobi0040 said:

Diehard,

I think we need to take a step back. We are middle ground in terms of payroll and you probably only have 6-8 teams with a real definitive leg up there. So the other 22-24 are looking at the same draft pool, international pool, and free agent pool. The fact is we are 29th in wins since 2011 even with a middle-ish payroll.

So it isn't as simple as darned if I do, darned if I don't. The other teams are making better decisions about players to acquire or doing a better job developing them after they do (or both).

In that time period there was the unmoveable high contracts of Morneau and Mauer When large chunks of your payroll are going out to players who are injured or career changing injuries, results will be skewed downwards.

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 5/26/2016 at 9:54 AM, old nurse said:

In that time period there was the unmoveable high contracts of Morneau and Mauer When large chunks of your payroll are going out to players who are injured or career changing injuries, results will be skewed downwards.

In 2012-2013, Mauer was still a star level performer, and Morneau still had a 107 OPS+ to finish out his contract.

 

Meanwhile, our opening day payroll dropped by about $20 mil both years.

 

And back to the topic at hand, even if accept some financial limitations, that doesn't mean you can't grade TR on the money he has spent. And most of his spending has been uniformly poor.

[Craig Arko]

It seems to me the topic at hand is what are the requirements for a (possibly) new GM, not a rehash of the mistakes of the past.

 

But maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 3:32 AM, tobi0040 said:

Diehard,

I think we need to take a step back. We are middle ground in terms of payroll and you probably only have 6-8 teams with a real definitive leg up there. So the other 22-24 are looking at the same draft pool, international pool, and free agent pool. The fact is we are 29th in wins since 2011 even with a middle-ish payroll.

So it isn't as simple as darned if I do, darned if I don't. The other teams are making better decisions about players to acquire or doing a better job developing them after they do (or both).

 

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't think it means what you think it means.  You won't be going out and getting that 150M FA (and for the record, I'm not sure that's the right approach anyways as those contracts rarely work out).  I've also noted that there's a huge contradictory view here on TD about FAs in general.  No one respects the fact that when you guarantee a contract, that means the guy is going to be around.  This isn't the NFL where we can just cut Rickey after two years of non-performance.  He signed a 48M deal, and he's going to get paid that regardless. There's a time and a place for cutting loose (and I think we are getting very close with Nolasco), but one or two FAs, even well placed ones, won't fix this mess.  And yes, to a good number of posters on this site, I really do think it's as simple as darned as you do and darned as you don't (to be PC).  You may not be one of them, but let's not pretend that this is non-existent on these forums.  There's plenty of it here, and it's pretty obvious.

 

I have stated that the focus needs to be on drafting/development.  The Twins haven't been that bad in the drafting/signing area really since Bill Smith.  Development is a different issue, and I've been without question rather critical of Gardenhire in that area, and I'm really not a fan of how Molitor is doing it thus far either.  I realize that those aren't the only two involved in the process, and perhaps there does need to be fundamental changes at the coaching levels all throughout the system.  I don't really know; I'm no expert there.

 

I do take issue with the idea that everyone is making better decisions.  That's definitely true in some cases, but every team makes minor league signings.  Only on TD do we complain about that.  Just about every team does the dumpster dive/scrap heap signing.  Only on TD do we complain about that.  We ignore the ones that work (Abad) and complain about the process when it doesn't.  Every team has people complaining about how fast/slow prospects get promoted, and somehow on TD we complain about both, despite the evidence showing that the Twins tend to be on the fast side of that. 

 

There's definitely some better decisions to be made here (I've stated on many occasions where I am with those), but based on all those plans we wrote out in November, we'd all still be looking at this same train wreck, with perhaps a few more wins at best.  So yeah, I'll reiterate what I've said previously in that we really need to approach this with a little bit of humility. 

[tobi0040]

  On 5/26/2016 at 12:56 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't think it means what you think it means. You won't be going out and getting that 150M FA (and for the record, I'm not sure that's the right approach anyways as those contracts rarely work out). I've also noted that there's a huge contradictory view here on TD about FAs in general. No one respects the fact that when you guarantee a contract, that means the guy is going to be around. This isn't the NFL where we can just cut Rickey after two years of non-performance. He signed a 48M deal, and he's going to get paid that regardless. There's a time and a place for cutting loose (and I think we are getting very close with Nolasco), but one or two FAs, even well placed ones, won't fix this mess. And yes, to a good number of posters on this site, I really do think it's as simple as darned as you do and darned as you don't (to be PC). You may not be one of them, but let's not pretend that this is non-existent on these forums. There's plenty of it here, and it's pretty obvious.

 

I have stated that the focus needs to be on drafting/development. The Twins haven't been that bad in the drafting/signing area really since Bill Smith. Development is a different issue, and I've been without question rather critical of Gardenhire in that area, and I'm really not a fan of how Molitor is doing it thus far either. I realize that those aren't the only two involved in the process, and perhaps there does need to be fundamental changes at the coaching levels all throughout the system. I don't really know; I'm no expert there.

 

I do take issue with the idea that everyone is making better decisions. That's definitely true in some cases, but every team makes minor league signings. Only on TD do we complain about that. Just about every team does the dumpster dive/scrap heap signing. Only on TD do we complain about that. We ignore the ones that work (Abad) and complain about the process when it doesn't. Every team has people complaining about how fast/slow prospects get promoted, and somehow on TD we complain about both, despite the evidence showing that the Twins tend to be on the fast side of that.

 

There's definitely some better decisions to be made here (I've stated on many occasions where I am with those), but based on all those plans we wrote out in November, we'd all still be looking at this same train wreck, with perhaps a few more wins at best. So yeah, I'll reiterate what I've said previously in that we really need to approach this with a little bit of humility.

There are some that complain no matter what. No doubt, but I think a majority of it comes back to being 29th in wins with a middle of the road payroll, over a 4.5 year time period. We just don't need a bigger report card than that.

 

And I think the Twins are awful at developing players as you noted. But I think the signings of 30+ year old players with low ceilings are viewed as part of that issue. They have no plan to break in the young players, no overall strategy for the future, and an inherent lack of faith in young players. Those are viewed as systemic problems that stunt the future. Frustration exists due to all of these things and the outlet for the frustration tends to be the thread about signing David Murhphy or Sean Burnett.

Edited May 26, 2016 by tobi0040

[spinowner]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 1:11 AM, jimmer said:

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.  Are you saying the Twins have the best people and the best evaluation methods?

Thanks for asking, because upon rereading this I can see that I was not clear. I'm not necessarily saying we have the best people and best methods. (I suppose it's possible that we do, but I don't know the internal workings of any MLB team well enough to assess that.) But I am saying that this year's roster has many players who are performing below the levels that were reasonably expected of them.

Edited May 26, 2016 by spinowner

[alarp33]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 1:36 PM, spinowner said:

(I suppose it's possible that we do, but I don't know the internal workings of any MLB team well enough to assess that.) 

 

Do you think knowing the internal workings is needed, or do you think we could use standings to evaluate?

 

One of 5 teams that haven't won a playoff game in 11 years, and the 29th best record in baseball over the past 5.  If we aren't allowed to use that to assess, what can we use? What would you consider poor performance if this doesn't qualify?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 1:45 PM, alarp33 said:

Do you think knowing the internal workings is needed, or do you think we could use standings to evaluate?

 

One of 5 teams that haven't won a playoff game in 11 years, and the 29th best record in baseball over the past 5.  If we aren't allowed to use that to assess, what can we use? What would you consider poor performance if this doesn't qualify?

 

To an extent you have a point (particularly the 11 year metric), but 29th in baseball over the last 5 ignores how long it takes to rebuild a franchise, especially since that really didn't start moving forward till 2013. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 2:39 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

To an extent you have a point (particularly the 11 year metric), but 29th in baseball over the last 5 ignores how long it takes to rebuild a franchise, especially since that really didn't start moving forward till 2013. 

 

How long should it take? When do we get to judge the number of 90 loss seasons as too many? I just want to know, because the goal posts seem to move a lot.

[tobi0040]

  On 5/26/2016 at 2:45 PM, Mike Sixel said:

How long should it take? When do we get to judge the number of 90 loss seasons as too many? I just want to know, because the goal posts seem to move a lot.

And we have not been the only team rebuilding over the last few years. And the fact that we will likely have the worst record in year five seems like a sign it isn't working.

[DaveW]

 

  On 5/26/2016 at 2:45 PM, Mike Sixel said:

How long should it take? When do we get to judge the number of 90 loss seasons as too many? I just want to know, because the goal posts seem to move a lot.

This, 100x this. We are now in the 6th year of the "rebuild" and things have actually gotten worse (we are going to lose 100+ most likely)

 

Some people might toss out the Pittsburgh and KC examples, but those are the exceptions to the rule and those 20+ year droughts were HUGE failures during that time.

Edited May 26, 2016 by DaveW