Article: Change At The Top?

[Mike Sixel]

Did someone just judge WS rings in under 3-4 years time?

[Winston Smith]

 

Just to clarify:  The 3 teams you identified as examples of using this two tiered approach, while admittedly trending in a positive direction--at least one of them is, and lets be honest one of the others is two games over .500 with a $223 million payroll, have thus far combined for ZERO World Series rings using this approach.

How many World Series ring has Terry produced in 20 years?

[LaBombo]

 

Just to clarify:  The 3 teams you identified as examples of using this two tiered approach, while admittedly trending in a positive direction--at least one of them is, and lets be honest one of the others is two games over .500 with a $223 million payroll, have thus far combined for ZERO World Series rings using this approach.

 

 

If by "clarify",   you mean   'grotesquely distort',   then well done,   I guess.

 

The Cubs are the best team in baseball dating back to the 2015 opener.

 

The Dodgers won their division last year and are among the N.L.'s top 5 in run differential this season.   Friedman has had fewer than two years on the job and inherited some of the worst contracts in baseball.    He previously took the Rays to 4 postseasons and a World Series despite being in the toughest division in baseball and having roughly the budget of a high school class presidential campaign

 

 

The Diamondbacks are below .500 at the moment but improved by 15 wins after just one year of LaRussa at the helm.

 

Just a suggestion, but if you're going to try to sell those records as failures,   you might find a more receptive market among fans of a team that's not en route to averaging 90 losses for six consecutive seasons or,   for that matter,   one that has more than one postseason series win in 25 years or more than zero in the last 13.

 

The ideal candidate would also be on pace for fewer than 113 losses this season.

 

Ideally.

Edited May 31, 2016 by LaBombo

[Mike Sixel]

Plus, just because some people aren't great at their job (see AZ FO, probably).....that doesn't mean the structure is wrong/bad/evil.

[Boom Boom]

It's an interesting idea, but the guy to replace DSP would either be 1) bringing in all his own people anyway, or 2) a Twins crony who would maintain the status quo.

[Seth Stohs]

 

In fairness to Seth, he knows these people personally. It's pretty hard to say bad things in public about people you know.......

 

I also chose not to say bad things in public about people I don't know... it's called being a decent person... 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I also chose not to say bad things in public about people I don't know... it's called being a decent person... 

 

Wow, I'm trying to defend you, and I feel you just attacked me.

 

We are on a website dedicated to discussing how well players play, and managers manage and the FO is doing their job. If you think that's not decent, why do you own this website, exactly?

[Seth Stohs]

 

Wow, I'm trying to defend you, and I feel you just attacked me.

 

We are on a website dedicated to discussing how well players play, and managers manage and the FO is doing their job. If you think that's not decent, why do you own this website, exactly?

 

I apologize. The tone was meant more to attack the "Guilt By Association" mentality in these threads. So-and-So is part of this, they must be non-smart and could never do the job here or anywhere. That bugs me because it's unfair to those individuals. It is possible that in internal person may be perfect for the job, but with this type of thinking (not you, but the general vibe in this thread) that guy would never be given a chance. 

[alarp33]

 

I apologize. The tone was meant more to attack the "Guilt By Association" mentality in these threads. So-and-So is part of this, they must be non-smart and could never do the job here or anywhere. That bugs me because it's unfair to those individuals. It is possible that in internal person may be perfect for the job, but with this type of thinking (not you, but the general vibe in this thread) that guy would never be given a chance. 

 

The team is 15-35 this year, and 363-497 since the start of 2011.  They haven't won a single playoff game since 2004.  

 

If they had an internal person perfect for the President of Baseball Ops/ GM role, my question to you would be... what the hell have they been doing exactly?  I mean honestly, what qualifications do they have other than "2nd, 3rd, or 4th in charge of one of the worst run franchises in the league"

 

What makes any single person who is part of this dumpster fire a worthwhile candidate, other than they may be personally a good guy? 

 

Who do you blame for the epic dumpster fire that this franchise has turned into?  

 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by alarp33

[Seth Stohs]

 

Who do you blame for the epic dumpster fire that this franchise has turned into?  

 

Ownership, front office, coaching staffs, the players... everyone. 

[alarp33]

 

Ownership, front office, coaching staffs, the players... everyone. 

 

We agree there, and I think most people do.  Which would be why practically everyone is saying no internal candidate deserves even a shot at the top spot.  

[Seth Stohs]

 

We agree there, and I think most people do.  Which would be why practically everyone is saying no internal candidate deserves even a shot at the top spot.  

 

And that's where we disagree... that's my 'guilt by association' comment. I will stand by my statements that I think there would be good candidates internally... I do agree that it may be best for the organizations and probably those individuals if they do go elsewhere. 

[TheLeviathan]

I didn't realize being a decent person required a completely non-critical approach to dealing with people.  I've been friends with people I supervised and colleagues with those I've been asked to help improve. I was never shy about being critical, even if those conversations were hard to have.  But they're hard because they're necessary to change things.  

 

Hell, I'm married to my biggest critic and I still think she's a mighty fine person.  The mentality that everything has to be duckies and bunnies to be constructive is totally misguided.  I understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to your ability to gain insights from the team, but if we're going to try to make things around our favorite team better - than hurt feelings need to be a non-factor.  We have to figure out how to get better at this, not worry about who goes home upset about it.   

[Kwak]

 

Ownership, front office, coaching staffs, the players... everyone. 

The owner(s) selects the Front Office and sets operational constraints. The Front Office selects the coaches and sets operational philosophy according to constraints. The coaches implement operational philosophy and provide guidance to the players and send player evaluation to the Front Office (and other feedback). The players perform, but they will take actions (from time to time) that they believe are in their own best interests. The fans (I guess we're lumped in the "everyone" group--and what was our responsibility for this "total system failure"? Outside of folding under the pressure of losing the team by agreeing to substantially fund a new stadium what did we do wrong?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Kwak

[Craig Arko]

In my experience, change is at the bottom. Large denomination bills are at the top. Those are not easily moved.

[Riverbrian]

 

I apologize. The tone was meant more to attack the "Guilt By Association" mentality in these threads. So-and-So is part of this, they must be non-smart and could never do the job here or anywhere. That bugs me because it's unfair to those individuals. It is possible that in internal person may be perfect for the job, but with this type of thinking (not you, but the general vibe in this thread) that guy would never be given a chance. 

 

Isn't guilt by association somewhat justified in the current situation. 

 

I realize it isn't fair or even close to researched since we really don't know anything about internal candidates but isn't it somewhat reasonable to associate anybody that is part of the process in a total system failure such as it is. 

 

Do we have someone in the Org who is loudly critical of the decisions made?

[Halsey Hall]

 

I didn't realize being a decent person required a completely non-critical approach to dealing with people.  I've been friends with people I supervised and colleagues with those I've been asked to help improve. I was never shy about being critical, even if those conversations were hard to have.  But they're hard because they're necessary to change things.  

 

Hell, I'm married to my biggest critic and I still think she's a mighty fine person.  The mentality that everything has to be duckies and bunnies to be constructive is totally misguided.  I understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to your ability to gain insights from the team, but if we're going to try to make things around our favorite team better - than hurt feelings need to be a non-factor.  We have to figure out how to get better at this, not worry about who goes home upset about it.   

That's just it - no one on this board is going to make the Twins better.  This is about a Change at the Top of the Twins organization, not Twins Daily.    You  understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to gain insights from the team, hence counter-productive to this board.  Seth's getting a lot of unwarrented flak here and there's no call for it.

[Mr. Brooks]

That's just it - no one on this board is going to make the Twins better. This is about a Change at the Top of the Twins organization, not Twins Daily. You understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to gain insights from the team, hence counter-productive to this board. Seth's getting a lot of unwarrented flak here and there's no call for it.

Not true at all.

 

Michael Russo proves that you can be fairly critical when deserved, and still be well respected by the team you cover.

 

I don't think anyone is asking Seth to take cheap shots or anything like that.

I think 99% of professionals, not just in sports, will respect fair criticism.

[Halsey Hall]

Don't know Russo, never heard of him.

[Riverbrian]

 

That's just it - no one on this board is going to make the Twins better.  This is about a Change at the Top of the Twins organization, not Twins Daily.    You  understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to gain insights from the team, hence counter-productive to this board.  Seth's getting a lot of unwarrented flak here and there's no call for it.

 

I think Seth gave his opinion and I know that I respect it. 

 

I also think knew his opinion would be against the wind and knew some blow back. 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Don't know Russo, never heard of him.

Minnesota Wild beat writer for the Star Tribune.

Might be the best beat reporter of any team in any sport.

[DocBauer]

Look, I live and die with my Twins and have for 45 years. I've seen multiple owners, GM's, players, a plethora of managers, etc. I've seen the highs and way too many lows.

 

But I do think frustration colors issues a bit at the moment. The issue at hand, as I see it, is HOW should a shakeup be structured.

 

I have no problem with bringing in a "baseball guy" to oversee things from a presidential standpoint. But part of the issue seems to be what has been mentioned here previously: most of us, me included, are unsure what the Twins presidency really means in regard to job function.

 

It APPEARS to me that said job title has little to nothing to do with the running of the ballclub, but rather the business side of the Minnesota Twins. And the GM's is to dea, with the product on the field. We can argue, I suppose, about marketing and how family friendly Target Field is, etc. Not living in the Twin Cities, I'm sure my perspective on these and other topics, are different than those that do. From the outside looking in, and I'm not praising or blasting DStP, but the Twins enjoy one of the best ML facilities in Target Field, have a tremendous facility in Ft Myers, and seem to enjoy success with scouting across the globe with a real presence in Latin America. These are good things, real positives.

 

And maybe said president SHOULD be a strong baseball guy who hires someone else to help take care of things. And I think that's part of the point here. Ownership will ultimately make their decision on structure within the organization. But knowing we don't know everything, is it better to have an overseer for baseball, and an overseer for the GM while having someone else involved in the business side of things. OR, is that too many cooks vs having a quality GM solely in charge of the baseball side of things?

 

I'm not sure I know the answer to this question. But I think that is the issue and debate, without knowing everything we wish we knew.

 

I think we all agree something needs to change. It's time. I agree with Brian...if I may paraphrase...that I also have accepted a lot and forgiven a lot, but now realize that a lack of vision, plan, action, non-action, etc, has lead to a dysfunctional baseball product. There is way too much potential here to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's simply time for new blood, and a real sense of a plan of action.

 

I just don't know if that means a new and strong GM, or a combination of new GM and "baseball" president who let's someone else run the whole business/public part of the operstions.

[tobi0040]

He also said Jack Goin would be a solid GM candidate... There could be 100 Major League Baseball teams, Goin and Antony wouldn't have a prayer at landing a GM job anywhere but MN.  Those aren't real candidates in any sense of the word.

That is just it. When you have a guy on your staff for years and nobody has asked to interview him, then it is a sign that he probably is not a great candidate. I don't think the Twins data guy, or an assistant to TR is a hot commodity around the league.

[peterb18]

The organization definitely needs new leadership. The culture is wrong......it is now one of losing. A few years ago I listened to a round table during spring training and Terry Ryans name came up..the panelists all liked Terry, but didn't think he was suited to the role of a modern day GM. They specifically mentioned the Houston GM who would have multiple deals going at the same time. Terry doesn't think or work that way which is probably a disadvantage for the Twins.

I think Terry says money is no object in putting a roster together but it probably is.... Not only do we need new management, but the optimum solution would be interested ownership.

[TheLeviathan]

That's just it - no one on this board is going to make the Twins better.  This is about a Change at the Top of the Twins organization, not Twins Daily.    You  understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to gain insights from the team, hence counter-productive to this board.  Seth's getting a lot of unwarrented flak here and there's no call for it.

No, we wont ultimately be in charge of the decisions. But if criticism is warranted and you deliberately do the opposite of that you invite scrutiny on the merits of your analysis.

[Deduno Abides]

Ballpark : good job; Matt Hoy and taxpayers must get a lot of the credit.

 

Fleecing taxpayers: good job, albeit a lengthy and painful process with threats of contraction and a big, heavy assist from Bud Selig.

 

Game day experience: good. Again, credit to Matt Hoy.

 

Ballpark pricing: good for team, bad for fans. The prices are ridiculously high, but a lot of people pay, so you can't fault them.

 

Community: pretty bad, with good self-promotion. When I contacted them about having a D-Day veteran do the flag, got a real run-around, which basically amounted to "we don't need you." When I contacted them about the Community Foundation, got bounced around a little, then nobody returned my call.

 

Involvement with baseball, which is the actual product: bad process, bad outcomes.

 

TV contract: hard to measure against their other options, but it is light, relative to other teams.

 

Intangibles: could he get rid of the penny loafers?

 

All in all, mediocre performance for a president, unless you cherry pick the items going well and absolve him for responsibility for the areas not going so well.

[dxpavelka]

 

If by "clarify",   you mean   'grotesquely distort',   then well done,   I guess.

 

The Cubs are the best team in baseball dating back to the 2015 opener.

 

The Dodgers won their division last year and are among the N.L.'s top 5 in run differential this season.   Friedman has had fewer than two years on the job and inherited some of the worst contracts in baseball.    He previously took the Rays to 4 postseasons and a World Series despite being in the toughest division in baseball and having roughly the budget of a high school class presidential campaign

 

 

The Diamondbacks are below .500 at the moment but improved by 15 wins after just one year of LaRussa at the helm.

 

Just a suggestion, but if you're going to try to sell those records as failures,   you might find a more receptive market among fans of a team that's not en route to averaging 90 losses for six consecutive seasons or,   for that matter,   one that has more than one postseason series win in 25 years or more than zero in the last 13.

 

The ideal candidate would also be on pace for fewer than 113 losses this season.

 

Ideally.

Not trying to sell anything as failures.  Just stating facts.  To the other extreme we might also want to let them actually accomplish something before we crown their asses.

[savvyspy]

"It would also satiate the growing cries for change and new leadership without requiring a reactive dismissal or a hasty overhaul of the entire front office."

 

At this point a complete overhaul is needed. The entire front office is a total train wreck. I don't understand the argument that charge needs to be incremental at this point.

 

A baseball focused President that the GM reports to is an obvious change but doesn't fix the fact that the team relies way too heavily on an obsolete scouting dept that hasn't delivered in the draft and a system wide coaching development team that has absolutely failed on getting prospects major league ready. There is a complete misunderstanding or worse, willful ignorance, of how baseball games are won which leads to asinine decisions regarding roster construction and player management on the field. This organization is broken. This isn't players having a bad year. This is total failure by a team that has no discernible vision or plan.

 

Why are we so afraid of change that we can't entertain building this team the right way from the ground up?? 

[jctwins]

 

I apologize. The tone was meant more to attack the "Guilt By Association" mentality in these threads. So-and-So is part of this, they must be non-smart and could never do the job here or anywhere. That bugs me because it's unfair to those individuals. It is possible that in internal person may be perfect for the job, but with this type of thinking (not you, but the general vibe in this thread) that guy would never be given a chance. 

 

Guilt by association is life in professional sports. Anyone in the business that doesn't have a couple of years' of income set aside is playing with fire.

[LaBombo]

 

Not trying to sell anything as failures.  Just stating facts.  To the other extreme we might also want to let them actually accomplish something before we crown their asses.

 

Your "facts" appear to be saying there's one good GM who wins the World Series and 29 equally failed GMs who didn't.    If GMs who turn losing teams into playoff contenders didn't   "actually accomplish something",   then we just have radically different ideas of accomplishment,   I guess.

Edited June 2, 2016 by LaBombo