Article: Gleeman & The Geek, Ep 265: Replacing Terry Ryan

[John Bonnes]

Aaron and John have an emergency podcast at New Bohemia to discuss (and debate) the the Twins firing Terry Ryan. You can listen by downloading us from iTunes, Stitcher or find it at GleemanAndTheGeek.com. Or just click the Play button below.

 

Click here to view the article

[Brian]

Yikes! I chalked up most prior disagreements to you trying to get a rise out of Gleeman with a splash of too many drinks. I didn't think you actually believed what you were arguing. I don't think you appreciate how frustrating it is to listen to you when you're wrong John. You take passive aggressive MN to a whole new level.

[alarp33]

I hope you were just trying to play contrarian because that was hard to listen to.  Did you really call the 10 year run in the 2000's one of the most successful ever?  Didn't the Red Sox and Cardinals each win multiple World Series in that same 10 year period?  

[dcfreema]

John, I took your premise that GMs shouldn't be held accountable for the first 2-3 years of their tenure and did the math that way. Cutting his first three seasons (95, 96, & 97) and all of his second run (being generous, 12-current), you end up with a .508 regular season winning percentage and a .285 winning percentage in the playoffs.

 

Even cutting off the worst years, he still was the head of, on average, a mediocre regular season team. Then we get to the playoffs. I will grant you the playoffs are a crap shoot, but can we not agree that a .285 winning percentage is bad even for a crap shoot? At this point, when these numbers are what you are arguing for, I have to ask, "Why?"

[nytwinsfan]

While I too also disagree with John about Terry Ryan's relative success or lack thereof, I'm really more interested in talking about the future. Who the Twins pick as the next GM is the most critical decision of the last 15 and probably the next 15 years. Please please pick someone from the modern era. Please.

[rghrbek]

Gleeman did not even bring up Ryan's disregard for advanced analytics, which was arrogant and damaging to this franchise.  Ryan actually was very smug with people who asked him about this, early on in the movement.

 

Very frustrating to hear John, whom I have a great deal of respect for his baseball acumen, take such a odd stance.

 

It is his opinion, though, and he is allowed to have it.

[Steve Penz]

I think John and Aaron are in need of counseling after the battle I just listened to.  

[YLT]

The real question for John is why is he so interested in seeing Terry Ryan finish out the season? What value does that have for the Twins short term or long term? Especially if the Pohlad's don't have confidence in him.

[Brian]

Eighteen seasons is a large enough sample size to expect Ryan to have a replacement level .500 winning percentage. (And no, I'm not giving him a pass on the first few seasons either because he had 15 other seasons to make up for it. If you want to take those out then by that logic you have to add on the Bill Smith years.) The fact that he wasn't really all that close at .474 is just disheartening. A GM career WAR of -150 and he deserves one more season? 

Edited July 19, 2016 by Brian

[Willihammer]

Giving Ryan another season to turn the ship around would be extending an already unprecedented level of patience for a GM. No other owner in baseball history has suffered 4 straight 90+ loss seasons from a GM before. TR would have been gone after 2014 in any other market.

[Willihammer]

*Except the four 90+ loss teams in the 90s, again under Ryan.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Willihammer

[Ncgo4]

John, I'm embarrassed for your performance last night. A string of 90 loss seasons followed up by this year's likely 100 loss season isn't bad enough to fire a GM? His total disdain for statistical analysis doesn't add enough to the record to fire him? How about Nolasco and Hughes contracts? Not enough, yet? You gotta be kidding!

 

OK, we "borrowed" Jepson from Tampa Bay for about half a season and gave up Chi-We Hu (forgive spelling) for the privilege. Sano to right field? Berrios still in Rochester? The record of losses, bad decisions, and mishandling of players is almost beyond imagination.

 

The man outlived his value years ago. That you still think he deserved more time is just goofy.

[Darius]

Wow, Bonnes. Wow.

[Vanimal46]

Well, we sparked a conversation from the podcast! There are times when I agree with John and think Gleeman is off-base, and vice versa. With this episode, I lean heavily towards Gleeman's opinion over John's. 

[PopRiveter]

I'm flabbergasted by what I'm listening to and by the comments above.

 

First, John has every right to have his own opinion. He stated his opinion respectfully as one take on the matter and Gleeman responded as if he simply cannot accept the fact that John sees a matter differently. He didn't then proceed enter a thoughtful debate. He acted offended and disgusted that John has a different opinion. 

 

Aaron, it is okay if you and John don't agree. Just afford him some dignity and respect. You can explain why you see the matter differently without getting  frustrated that he doesn't agree.

 

As a grown-up listener, I felt a little embarrassed by Aaron's reaction, so I decided to check the comments and most of you agree with Gleeman? Do most people feel there can't be any variance in viewpoint?

 

Wow.

 

I may need to rethink my involvement in this community.

 

John, kudos to you for keeping a cool head and refusing to rise to the bait.

 

Here's to a better one next time.

[Wookiee of the Year]

John was definitely right at the end: Aaron was the ornery one. John, of course, was the crazy one.

 

Dare I say I actually enjoyed this one, though the frustrating part for me was the way both John and Aaron looked only at TR's tenure as a whole. I think it's perfectly fair to say that Ryan had a solid run in his first go-round, but that the new school game had passed him by by his second stint.

 

I look at TR's moves from 2011-2016, and I don't see many decisions that can be labeled successes--and those that could have been were undercut by decisions to hold onto guys rather than sell high, decisions to extend guys, or both. This doesn't take anything away from TR's first tenure as GM, but I'm very comfortable saying that 16 years into the 21st century, he's not the guy I want running my baseball team.

[YLT]

When a significant portion of the podcast over the last few seasons has been dedicated to both John and Aaron agreeing on the level of mismanagement in the Twins organization - I think Aaron had every right to be taken aback by John's stance. 

 

John's opinions are what they are - that's fine, but I think he deserves every bit of grief for statements like, "one of the best organizations in that decade run." Completely ludicrous.

[Champuckett]

Nice to see some post-podcast conversation be discussed here after the explosive (by Minnesota Nice standards) conversation we heard.  I try to listen to just about every episode as they have a talent for getting into the gritty details on an emotional and frustrating level of how I feel as a fan regarding this franchise.

 

John clearly took the unpopular opinion as the rest of Twins fandom has been lighting torches and getting the pitchforks out in response to TR's job the last 5 seasons.  I will give him credit for sticking to his guns on this.

 

However, the writing was on the wall and has been for the last several years.  There was no indication that moves TR was making were going to make this a better team.  He had a lot of chances to get this thing right, way too many chances, and got what he deserved for failing to do his job and failing to adapt to a rapidly changing and increasingly analytics heavy baseball world.

[Oxtung]

I really enjoyed this episode. The passion on both sides was great. I will say that while I disagree with Johns take he was the more mature in how he handled the discussion. I think Aaron misunderstood some of Johns point though.

 

John if you care to respond to YLTs question above I'd be interested in your response.

[drivlikejehu]

Really embarrassing performance by Bonnes. There really are no words. 

[Brian]

Both parties could have handled the disagreement better. Previous listeners should have figured out pretty quickly what the podcast was going to devolve into. John knew exactly the right buttons to push, similar to a number of instances in the past. To me it came off as John reveling in Aaron's frustration, which is one reason why I think Aaron got so worked up. Aaron should have realized what John was doing (actually you can tell at multiple intervals that he knows what's going on, yet he lets his frustration show regardless) and emotionally/intellectually detached himself from arguing with a person who ignores reason. 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Really embarrassing performance by Bonnes. There really are no words. 

 

Is being embarrassed for a poster/administrator/content-provider the new formulation of an (unwarranted) personal attack that floats under the TOS?  I don't mean to run-around the mods.  But that's the second time that formulation emerged.  We can disagree without....this. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Is being embarrassed for a poster/administrator/content-provider the new formulation of an (unwarranted) personal attack that floats under the TOS?  I don't mean to run-around the mods.  But that's the second time that formulation emerged.  We can disagree without....this. 

 

Well, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but my post was not a "personal attack."

 

I listen to the podcast regularly. It was a very frustrating episode . . . Bonnes came out of nowhere to make a bizarre pro-Ryan argument with minimal justification. You can't talk about how the Twins are screwing up constantly and then turn around and say, that despite having said those 10,000 things, Ryan has done a good job and deserves more time.

 

Did Bonnes mean what he said on practically every other podcast? It makes zero sense. If he is going to put himself out there then it's fair game to call him out on this.

[Seth Stohs]

John had the opinion that Ryan should have been given another year, I believe, to allow the young players to get a little more time and see what more there is. John noted that he would have preferred Ryan stick around at least through the trade deadline. He said that the Twins from 2000-2010 were really good, some of the best years in the organization's history. That's a debatable idea, but it's certainly not crazy. John said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I think most of us agree with that. 

 

It's possible to disagree without shutting down and calling the other person basically an idiot. But when someone is never wrong... 

[drivlikejehu]

 

John had the opinion that Ryan should have been given another year, I believe, to allow the young players to get a little more time and see what more there is. John noted that he would have preferred Ryan stick around at least through the trade deadline. He said that the Twins from 2000-2010 were really good, some of the best years in the organization's history. That's a debatable idea, but it's certainly not crazy. John said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I think most of us agree with that. 

 

It's possible to disagree without shutting down and calling the other person basically an idiot. But when someone is never wrong... 

 

That's the whole point, he knows better. How many times has the podcast covered the mishandling of trades, injuries, prospects, playing time, every possible aspect of the organization? Literally thousands.

 

OK, so there have been some good things. No one completely disputes that. It just has not been *enough* good things, and in any event the organization has serious ongoing problems that have not been addressed.

 

Things needed to change. Bonnes himself has been clear and unwavering on that point for the entire run of the podcast. Did that mean firing Ryan? Well, technically you could say not. But how do you fix the problems without doing that?

 

If he had a way, that would have been a perfectly fine position to take. But to advocate for the status quo was not a tenable position, by his own words and the obvious facts.

Edited July 21, 2016 by drivlikejehu

[nicksaviking]

****Moderator Note****

 

Comments aimed at the content of the podcast still need to follow posting guidelines. Personal attacks are still unacceptable. Clearly this is a hot button topic but there is always room for debate. God forbid only 95% of fellow posters agree on something. We can all still be fans without complete consensus.

[alarp33]

 

John had the opinion that Ryan should have been given another year, I believe, to allow the young players to get a little more time and see what more there is. John noted that he would have preferred Ryan stick around at least through the trade deadline. He said that the Twins from 2000-2010 were really good, some of the best years in the organization's history. That's a debatable idea, but it's certainly not crazy. John said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I think most of us agree with that. 

 

It's possible to disagree without shutting down and calling the other person basically an idiot. But when someone is never wrong... 

 

2001-2010 was pretty good.  Personally what I found the most preposterous was calling those years "as good of 10 years as you can have".  I mean come on, the team won 1 stinking playoff series in 10 years.  2010 was a long time ago as well..

 

I'm not really sure in what business, pro sports or not, a boss would look back and say "while he did have a strong year 15 years ago, so maybe we should keep this going"

 

And I agree with your very last sentence...  

 

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by alarp33

[John Bonnes]

I'm so sorry I didn't check this thread. I should've known it would get comments, but podcasts so rarely get comments on here that I kind of forgot to even look. 

 

Most of the questions surround two subjects:

1) Why I believe Ryan should've received another year and

2) How Aaron and I handled the disagreement. 

 

1) I look at Ryan's GM career in his two stints with the Twins. I would grade the GM on overall results during their tenure. I would grade Terry Ryan's first stint with the Twins as an A-, maybe a B+.

 

I would grade his second stint with the Twins as a D through June. HOWEVER, at the end of March I would've graded it as a B-; they had a winning season and looked strong for the future after an extensive 3-year rebuild process under Ryan. 

 

The overall grade for a GM can't change that much over 2-3 months. That discrepancy makes me want to step back and evaluate the team, the organization, etc. That's why I wouldn't have fired Ryan yet. I might have done it in October if things continued to be terrible. But I also might not have and given him one more offseason. I think he's earned that much. 

 

And yes, Aaron and I cover a lot of things the Twins do wrong. But we also cover a lot of things the Twins do right. Anyone who studies a team can list strengths and weaknesses. But how important each of those strengths and weaknesses are is shown in results. And I don't mean a simple won-loss record. (Bill Smith was 332-318 over his four years. I don't think that means we want him back.) I mean an evaluation of where the organization was when a GM took it over and where it is now. And this organization is in a vastly better place now than it was after the 2011 season. 

 

2) It has always been our policy to not edit our podcasts at all, or even let the tape stop rolling (unless there is a technical problem). That makes it even harder than radio when spirited topics arise - at least in radio, you have a commercial break to gather yourselves. So we have had a few times where we have gotten into it like this.

 

(FWIW, it takes a great deal of guts to have that policy and I respect the hell out of Aaron for agreeing to it. Hell, it takes a great deal of guts to create anything and put it out there in public, but to have something that is instantly recorded, without prep and saved for posterity is borderline insane. It's akin to writing a story that doesn't allow any corrections or edits, only it moves even faster.)

 

It was clear to me that Aaron was frustrated with me and I was frustrated with him. Rather than stop the recording (just because we never had), I tried to move on a few times and was unsuccessful. In retrospect, I wonder why we wouldn't press "pause", cool off for a few minutes (like a commercial break) and then start again when maybe we're both a little more willing to listen and not as determined to talk.

 

If you guys have any feedback on that strategy I'd love to hear it. On the one hand, it might make the podcast a little more interesting as we both regather and not try to make the same point. On the other, the impromptu and genuine passion is what some people appreciate. 

 

FWIW, we sat around after the show and had a beer together for 30 minutes. I think Aaron makes a special effort to reconnect with me as a friend after something like that and I appreciate it. And I do the same. It isn't always our first impulse, but I'd much rather put forth that effort than drive a wedge in a relationship or a community just so I can stubbornly reject a viewpoint about a baseball team. 

[Mike Sixel]

I stopped listening a long time ago, but I always appreciated you guys let it roll.

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

I stopped listening a long time ago, but I always appreciated you guys let it roll.

Sheesh, this guy's got a better backhand than Bjorn Borg.