Article: Arizona's Cautionary Tale

[Nick Nelson]

In efforts to build a championship-caliber club, the Arizona Diamondbacks took just about every step that many Twins fans would like to see from their own hometown team.

 

It, uh... hasn't worked out.In 2014, Arizona hired a baseball legend in Tony La Russa to oversee their baseball ops department as chief officer. Creating this position, rather than simply hiring a new general manager, is the same route that Minnesota reportedly plans to take.

 

Later that year, La Russa hired Dave Stewart to become the new D-backs GM. Stewart was an against-the-grain hiring with no meaningful previous connections to the franchise. As a former All-Star hurler who went on to work as a pitching coach (among other things) following his retirement, Stewart looked like a fine choice to overhaul the roster and rebuild the pitching staff.

 

The Diamondbacks went 79-83 in 2015, their first year under the Stewart/La Russa regime. Their high-powered offense ranked second in the NL in scoring but was held back by a sub-par rotation, so Arizona decided to go all-in on pitching during the offseason.

 

And I mean all-in.

 

In December, the D-backs stunned the baseball world by signing free agent Zack Greinke to a massive contract approaching $200 million in total value. The very next day, they pulled the trigger on a blockbuster trade, acquiring 25-year-old Shelby Miller in exchange for a gaudy prospect package headlined by last June's No. 1 overall draft pick Dansby Swanson.

 

In theory, Arizona had just picked up two starting pitchers to slot at the very top of their rotation, expending massive resources in order to do so. And the results?

 

Well, you're probably aware. Greinke owns a 4.54 ERA, which would be his worst since 2005 if it sticks, and Miller has gone 2-10 with a 6.81 ERA in 15 starts sandwiching a two-month demotion to Triple-A.

 

Despite enlisting a brand new front office structure, despite drafting arms heavily for years (seven of Arizona's last eight first-round selections prior to Swanson were pitchers), and despite making perhaps the most aggressive series of moves to acquire high-end pitching ever... the Diamondbacks find themselves in fourth place. They've somehow allowed as many runs as the Twins.

 

Local fans can surely see some staggered parallels between the two franchises. Obviously the Twins aren't going to enter the offseason with a mindset that they're a couple arms away from being a World Series contender, but their need to upgrade the rotation is equally urgent if not more so.

 

Arizona's postseason drought does not extend as far Minnesota's, nor does their record of consistently terrible pitching results. While the Twins' new head of baseball ops will not come in facing the kind of win-now directive that La Russa evidently felt, there will be pressure to orchestrate a big move or two and give fans some reason to believe that a vastly better product is in store for 2017.

 

But as the D-backs and their new front office have illustrated, big moves aren't always a good thing. What's important is making the right moves. The Twins, under Terry Ryan, didn't do that often enough to dig out of their lengthy era of horrendous play.

 

Here's hoping the new crew can do it, and that they can look ahead to better outcomes than the embattled bunch down in the desert.

 

Click here to view the article

[NCtwinsfan]

Great article. Arizona's situation has been nagging at me all year. I am generally optimistic when it comes to the twins, but even going out and dumping a bunch of money on top rotation arms doesn't guarantee success. Furthermore, it makes me skeptical that even the best GM, new manager, or "ace" pitchers can fix the Twins. I fall more in the camp that a majority of blame for a bad team falls on the players. Zack Greinke is playing poorly. Even individual players actually playing well doesn't always translate to wins. 

I think what I am trying to say, I am not sure I believe changing all the coaches, FO, etc, is going to suddenly make the Twins better short or even long term. I think winning is much more complex than any collection of coaches, managers, or players. Starting out with a good product helps, players with a good track record, FO with new ideas, etc. But a team starts winning when a bunch of players are playing well at the same time.

Is winning actually something one can plan or organize? I don't know.

[Seth Stohs]

9 figure contracts rarely are worthwhile. Just a couple of very puzzling decisions by Team Larussa. No way that Larussa and Stewart last the winter, do they? 

[markos]

 

9 figure contracts rarely are worthwhile. Just a couple of very puzzling decisions by Team Larussa. No way that Larussa and Stewart last the winter, do they? 

I suspect that they are gone, but I can see a decent argument that they deserve one more year due to the injuries they've had to deal with this season.

[markos]

I think a better "cautionary tale" for the Twins isn't the Diamondbacks but rather the Padres. AJ Preller came in with a plan to putting a winning team on the field ASAP, gutted the farm system of almost all the old regime's prospects, and had most of those moves blow up in his face. They are now pretty terrible and basically rebuilding the farm system from scratch. It isn't hard to see a scenario with this Twins team where the new GM is hired, in part, due to the promise of a quick turn-around, and subsequently the farm system is used to acquire middling, older players to try to compete next year. In my view, that would be a mistake and the team should really be building for 2018+ for contention (though some smaller moves on the margins to improve the rotation/bullpen could certainly go a long way in 2017). 

[mikelink45]

Nicely done - it is similar to the way everyone loves the back up quarterback when things go bad, but seldom does the number two shine when put in the spotlight.  I am like the rest of Twins fans, excited to have new leadership - it at least gives us some hope and TR lost all credibility with most of us.  The question is - does a new leader improve us?  Is the coaching staff changing too?  Is ownership and other upper management ready to change with a new leader?  Nothing is for sure, but at this point any change is better than the rut we are in. 

[alarp33]

 

In efforts to build a championship-caliber club, the Arizona Diamondbacks took just about every step that many Twins fans would like to see from their own hometown team.
 

 

"Many" Twins fans want the Twins to follow the AZ path? 

 

- Hire a big name with little to no experience to be president

- Ditto, GM

- Sign a 32 year old to $200+ million deal

- Trade a top prospect in baseball for a mid rotation starter. 

- Draft almost all pitchers in 1st round

 

I read this site pretty regularly and I don't think I've seen anyone, let alone "most" pining for the Twins to follow this model. 

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

Yeah, pretty much what alarp said...

The La Russa and Stewart hires are only the model for the collective Twins fan base's hope if you squint and see them as names with cachet and outsiders to the organization. I think the general desire (on this board and I imagine elsewhere, as I think the perception of the Twins management as clay-footed is widespread at this point) is to get candidates whose shine comes from already having worked in front offices, preferably analytic-leaning ones.

 

I also question whether either ownership or realistic fans will create pressure for a quick turnaround. The last GM already diagnosed "total system failure" and most of the core of the next good team, probably, is young and will be together for some years to come.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think anyone here wants the hire to be an old school type of guy like LaRussa.

[Squirrel]

I guess I didn't read this quite so literally. I read this as a 'be careful what you wish for' kind of article. We all want change and we all have our ideas about what that is. I'm sure the DB fans were hopeful and excited about the changes they were getting. And it didn't work out. I'm not saying that the Twins shouldn't have fired TR and now head down the path they are, I've been an advocate for that for a few years now. And I am cautiously hopeful because that's all I've got right now. But despite what we might do, even if it's everything we want, it could still fail because sometimes that's what happens. Again, not saying don't try and don't do, just temper our expectations.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess I didn't read this quite so literally. I read this as a 'be careful what you wish for' kind of article. We all want change and we all have our ideas about what that is.

This is how I read the article as well. It's a cautionary tale and a reminder that movement is not synonymous with progress.

 

The trait I most want in a GM is intelligence, not perpetual motion. Sometimes, the hardest decision is the one that requires you to sit on your hands and wait it out.

[Squirrel]

"Many" Twins fans want the Twins to follow the AZ path? 

 

- Hire a big name with little to no experience to be president

- Ditto, GM

- Sign a 32 year old to $200+ million deal

- Trade a top prospect in baseball for a mid rotation starter. 

- Draft almost all pitchers in 1st round

 

I read this site pretty regularly and I don't think I've seen anyone, let alone "most" pining for the Twins to follow this model.

 

Most? No. Some? Yes, at various times. I don't think any one person has advocated for all of this list, but there have been some (more than a few, less than many) who have advocated for some of the items on this list. How many wanted the Twins in on Grienke for instance? I've heard some advocating to go 'all in' on an ace several times. I think the point Nick is making isn't to do this exact thing, but that sometimes change doesn't work the way we hoped it would.

[Squirrel]

This is how I read the article as well. It's a cautionary tale and a reminder that movement is not synonymous with progress.

 

The trait I most want in a GM is intelligence, not perpetual motion. Sometimes, the hardest decision is the one that requires you to sit on your hands and wait it out.

Well, that was much better articulated than what I said, but yes, this.

[alarp33]

 

I guess I didn't read this quite so literally. I read this as a 'be careful what you wish for' kind of article. We all want change and we all have our ideas about what that is. I'm sure the DB fans were hopeful and excited about the changes they were getting. And it didn't work out.

 

I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good example because many of the moves they made were practically universally hated the moment they occurred.  They were a laughingstock the moment they made the Miller trade, when they sold a pitching prospect, etc.  

 

It wasn't a team just going all in, it was a team who had no idea the value prospects held, and sold them for 25 cents on the dollar. 

[alarp33]

 

Most? No. Some? Yes, at various times. I don't think any one person has advocated for all of this list, but there have been some (more than a few, less than many) who have advocated for some of the items on this list. How many wanted the Twins in on Grienke for instance? I've heard some advocating to go 'all in' on an ace several times. I think the point Nick is making isn't to do this exact thing, but that sometimes change doesn't work the way we hoped it would.

 

Well the point the Twins are at is hiring a President and GM... I don't think anyone would advocate them hiring a name like Larussa to be in charge of Baseball Ops when he's clearly not qualified.  It was a trickle down from there.  

 

The Greinke signing was the least of the Diamondbacks issues.  If you didn't get a chance to read Keith Law's article on the Larussa / Stewart era, I highly recommend.  

 

Link below goes into detail on the article (which is an ESPN insider only article)

 

http://arizonasports.com/story/797630/keith-law-tony-la-russa-diamondbacks-laughingstock/

 

 

[Squirrel]

I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good example because many of the moves they made were practically universally hated the moment they occurred.  They were a laughingstock the moment they made the Miller trade, when they sold a pitching prospect, etc.  

 

It wasn't a team just going all in, it was a team who had no idea the value prospects held, and sold them for 25 cents on the dollar.

 

Again, I don't disagree with the assessment on the DB, per se, I just think we are reading things too literally in what Nick is cautioning about.

[alarp33]

 

Again, I don't disagree with the assessment on the DB, per se, I just think we are reading things too literally in what Nick is cautioning about.

 

I'm probably just nitpicking the 1st paragraph.  Practically none of the steps the Diamondbacks took under Larussa/ Stewart I would want the Twins to repeat, and I'm not concerned in the least that they will.  

[Mike Sixel]

Standing still and doing nothing is also a choice....when a train is coming at you, it is a bad choice. The premise that somehow changing things is more risky is not backed by facts at all.

 

On the literal reading side......no, no one wants them to hire people wholly unqualified for the job that have zero experience.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good example because many of the moves they made were practically universally hated the moment they occurred.  They were a laughingstock the moment they made the Miller trade, when they sold a pitching prospect, etc.  

 

It wasn't a team just going all in, it was a team who had no idea the value prospects held, and sold them for 25 cents on the dollar.

 

But when you are so singularly focused you risk these sorts of mistakes. There is a lot of chatter here about always trying to win and pushing all your chips in. The problem is that unless you win every move you expose yourself to huge risks with long term ramifications.

[alarp33]

 

But when you are so singularly focused you risk these sorts of mistakes. There is a lot of chatter here about always trying to win and pushing all your chips in. The problem is that unless you win every move you expose yourself to huge risks with long term ramifications.

 

Which is probably why a team like the Padres, which someone suggested above, might be a better example of pushing all your chips in.  The Diamondbacks made so many bad decisions, that literally no other team in baseball would have made.. I'm not sure there is much of a parallel.  

 

If we want to argue whether the Twins should throw their hat in the mix the next time a $200 million pitcher is available on the FA market like AZ did with Greinke, that's a good debate.  

 

I don't think we'll have much fun discussing whether the Twins should avoid not knowing the rules when it comes to trades, international free agents, selling 1st round picks, trading away a top 10 prospect in baseball for a mid rotation starter... because we'll probably have universal agreement

Edited September 7, 2016 by alarp33

[USAFChief]

But when you are so singularly focused you risk these sorts of mistakes. There is a lot of chatter here about always trying to win and pushing all your chips in. The problem is that unless you win every move you expose yourself to huge risks with long term ramifications.

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

 

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

[TheBoofIsLoose]

I imagine fans want to see a chain-of-command system like the D-Backs, with more than one person having input. Right now we're hearing that they are at least considering the right type of GM/President. The rumors are guys that have had successes and are competent in modern baseball practices. Even if they came from a bigger market, these guys have to understand that they aren't going to be given a blank check. Who knows, the Twins may pull the rug out from under everybody, but I don't see the team pulling any of the D-Backs moves anytime soon.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think we'll have much fun discussing whether the Twins should avoid not knowing the rules when it comes to trades, international free agents, selling 1st round picks, trading away a top 10 prospect in baseball for a mid rotation starter... because we'll probably have universal agreement

 

I don't know, we had a 7-10 page thread in which the bulk of the commentators defended the Oakland Donaldson deal.  You'd be surprised what side of things people will stand.  We've also had a near annual "The White Sox are gonna be awesome!" thread.  

 

There are people that will commend aggression for aggression's sake under the guise of "you should always try to win more games".  I don't think all of Arizona's moves were as clearly mistakes at the time as you seem to think they were. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

 

Your "aim high" analogy makes more sense if you imagine aiming a bazooka at your house to get the bird nesting under the roof.  Yeah, you MAY get the bird, but for sure you're getting your house too.

 

I appreciate, however, you helping to make the point to alarp that I was just arguing.  Under the guise of suggesting the alternative to spending your assets like a drunk sailor is the Twins nickel and diming, you completely miss that there is a vast middle ground of sanity that is far more advisable.  

 

I think being a smart GM is a lot like being the smart manager of anything: know when to press and when to back off.  Read the context of your situation and act accordingly.  Always slow-footing and never taking risks isn't reading the context.  Charging like a bull into every opportunity isn't either.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So sit back, do little or nothing, and lose 550 games over six years? Build a roster that is so devoid of value you cant even dump vets for prospects, because you have almost nothing anyone would want? Cycle through an endless supply of minor league free agents year after year as potential solutions, clinging to two-week hot streaks for a year or two? Those kinds of long term ramifications?

If Arizona is a cautionary tale, lets at least give them a couple years to see how it turns out. And for me, as a fan, even if they never reap the benefits of last winter's attempts at relevance, I'll take aiming high and falling short over aiming low and hitting the mark every time.

I don't think the choices are choosing between going all in and just sitting back. The big issue to me at least is making intelligent and rational decisions and simply advocating change for change sake.

 

Change for change is a bad thing. Change b/c we've properly identified the problem is not.  I find most people/orgs aren't very good at problem solving personally.  But if you don't understand the actual problem, the solution will almost always make things worse.

[Mike Sixel]

I know people are change averse......but everything changes every day. Everything. The inability to adapt to change, and to respond appropriately, that is what we are talking about here, imo. 

 

Sometimes you should go all in. Sometimes you should be very cautious. Pointing out that AZ shows that change is bad, which is an exaggeration of the OP's point, I think, is harmful to most companies. Companies need to change every day, if you aren't changing, you literally cannot be improving. 

 

I'm not sure what the OP's point was, exactly. Was it that if you change, things can go badly? Well, sure. Things can also go badly if you sit on your hands and hope things get better. 

[Thrylos]

One of the things that needs to be mentioned is that there has been a lot of decisions made by the owner (eg, the Greinke and Hale signings) and that is not a good situation.  So a lot of their situation is because of the owners and not their FO...

 

BTW.  I think that a rebuilding team has no business signing over their prime veterans to multi-year contracts and it would be the worst thing the Twins could do...

[TheLeviathan]

 

BTW.  I think that a rebuilding team has no business signing over their prime veterans to multi-year contracts and it would be the worst thing the Twins could do...

 

Part of the problem is getting teams to recognize what they are.  How often do we sit here and have to argue that the team should be rebuilding?  Or acting like a rebuilder?  Only to have people pop on and dismiss the notion altogether.

 

You'll have some that look at any situation, regardless of talent and outlook, and say "78 wins is better than 77, to hell with 2018".  I think that's part of the thinking that was flawed in Arizona.  Again, read your context and understand where to attack to make yourself better.

Edited September 7, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think a better "cautionary tale" for the Twins isn't the Diamondbacks but rather the Padres. AJ Preller came in with a plan to putting a winning team on the field ASAP, gutted the farm system of almost all the old regime's prospects, and had most of those moves blow up in his face. They are now pretty terrible and basically rebuilding the farm system from scratch.

Preller hasn't done that badly in terms of prospects, though.  His first offseason, he indeed gave up Trea Turner and Joe Ross.  He also gave up Yasmani Grandal, although he wasn't a prospect anymore.  But he also got Justin Upton and Craig Kimbrel relatively cheaply, as well as Wil Myers and Derek Norris, who have generally been solid (Norris' recent collapse notwithstanding).

 

Then in his second year, he turned around and got a nice prospect haul for Kimbrel, and also got Pomeranz for Alonso and flipped him for a top prospect, moved Cashner for prospects, flipped Rodney, and managed to unload James Shields in the nick of time.  Also got a comp pick for losing Justin Upton.

 

If you account for Turner's crazy BABIP and Ross's low ceiling, and give him credit for adding Margot and Espinoza, Preller has probably been close to net neutral in terms of prospects.  Still has Renfroe, Nix, Allen, and even Hedges too (who is no longer prospect eligible but is only 23 and has showed some promise in AAA).  His main problem seems to be targeting the wrong MLB players and not getting enough present-day performance from them (i.e. Kemp).

Edited September 7, 2016 by spycake

[markos]

 

There are people that will commend aggression for aggression's sake under the guise of "you should always try to win more games".  I don't think all of Arizona's moves were as clearly mistakes at the time as you seem to think they were. 

I think they were many very, very clear mistakes. You can argue about some (the Greinke signing and the Miller trade, for example) But the AZ front office clearly did not know the rules in many cases. They offered trades that were illegal. They didn't know the rules of international signings. They lost decent players via inexplicable 25-/40-man roster moves. There are many other examples, both rumors and in the public, that do not need the benefit of hindsight. There is a basic level of competency that they did not demonstrate.