Grading Terry Ryan

[ThePuck]

And we are getting them.

 

Every team does, but we are not using every way possible to do so and that can frustrate some people. Unfortunately, tht makes us villains because we dare say so on a site that is supposed to be for all fans to discuss their team.

 

In the case of international prospects, they've done well in the past (never said they didn't), and I hope they continue to do so. So far they haven't this year, which was my point. Didn't say they wouldn't, I just expressed my desire that they focus on quality not quantity, like the Cubs did.

[Guest USAFChief]

The point I was making is the rankings do not matter. Top 10 prospects from the 2006 WBC: The 7 non Cubans were , Liriano, Loewen, Hu, Harman, Giaratano, Kawasaki, and Martis. Liriano was the only one of that group to make the majord from that prospect list. It doesn't mean don't sign players. I just don't think you can get all wound up about rankings and dollars.

 

In general I agree.

 

But in the specific case of Dominican teenagers, they have been scouted and watched much more than American HS players of similar ages. Most of them are in baseball academies for years, and have played way more baseball than US kids. They've been seen, and scouted, for years, and the top talent is pretty well established. That doesn't mean the top talent will always succeed, or lesser guys won't. But it's not accident that bidding wars break out on guys like Sano.

[ThePuck]

In general I agree.

 

But in the specific case of Dominican teenagers, they have been scouted and watched much more than American HS players of similar ages. Most of them are in baseball academies for years, and have played way more baseball than US kids. They've been seen, and scouted, for years, and the top talent is pretty well established. That doesn't mean the top talent will always succeed, or lesser guys won't. But it's not accident that bidding wars break out on guys like Sano.

 

19 of the top 30 this year are from the DR.

[jokin]

I hardly consider myself a fan of everything the FO does, but statements like this tend to force people into defending them. For your info, they had the 4th most money (before teams started trading it). The signing period is also far from over. The rankings you quoted are equally silly, as the folks doing them don't have the resources to scout them out like they do college players. I suspect that the Twins had Lewin Diaz as the first on their list, as they outbid everyone for his services by a healthy margin. They clearly wanted him. And they have also signed several other higher ceiling guys as well for pretty sizable bonus amounts. There are 32 teams. Last year, they got several guys in the top 30. This year, they have one and may still get some others. They've made it clear they expect to spend their money and have plenty of time to do it.

 

Throw your conniption fit if they don't spend their money.

 

Last time I checked the standings, I counted 30 teams ( and not the 28-team league that a certain group tried to push through a few years back, and certainly not 32, go check back with the NFL board for a 32-team league). I'd let it go, but you went on the attack in your closing statement, needlessly, IMHO.

 

One particular side to this argument has always asserted that in the Amateur Draft, it's all a crap shoot after the top 10 or so guys. Since that is their position (not necessarily yours) in that particular draft, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect some consistency from that side in this particular debate. The Twins ranking (#4) going into the International Draft should suggest that they have a decent shot, financially, at signing a top 10 guy- that, by the very argument stated by the side that now opposes its own argument, should yield the least chance for a crap shoot outcome, and the most chance for gaining another high impact player.

 

One thing we all can agree on, the organization has put in the time in the international market, and are establishing strong, long-term relationships in the current hottest markets (like the Dominican and Venezueal), as well as establishing a pioneering presence and looking for potential values in as-yet untapped markets.

 

They have a strong need in identifying and being willing to risk a little bit more in locking down more high-ceiling guys at the glaring positions of need

[jokin]

Every team does, but we are not using every way possible to do so and that can frustrate some people. Unfortunately, tht makes us villains because we dare say so on a site that is supposed to be for all fans to discuss their team.

 

In the case of international prospects, they've done well in the past (never said they didn't), and I hope they continue to do so. So far they haven't this year, which was my point. Didn't say they wouldn't, I just expressed my desire that they focus on quality not quantity, like the Cubs did.

 

Your desires are apparently too negative.

[johnnydakota]

Kinda like last off season?

[Dman]

Third, I don't care about them spending the money, I care if they spend it on quality instead of quantity. Regardless of what some think, there are scouts who go down there and see enough of those guys to get a feel for how they'll be. The rankings aren't meaningless, or why do they even bother to scout them or give them ranking to begin with? Just because SOME don't feel there's any validity, doesn't make it true. Cubs went out and were aggressive to get players scouts ranked high.

 

e?

 

I am no Scout and have no idea how to evaluate baseball talent but I agree with ThePuck here. Either most teams are duped into believing there is better talent and a better chance for success in the top ten or the top ten are truly valuable. When teams are willing to pay 2 million dollars for the top choice I tend to believe there is value there.

 

Unlike the Twins the Cubs were very aggressive in grabbing a few high upside guys and out spending everyone in the process to get 2 of the top three guys. To me that says to the fans that they are going to do everything they can to get the best talent out there to build their team. Yes it is high risk, high reward but you have to like them going for the home run. Whether it works out or not I think there approach builds trust with their fan base.

 

The Twins did sign a top 10 guy who is currently a singles hitter with great power potential but he is also slow and doesn't have a great arm. Fine for a 1st baseman I guess but the tools and or upside are very limited. I like the Ruar Verkurk signing but it is hard to get excited about it. The Twins have a lower payroll this year so as a fan you kind of hope that they are going to spend big while they have the chance and get 5 tool guys or guys that have a chance to be better than average after going through the system.

 

That being said the Cubs could spend all that money and still end up with nothing. These guys are 16 and projecting that far out seems crazy tough to me. Some of the lower prospects could be late bloomers and overtake the guys at the top so who knows how it will all shake out in the end. All I know is unless someone can find me stats to say I am wrong is that I want to get the guys rated at the top once in a while and see if they become stars.

 

I just really liked the Cubs aggressive approach.

[nicksaviking]

I just really liked the Cubs aggressive approach.

 

The Cubs have an agressive president and GM. They weren't afraid to set the market for mid-tier starting pitching this past off season and by doing so, they negatively affected other teams seeking such pitchers. They also weren't afraid to be agressive in the international market, but not just with the signings. They also wheeled and dealed players and prospects for more international money even though it was a new concept and there was no precedence for the procedure and no history to help form a template of what a fair deal should look like.

 

Our team does not have an agressive front office. They are passive and are forced to react to other teams instead of making other teams react to them. There is no place in baseball for a GM that is conservative in every aspect of the game but the Twins have one.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Our team does not have an agressive front office. They are passive and are forced to react to other teams instead of making other teams react to them. There is no place in baseball for a GM that is conservative in every aspect of the game but the Twins have one.

 

Ryan is not conservative in every aspect of the game. This offseason he traded off a major league centerfielder and his ML ready replacement for desparately needed pitching help. They went with some kid out of AA who had a good year, but was hardly dominant and known for his slow starts.

 

Ryan takes risks. That should be clear. The man executes trades frequently, and those are high risk propositions in and of themselves. What he doesn't do is take risks on the FA market. Part of that is defendable given his budget restrictions with the Dome, and with the current team, I'm not sure those risks make a ton of sense either. It's not a "too conservative" issue, it's a smart risk vs. foolish risk.

 

What I can say comfortably about Ryan is this. For the rebuild task, he is without a doubt the right man for the job. He was behind a good chunk of the 2002 rise of this team, and he architected successful reloads of talent that kept this team good up through 2010.

 

What I'm not sure about is whether or not he will be the right man for the job when the next wave gets established. It is well documented that he's not a fan of the FA market, and given where the Twins are now, they may need to fill some holes there. That, however, wont' be an issue until the 2014/15 offseasons.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Last time I checked the standings, I counted 30 teams ( and not the 28-team league that a certain group tried to push through a few years back, and certainly not 32, go check back with the NFL board for a 32-team league). I'd let it go, but you went on the attack in your closing statement, needlessly, IMHO.

 

You are right, I crossed up the NFL and MLB teams. You know what else?

 

Most people reading this recognize that it doesn't change my point one bit. Feel free to quibble over this, but it completely misses my point.

 

One particular side to this argument has always asserted that in the Amateur Draft, it's all a crap shoot after the top 10 or so guys. Since that is their position (not necessarily yours) in that particular draft, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect some consistency from that side in this particular debate. The Twins ranking (#4) going into the International Draft should suggest that they have a decent shot, financially, at signing a top 10 guy- that, by the very argument stated by the side that now opposes its own argument, should yield the least chance for a crap shoot outcome, and the most chance for gaining another high impact player.

 

In a way, it's a crap shoot during all rounds, the difference being that the odds favor you far more during the earlier picks than the later. The international signing is just as much of a crap shoot. Some of those kids make it, many don't. Of course if it is just a crap shoot as you suggest, then wouldn't it make more sense to sign as many guys as you can to spread out the odds of hitting one? I think their strategy of going after the one guy the really wanted and then getting 6 or so guys at the 500k mark isn't a bad one. All of these guys have high ceilings. I don't get the consternation here. Truth be told, I'd be fine signing 3 guys at 1.3M/per guy or 8 guys at 500k/guy, and when several teams bid up the markets on a few guys, that's going to leave lots of other high ceiling guys available for lower prices because no one is left to spend money on them.

 

I'll be more upset if they don't spend their alotments, or if they fail to trade it for prospects. I'm also more conerned that they haven't targed anything for the middle infield (which the international market seems to excel at and the Twins happen to need), but not knowing enough about it, it's quite possible that none of the SS propsects look to end up at SS... Who knows. But as I said previously, being upset because they didn't go after 3 higher profile guys in favor of 6-10 guys is throwing a fit for the sake of throwing a fit.

 

One thing we all can agree on, the organization has put in the time in the international market, and are establishing strong, long-term relationships in the current hottest markets (like the Dominican and Venezueal), as well as establishing a pioneering presence and looking for potential values in as-yet untapped markets.

 

Yes.

 

They have a strong need in identifying and being willing to risk a little bit more in locking down more high-ceiling guys at the glaring positions of need

 

Again, I don't understand this statement. They have identified talent, and they have taken on risk to lock down said talent. They traded 2 centerfielders this offseason, remember? They picked up two high ceiling pitchers and a third that could eventually be a mid rotation starter. That's risk to lock down high-ceiling guys at glaring positions of need.

 

They drafted a high school pitcher with the 4th overall pick. That carried far more risk than grabbing a guy like Frazier (who Sickles chose in his mock) or a lower risk/lower reward hometown hero like Chris Anderson. As a matter of fact, they grabbed three more guys in the same draft that originally looked like they might first rounders (Eades, Navarreto, and Gonsalves), all of which have higher upsides at glaring positions of need. That's risk to lock down high-ceiling guys at glaring positions of need.

 

The problem is with the "other side" to use your terms is that they want the Twins to follow their exact perscription (which I'm guessing they wouldn't agree on if they all sat down together and came up with a plan) and excoriate management any time they deviate from this plan. Just because they don't do it your way doesn't mean that they aren't doing what you suggest.

[Mike Sixel]

I too prefer the cubs approach......but we are not going to get that here, so I will continue to root for the uniform, if not the FO and specific players......one can be a twins fan without being a fan of everything about them......

[drjim]

I too prefer the cubs approach......but we are not going to get that here, so I will continue to root for the uniform, if not the FO and specific players......one can be a twins fan without being a fan of everything about them......

 

I'm not so sure I would punt next year if I was the Cubs unless I didn't like the crop. Yes on Rangers, more skeptical of Cubs approach this year.

[Dman]

I'm not so sure I would punt next year if I was the Cubs unless I didn't like the crop. Yes on Rangers, more skeptical of Cubs approach this year.

 

Yeah it looks like the Cubs will incur penalties this year but by getting two guys in the top three this year you could spread that and say they got 1 top guy per year. I think the main point is that the Twins had number 4 money but didn't get anyone in the top 5.

 

As has been discussed that may not mean anything and they did get a high ceiling power hitter but some of us would like to see them take a chance at the higher prospects while the team is bad and has the money. Others think the ceiling is similar on lower rated prospects so quantity is the better approach as lots of these guys do not make it.

 

The Twins have a decent track record with international prospects so they probably know better than I do but some times you like to see your team swing for the fences.

[drjim]

Yeah it looks like the Cubs will incur penalties this year but by getting two guys in the top three this year you could spread that and say they got 1 top guy per year. I think the main point is that the Twins had number 4 money but didn't get anyone in the top 5.

 

As has been discussed that may not mean anything and they did get a high ceiling power hitter but some of us would like to see them take a chance at the higher prospects while the team is bad and has the money. Others think the ceiling is similar on lower rated prospects so quantity is the better approach as lots of these guys do not make it.

 

The Twins have a decent track record with international prospects so they probably know better than I do but some times you like to see your team swing for the fences.

 

That's all true but the international signing season is not over. There is a decent chance the sign another top 30 guy. If the get #10, another top 30, and a handful of other guys in the next tier that is good use of the pool.

 

Guys are rated higher sure but there is no Sano here. There is wisdom, especially in this market, to spread the dollars around and get multiple decent prospects instead of all in on one or two.

 

My only complaint would be if they fail to utilize the entire pool. That would be inexusable.

[Mike Sixel]

My comment on the cubs was about their entire approach , not the international part specifically. They know their place, and they followed a strategy to fix things.

[drjim]

My comment on the cubs was about their entire approach , not the international part specifically. They know their place, and they followed a strategy to fix things.

 

Maybe. They were aggressive but I'm not sure the end results will be much different than the Twins.

 

Drafts were similar. Main guy at slot and nothing too different after that.

 

International was covered. Cubs obviously better this year but Twins will close that gap when they retain a full pool next year.

 

Free agency is the question. I won't rehash the Twins other than to say they got mediocre guys who will bring little or nothing back in trades but did eat some starts.

 

The Cubs were aggressive but had mixed results. Feldman worked out well and produced a little return for the investment. Gregg might bring back a little something and Baker was money lit on fire. Jackson may improve a little but he has had a bad year so far and is still locked in for three more years at good money. Contract probably can't be moved and that is money and a rotation spot locked in. So a little return was gained, nothing from Baker and a big question mark for Jackson.

 

Trades will be interesting to monitor. Cubs should do well Garza. Twons moved their best two assets in the offseason.

 

I'll grant the Cubs look better but the difference is not that substantial and depends how you factor lost value of Baker and question of Jackson.

 

More than anything, to me, it shows that there is not a quick fix. The Cubs are everyone's model here and they got at best a little extra marginal value.

 

And I would still much rather be the Twins organization right now than the Cubs.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Yeah it looks like the Cubs will incur penalties this year but by getting two guys in the top three this year you could spread that and say they got 1 top guy per year. I think the main point is that the Twins had number 4 money but didn't get anyone in the top 5.

 

 

I'd be careful using Badler's rankings... if for no other reason than I doubt he's scouted these kids like he has rule 4 guys...

 

That said, I'd bet a decent amount of money that the Twins got the guy they had number 1 on their list. They out bid for Diaz by quite a bit, and for the money they spent on him, they could have picked up other international guys... They clearly wanted Diaz.

[Mike Sixel]

Who cares if baker returns anything, if they can either bring back Garza or deal him. The delta is that the cubs net for guys that had a lot of value if they worked out. That baker did not hurts them none at all. This is play money for these guys.

[drjim]

Who cares if baker returns anything, if they can either bring back Garza or deal him. The delta is that the cubs net for guys that had a lot of value if they worked out. That baker did not hurts them none at all. This is play money for these guys.

 

I agree money doesn't matter here. My point is that for all the praise heaped on the Cubs the difference will end up being pretty marginal. And they are still stuck with Jackson's contract.

[TheLeviathan]

Maybe. They were aggressive but I'm not sure the end results will be much different than the Twins.

 

Cmon Jim, they've already beat the Twins. And they haven't even dealt Kevin Gregg yet or anyone else. This seems like being pessimistic just for the sake of it.

 

We can judge the end results later, they very well turn out to be nothing, but they've CLEARLY got better results on the field and through trade then we did. Suggesting otherwise is just ludicrous.

 

And it's not that the Cubs are the "model", it's that the two teams were in similar positions and both had money to spend. The difference is that it appears the Cubs actually gained value (this year and potentially in the future) from their moves while the Twins did not.

 

Plus, I'd argue the multi-year deal with Jackson is not killing them. They probably are waiting for his patented streak of amazing pitching to deal him. So how good/bad that deal is has yet to be determined.

[Dman]

I'd be careful using Badler's rankings... if for no other reason than I doubt he's scouted these kids like he has rule 4 guys...

 

That said, I'd bet a decent amount of money that the Twins got the guy they had number 1 on their list. They out bid for Diaz by quite a bit, and for the money they spent on him, they could have picked up other international guys... They clearly wanted Diaz.

 

Yeah there is no question that he can't see them all just the more prominent ones. Still there was a market for the higher ranked prospects and the top prospect was around 2.5 million so other GM's seem to agree with those rankings. Probably not the exact order but likely close.

 

Twins seemed to be the only team really, really interested in the slow footed Diaz. Kid must have a sweet swing because he looks to be locked into first base. There were Ortiz comps so that is a positive. Hope the Twins picked the right guy.

[LaBombo]

Jackson may improve a little but he has had a bad year so far and is still locked in for three more years at good money. Contract probably can't be moved and that is money and a rotation spot locked in.

Just looking at wins and ERA doesn't tell much about what kind of year, or career for that matter, that Jackson is having.

 

With the exception of a slightly higher walk rate, Jackson is pitching just like he did last year, when he posted a 4.03 ERA. He's been pretty much the same pitcher for four seasons now, with FIPs starting in 2010 of 3.86, 3.55, 3.85, and 3.88. His xFIPs are also virtually identical to each other: 3.71, 3.73, 3.79 and 3.81. His other peripherals have also been very consistent over those four seasons.

 

If he pitches like he has his ERA this year should end up much lower too, maybe around 4.50. Not great, but better than anything the Twins starters are likely to end up with. And his 2011-12 ERA's of 3.79 and 4.03 would stand a good chance to top any starter the Twins run out there next year.

[howieramone1406390264]

I agree money doesn't matter here. My point is that for all the praise heaped on the Cubs the difference will end up being pretty marginal. And they are still stuck with Jackson's contract.

Jim, I agree with you. Much more enthusiasm on this board than in Cubbie land. 3 more wins, 8th rated farm system, spend big on 16 years olds projected to need 5-8 years to develop, meh. I don't assign extra points for making trades prior to the deadline.

[TheLeviathan]

Jim, I agree with you. Much more enthusiasm on this board than in Cubbie land. 3 more wins, 8th rated farm system, spend big on 16 years olds projected to need 5-8 years to develop, meh. I don't assign extra points for making trades prior to the deadline.

 

The Cubs are one year into a new regime. I can tell you from my 6 years in Chicago and the Cubs fans I befriended that they are estatic with the new direction.

 

Not to mention near universal praise for how they managed to sign Feldman, get a half season of excellent pitching, and an intriguing package in trade for him. The only criticisms I've heard are from people on this board trying really, really, really hard to belittle a good move.

[drjim]

Just looking at wins and ERA to tell much about what kind of year, or career for that matter, that Jackson is having.

 

With the exception of a slightly higher walk rate, Jackson is pitching just like he did last year, when he posted a 4.03 ERA. He's been pretty much the same pitcher for four seasons now, with FIPs starting in 2010 of 3.86, 3.55, 3.85, and 3.88. His xFIPs are also virtually identical to each other: 3.71, 3.73, 3.79 and 3.81. His other peripherals have also been very consistent over those four seasons.

 

If he pitches like he has his ERA this year should end up much lower too, maybe around 4.50. Not great, but better than anything the Twins starters are likely to end up with. And his 2011-12 ERA's of 3.79 and 4.03 would stand a good chance to top any starter the Twins run out there next year.

 

Jackson is indeed (marginally) better than the pitchers the Twins signed. For that contract he better be.

[jokin]

I agree money doesn't matter here. My point is that for all the praise heaped on the Cubs the difference will end up being pretty marginal. And they are still stuck with Jackson's contract.

 

An eventual readjusted strand-rate and BABIP normalization, FIP, xFIP and SIERA all suggest that the Cubs aren't "stuck" with Jackson at all. As other posters have suggested, the Cubs will likely move him when he strings together his next good run of starts- he's already pitched real well in 4 of his last 6 starts- if he's not moved by the deadline, it could just as easily happen the next time he goes on a run- the Cubs have proved that they have their ducks lined up and are ready to pull the trigger.

[drjim]

Cmon Jim, they've already beat the Twins. And they haven't even dealt Kevin Gregg yet or anyone else. This seems like being pessimistic just for the sake of it.

 

We can judge the end results later, they very well turn out to be nothing, but they've CLEARLY got better results on the field and through trade then we did. Suggesting otherwise is just ludicrous.

 

And it's not that the Cubs are the "model", it's that the two teams were in similar positions and both had money to spend. The difference is that it appears the Cubs actually gained value (this year and potentially in the future) from their moves while the Twins did not.

 

Plus, I'd argue the multi-year deal with Jackson is not killing them. They probably are waiting for his patented streak of amazing pitching to deal him. So how good/bad that deal is has yet to be determined.

 

I agree they got more value. I said as much. And while you might not call the model others are slurping them pretty good. I thought it would be instructive to take a look and see what the difference actually is. A little marginal value and Jackson's contract, which will probably determine the true difference in the approaches.

 

And I would dispute that the Cubs clearly got better results on the field, it seems relatively equal to me in the sense that if the Twins had signed Feldman, Baker and Jackson instead of Pelfrey and Correia, their record would be pretty much the same. And the Cubs spent over twice as much to get those marginal on the field gains, so I would hope they got them (which isn't to excuse the Twins lack of spending).

[jokin]

The Cubs are one year into a new regime. I can tell you from my 6 years in Chicago and the Cubs fans I befriended that they are estatic with the new direction.

 

Not to mention near universal praise for how they managed to sign Feldman, get a half season of excellent pitching, and an intriguing package in trade for him. The only criticisms I've heard are from people on this board trying really, really, really hard to belittle a good move.

 

I'm in the same position as you, Levi- former Chicagoan with a lot of continued ties to the area. Cubs fans that I talk to are ecstatic, as there now is a definite plan in place, the club is no longer just digging themselves a deeper hole.

[drjim]

An eventual readjusted strand-rate and BABIP normalization, FIP, xFIP and SIERA all suggest that the Cubs aren't "stuck" with Jackson at all. As other posters have suggested, the Cubs will likely move him when he strings together his next good run of starts- he's already pitched real well in 4 of his last 6 starts- if he's not moved by the deadline, it could just as easily happen the next time he goes on a run- the Cubs have proved that they have their ducks lined up and are ready to pull the trigger.

 

Or maybe those don't quite readjust and normalize as expected because he is not as good as he once was. Or he gets hurt.

 

Anyways, I don't especially care about Edwin Jackson and I wouldn't want that contract on the Twins going forward.

[drjim]

I'm in the same position as you, Levi- former Chicagoan with a lot of continued ties to the area. Cubs fans that I talk to are ecstatic, as there now is a definite plan in place, the club is no longer just digging themselves a deeper hole.

 

And also, I want to state that I am by no means criticizing the Cubs, Theo, or their plan. I think it is a sound plan and I would be happy with it if I was a Cubs fan. I would be plenty happy if Theo was running the Twins right now.

 

I just think, for all the killing of Terry Ryan, the difference in the results of the two plans from last offseason will ultimately end up being pretty small.