Judging A Rebuild

[howieramone1406390264]

Alex, I apologize to you, but I have no clue how to respond. I know you're a good Twins fan so let's leave it that.

 

 

Go Twins!

[Alex]

Alex, I apologize to you, but I have no clue how to respond. I know you're a good Twins fan so let's leave it that.

 

 

Go Twins!

 

No worries. I appreciate the apology. I think, and maybe we've heard them already, but just posting things you see as important and good aspects of a rebuild that maybe we've missed? I do hope I'm wrong and there's more to this than just waiting!

[Thegrin]

First, we've got to remember that these 3 losing seasons could not have been predicted before 2011. The Twins 2011 pitching staff, which had won a pennant and played 2 163rd game playoffs (with 1 win) had an epic failure. All of them except Pavano (33 starts) were hurt . Blackburn (26 starts), Baker (23 starts), Liriano (24 starts), Slowey (8 starts). Duensing (32 starts) and Swartzak (27 starts) were pressed into service and pitched poorly for the most part. Diamond (7 starts) and Hendriks (4 starts) were also given a try. 2 years later the starters are gone, Swartzak and Duensing are successful relievers and Diamond and Hendriks have not proved themselves (Yet we still hope). Nobody predicted that.

 

Tearing a team down and going only with prospects never works. You need a mix of veterans and young players to forge a winning team (or buy as many veterans as possible ala the Yankees). This has been Ryan's approach and I agree with it. We only started with 4 proven veteran hitters and Willingham and Doumit have hit below their norms while Morneau hit without power or consistency. Of all the young guys only Dozier and Arcia have proved to be marginal major league hitters.

 

If the Twins had more output from the veterans and one of the youngsters being a solid hitter (.275 + BA) The Twins could have won at least 10 more games, even with our current pitching staff.

[John Bonnes]

No worries. I appreciate the apology. I think, and maybe we've heard them already, but just posting things you see as important and good aspects of a rebuild that maybe we've missed? I do hope I'm wrong and there's more to this than just waiting!

 

I'll respond with good aspects of a rebuild. But first, let's talk about the difference between a rebuild and a tear-down. I think a lot of people say "rebuild" when they mean a "tear-down".

 

For instance, trading away Willingham is not a rebuild, it's a tear-down. What the Twins could get in return is part of the rebuild, but just a very small part. I think the fan base mixes up the two because there is something satisfying about watching a tear-down: it's highly visible and it's immediate and easy to talk about. But a rebuild is the long part after a tear-down. It's also mostly invisible. And it is harder to talk about.

 

The Twins rebuilding moves include trading for Meyer and May and having them take a step forward. Drafting Buxton and Kohl Stewart and Jose Berrios need to be included. Also, watching Sano and Buxton and Rosario and Arcia each take several steps forward. It also includes moving Dozier to second base where he has thrived.

 

Also picking up Deduno as a minor league free agent and have him provide solid starting-pitching results. Moving Glen Perkins to the bullpen where he thrived. Picking up Fien, Thielbar, Burton and Pressley from the scrap hear and turning them into decent relievers. Finding Diamond as a Rule 5 pick in someone's organization and then trading a non-prospect for him when he couldn't be on the 25-man roster. Finally, successfully rehabilitating Kyle Gibson and have him make his way to the majors.

 

These are the slow, small moves that are a rebuild, in my mind.

[Thegrin]

and for all the other Slama lovers out there, since his release, no other organization have picked him up. It looks like his career is done (unless he joins the Saints).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'll respond with good aspects of a rebuild. But first, let's talk about the difference between a rebuild and a tear-down. I think a lot of people say "rebuild" when they mean a "tear-down".

...

These are the slow, small moves that are a rebuild, in my mind.

 

Fair, but Winning can come about suddenly and turn arounds can be quick. (recent examples being Tampa, Pittsburgh, Washington, Baltimore).

 

I think the Twins have expected to be competitive these past few seasons, if not strong contenders. They certainly didn't expect to be strong contenders heading into 2008 yet they were.

 

Twins have some fantastic prospects almost ready. Do you have an idea about how seriously the Twins might be considering bringing in some new coaches who might guide the young guys along into the Major League level?

[Alex]

I'll respond with good aspects of a rebuild. But first, let's talk about the difference between a rebuild and a tear-down. I think a lot of people say "rebuild" when they mean a "tear-down".

 

For instance, trading away Willingham is not a rebuild, it's a tear-down. What the Twins could get in return is part of the rebuild, but just a very small part. I think the fan base mixes up the two because there is something satisfying about watching a tear-down: it's highly visible and it's immediate and easy to talk about. But a rebuild is the long part after a tear-down. It's also mostly invisible. And it is harder to talk about.

 

The Twins rebuilding moves include trading for Meyer and May and having them take a step forward. Drafting Buxton and Kohl Stewart and Jose Berrios need to be included. Also, watching Sano and Buxton and Rosario and Arcia each take several steps forward. It also includes moving Dozier to second base where he has thrived.

 

Also picking up Deduno as a minor league free agent and have him provide solid starting-pitching results. Moving Glen Perkins to the bullpen where he thrived. Picking up Fien, Thielbar, Burton and Pressley from the scrap hear and turning them into decent relievers. Finding Diamond as a Rule 5 pick in someone's organization and then trading a non-prospect for him when he couldn't be on the 25-man roster. Finally, successfully rehabilitating Kyle Gibson and have him make his way to the majors.

 

These are the slow, small moves that are a rebuild, in my mind.

 

I appreciate the distinction and the response and it's a heck of a list, but I guess I judge it from more of question of is the rebuild -- the attempt to get better -- active or passive, and maybe that's what you're also getting at.

 

Most of the moves discussed are passive, including drafting players. It's certainly important to draft the right ones, but everyone gets to draft players and the front office doesn't have to do anything additional here.

 

Trading two starting CF is certainly more active. However, the fact that these CF were cost controlled and young (and thus could have been part of a rebuild) categorize this trade more as trading from a strength to need. Still a good move and definitely important in a rebuild/tear-down, so it's definitely important.

 

Signing Deduno could end up being key and may bridge a gap, but he'll be around 32 or 33 by the time that happens, correct? Not to mention, Deduno could have signed with anyone after last offseason. He's certainly helped but I guess I have a hard time giving them credit for this when essentially no one else wanted him, but he has been a good find.

[Alex]

First, we've got to remember that these 3 losing seasons could not have been predicted before 2011. The Twins 2011 pitching staff, which had won a pennant and played 2 163rd game playoffs (with 1 win) had an epic failure. .

 

I'd agree with this. However, there were a lot of people that predicted during 2011. The Twins were near 10 games out of first at the all-star break and were going to lose several key pieces (Cuddyer, Nathan, Kubel) without any clear replacements in 2012. The pitching staff was injured and showing its weakness and the middle infield was a mess. In fact, even Morneau and Mauer would be coming off of injuries and weren't sure things to produce, but let's assume they'd return to norms. That means that only 1B, C, and CF were soundly held down and there was nothing in the minors that was a sure thing to take over the other spots.

 

The point is that by the trade deadline 2011, the Twins could have been taking far more action than they did.

[jokin]

I'd agree with this. However, there were a lot of people that predicted during 2011. The Twins were near 10 games out of first at the all-star break and were going to lose several key pieces (Cuddyer, Nathan, Kubel) without any clear replacements in 2012. The pitching staff was injured and showing its weakness and the middle infield was a mess. In fact, even Morneau and Mauer would be coming off of injuries and weren't sure things to produce, but let's assume they'd return to norms. That means that only 1B, C, and CF were soundly held down and there was nothing in the minors that was a sure thing to take over the other spots.

 

The point is that by the trade deadline 2011, the Twins could have been taking far more action than they did.

 

Spot on in your analysis, you're on fire this week, Alex. The gobsmack the Twins got in 2011 has led to the club to even now still trying to dig its self out of continued inertia from an entrenched "new stadium master plan" gone horribly wrong.

[Mike Sixel]

First, we've got to remember that these 3 losing seasons could not have been predicted before 2011. The Twins 2011 pitching staff, which had won a pennant and played 2 163rd game playoffs (with 1 win) had an epic failure. All of them except Pavano (33 starts) were hurt . Blackburn (26 starts), Baker (23 starts), Liriano (24 starts), Slowey (8 starts). Duensing (32 starts) and Swartzak (27 starts) were pressed into service and pitched poorly for the most part. Diamond (7 starts) and Hendriks (4 starts) were also given a try. 2 years later the starters are gone, Swartzak and Duensing are successful relievers and Diamond and Hendriks have not proved themselves (Yet we still hope). Nobody predicted that.

 

Tearing a team down and going only with prospects never works. You need a mix of veterans and young players to forge a winning team (or buy as many veterans as possible ala the Yankees). This has been Ryan's approach and I agree with it. We only started with 4 proven veteran hitters and Willingham and Doumit have hit below their norms while Morneau hit without power or consistency. Of all the young guys only Dozier and Arcia have proved to be marginal major league hitters.

 

If the Twins had more output from the veterans and one of the youngsters being a solid hitter (.275 + BA) The Twins could have won at least 10 more games, even with our current pitching staff.

 

Miami and their two World Series championships disagree you cannot tear a team down.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I disagree on both points. First, I think that there are people that recognize there's a continuum and that very few if anyone who is using the quotes thought the Twins wanted to be a division contender.

 

Second, I think it's a bad idea to get into the ignorance debate, and insulting. Anyone paying attention to front office interviews during the offseason, spring training, and even during the season (again I'll point to hearing Ryan multiple times say he didn't do his job, not to mention Dave St. Peter's recent comments about available payroll) knows that this wasn't a one time quote.

 

I'll add that people supporting their ideas with a quote is actually a good thing. There's also nothing wrong with debating whether it was taken out of context, but in the case of this discussion, I don't think that's happening at all.

 

Alex, it misses things like context. As I pointed out with Ryan and DSP, but I'm pretty sure much of this was said before the Span and Revere trades, and like I said previously, what exactly should they said? "Were' going to suck?". If you want a real good example of what I'm trying to get at, look at every other Torri Hunter quote. He told every media stop on his FA tour that he'd love to play there. And after he signed, he made statements about wanting to end his career in MN while in other areas bashing their management. Context is a big key, and as I said earlier, I think it does a disservice to the person to simply grab a quote and use that to extrapolate what they are actually thinking and trying to do. Some of these issues are fairly complex. Markets also change and I think we can all agree that Ryan and company were not expecting the FA market to play out the way it did. That factors into things like this too. I see your point about grabbing someone's quote, but there's a lot of context that goes unspoken and there's a lot of context from after that point that gets ignored. Another good example would be Greinke. Do you really think he would have signed here if the Twins offered him 1M more (let's pretend that the Dodgers wouldn't match it)? I know what he said, but I somehow doubt it, especially given that the first few years of his deal would have been anchoring a very bad team. They would have had to significantly overpay to get him, and I honestly think the Dodgers will be regretting that deal about midway through it. I suspect in that context he would have said he left money on the table to play for the Dodgers.

 

I wasn't anymore thrilled about Ryan's free agent moves than the rest of us, but it was pretty obvious by the end of free agency that the Twins were approaching this as a rebuild. Going back and grabbing one guy's quote at the beginning of free agency doesn't change this. It's quite simply a goal vs. how it played out. I'm not a fan of how it played out, but this is a rebuild. Next year will be one too (though I think the results will ultimately look much better).

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd agree with this. However, there were a lot of people that predicted during 2011. The Twins were near 10 games out of first at the all-star break and were going to lose several key pieces (Cuddyer, Nathan, Kubel) without any clear replacements in 2012. The pitching staff was injured and showing its weakness and the middle infield was a mess. In fact, even Morneau and Mauer would be coming off of injuries and weren't sure things to produce, but let's assume they'd return to norms. That means that only 1B, C, and CF were soundly held down and there was nothing in the minors that was a sure thing to take over the other spots.

 

The point is that by the trade deadline 2011, the Twins could have been taking far more action than they did.

 

Keep in mind, that was 2011. That was Bill Smith. I was right there with you in 2011, and so was pretty much everyone on BYTO. We all saw that this team sucked and that trading Kubel, Cuddy, and Nathan would have been worth it. Though keep in mind that we picked up Berrios and Bard as compensation picks, and given the season Nathan had to date, I'm so certain he was going to net much of anything. Would either of these guys netted better prospects? That's a fair question I think.

[Alex]

Keep in mind, that was 2011. That was Bill Smith. I was right there with you in 2011, and so was pretty much everyone on BYTO. We all saw that this team sucked and that trading Kubel, Cuddy, and Nathan would have been worth it. Though keep in mind that we picked up Berrios and Bard as compensation picks, and given the season Nathan had to date, I'm so certain he was going to net much of anything. Would either of these guys netted better prospects? That's a fair question I think.

 

That's a good point, and those are questions we won't have an answer to. I'll just say this isn't solely Terry Ryan or Bill Smith's responsibility. It is organizational to some extent even if they face the brunt of it.

 

I appreciate the discussion on quotes, though I disagree on the issue with the quotes to some extent (though I did agree and say that context is worth debating). I won't argue that there are certainly things that are simply pandering and said based on expectation, but I also think in this thread, many people have pointed to actual moves that support the idea that the Twins thought they could be competitive this season (Hicks, imo, being a prime example).

 

Additionally, why would DSP throw Ryan under the bus by saying they had approved a higher payroll? It doesn't make sense unless the front office really did want to be competitive. I mean, of course it could be a lie as well, but why not just say "We agreed with Terry that the asking price was too high for players out there and decided to go with what we've got." Or, even couch it more by saying, "We left flexibility in the payroll in case we ended up (by some miracle) being buyers at the trade deadline."

 

For me, as I've said, they've done a relatively poor job either way. If they lied completely about being competitive, they haven't done a good job of rebuilding, at least of being active. If they're waiting simply for prospects to mature, it could be a long wait (and it may never come that way). And, if they were honest in their comments about competing, they obviously haven't met that either.