Mackey: Twins lack innovation

[Mike Sixel]

No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't care what Beane did, I care why the Twins are bad.....they are bad because they don't have players. They don't trade guys at their peak, like Beane, they don't sign a cuban for big bucks like Beane, but I don't care.....

 

They are bad because they have no players in their prime, they have zero starting pitchers they have drafted and developed in a long, long time. That is why they are bad. You can come up with whatever explanation you want for why that happened, but it is what it is. And, now that Smith regimes' good moves will start paying off next year, Ryan will get credit for Sano, Gibson, Rosario....

[ThePuck]

No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

 

Oakland has also been willing to trade guys at their peaks for other players. I think that helps them stay competitive....kind of like what TB did with Shields. Your thoughts?

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't think anyone knows the degree to which the Twins and Terry Ryan listen to Jack Goin.

 

 

I will be completely honest. I think this sentence from Jim Crikket completely hits the nail exactly on the head dead center.

 

Goin is on the payroll... He obviously serves some purpose. We don't know the level of his influence.

 

Terry Ryan is a General Manager... He has a staff that works for him. He listens to all I would assume and the minute that he stops listening to someone... I would imagine that the person he stopped listening to would no longer be useful and would dry up and float away.

 

Is Terry Ryan old school? Probably... Is the entire staff? Probably Not. Odds would suggest probably not. But most importantly... Who Knows?

 

I thought that Jim's original post needed no apology. I think it was directed at everyone as a valid point and not directed at anyone specifically. I thought it was a balanced "Here's what I wish... Here's what I think" post... I for one... thought it was thought provoking.

 

I guess that just shows how we can all interpret posts differently... Personally... I can read a post on Tuesday and be pissed about it. If I would have read the same post on Wednesday instead... I might see no problem at all. That isn't on the poster... It's on the reader.

 

Personal Note to Jim Crikket... I read your posts and I appreciate your posts. Please continue for my benefit.

 

Can we just... as a group.. be tolerant... self deprecating... Respectful of others... and passionate at the same time.

 

Calling someone an apologist doesn't hurt me at all. If Snepp would make me a badge... I'll put it on my sleeve. Even while I hang out and enjoy the company of the Hell in a Handcart crowd. Both sides are going to be necessary for a site like this to operate. There is such a thing as too sensitive. Moderators are forced to moderate when labels are thrown around because we've noticed that they tend to take the train off the tracks.

 

Let's not call people idiots. That includes... Posters, Players and the idiots() who run the front office. This makes us moderate.

 

Let's not make an extra effort to twist small points and sentences from larger points and use it against posters. This makes us moderate.

 

Let's not shout anyone down. People on the sidelines will not want to participate if someone is going to shout them down. Let everyone be heard. Encourage participation... Don't cripple it. As hard as it is to believe... There are some people in this world that don't want to post in that environment. Some People who are not as confident in their convictions or ability to express those convictions and may not want to post for fear of someone tearing them apart. This makes us moderate.

 

Don't take yourself so seriously... Labels won't matter if you do. Whatever people are going to think about you... They probably already have formed that opinion and it isn't going to change. Might as well just roll with it.

 

And finally... Always consider... That it is possible... no matter how strongly or passionate you feel about something... No matter how seemingly obvious the facts you have... Always consider the slight possibility that you might... might... might... be wrong.

 

As moderators... We just want to keep the train on the tracks. Our understanding of the guidelines are no more refined than everyone else. We all have different levels of interpretation of the guidelines and we discuss it internally to try and become more uniform. But... Without a doubt... We all want to keep the train on the tracks. The Goal is the same.

[jokin]

I see that one moderator liked the post. I suspect that he liked the non-inflammatory portions and was too tired from dealing with other, clearer violations to give this the level of attention that we have just given it.

 

Like umpires, we are not perfect. And you probably have no idea how hard we work and how much we talk to each other about how to promote intelligent debate without killing the passion.

 

Originally posted by Riverbrian

 

As moderators... We just want to keep the train on the tracks. Our understanding of the guidelines are no more refined than everyone else. We all have different levels of interpretation of the guidelines and we discuss in internally. But... Without a doubt... We all want to keep the train on the tracks. The Goal is the same.

 

And additionally, one of the founding partners congratulated him for his efforts in a successive post.

 

Again, it's head-scratching to see micro-managing and guessing at what one poster is thinking is "bad", and what another poster is thinking is "good." As an aside, I was appalled, but not surprised or offended, that there was an element amongst some members, managment and moderator-level that expressed the notion that reacting with both physical intimidation and actual violence in response to Carlos Gomez's lunacy was acceptable behavior. Just seems ironic for a place we all seek to be a source for civil, but impassioned debate. Look, as I previously stated, nothing in what JC stated bothered me or offended me one iota- and most of his content I agreed with wholeheartedly. I enjoy impassioned, intelligent debate. "Inflammatory" doesn't bother me. I am bothered a little that the idea that proper and civilly-expressed use of the English language in conveying an idea automatically connotes inflammatory intent and must be immediately censored- while a much clearer inflammatory content based on TD guidelines is not only brushed aside, but congratulated by those seeking to "tone down the rhetoric."

 

I do appreciate the efforts put in by all of you-I've been in communication with a number of you, and I do realize it's painstaking, time-consuming, and your motivations as volunteer moderators to take on this task can only be because it's a labor of love. I think we all pretty much want what you want--the "Goal", as RB so eloquently stated. Thanks for hearing me out and taking the time to address the issue, Glunn and RB.

[Riverbrian]

And additionally, one of the founding partners congratulated him for his efforts in a successive post.

 

Again, it's head-scratching to see micro-managing and guessing at what one poster is thinking is "bad", and what another poster is thinking is "good." As an aside, I was appalled, but not surprised or offended, that there was an element amongst some members, managment and moderator-level that expressed the notion that reacting with both physical intimidation and actual violence in response to Carlos Gomez's lunacy was acceptable behavior. Just seems ironic for a place we all seek to be a source for civil, but impassioned debate. Look, as I previously stated, nothing in what JC stated bothered me or offended me one iota- and most of his content I agreed with wholeheartedly. I enjoy impassioned, intelligent debate. "Inflammatory" doesn't bother me. I am bothered a little that the idea that proper and civilly-expressed use of the English language in conveying an idea automatically connotes inflammatory intent and must be immediately censored- while a much clearer inflammatory content based on TD guidelines is not only brushed aside, but congratulated by those seeking to "tone down the rhetoric."

 

I do appreciate the efforts put in by all of you-I've been in communication with a number of you, and I do realize it's painstaking, time-consuming, and your motivations as volunteer moderators to take on this task can only be because it's a labor of love. I think we all pretty much want what you want--the "Goal", as RB so eloquently stated. Thanks for hearing me out and taking the time to address the issue, Glunn and RB.

 

Thanks Jokin... You are correct... Speaking for myself... I wish it was different...

 

However... We have noticed a pattern. Certain words... Labels... Whatever you want to call it... Rightly or wrongly... Lead to a tough responses at times and everything going off the rails. Its a "we've seen it before" type thing. Sometimes we will be wrong but sometimes we are right but we always discuss it afterwards. The best advice I can give is "don't worry about it". It's just a post. It's just a moderation.

 

Based on what we have learned. We recognize the buzz words and we try to step in. We'd rather it just roll off everyone's backs but sometimes it doesn't and we've seen it before.

 

As as for any implication of a double standard. If there is... It isn't intentional.

 

Sometimes things are not addressed for the simple reason that no moderator was available to address it. That's why more moderators have been brought in.

 

Sometimes the moderator that gets there first handles it differently than the guy who would have arrived second.

 

Sometimes it simply doesn't seem that bad and we let it slide collectively.

 

Sometimes we decide to discuss it privately first before acting on it.

 

It's that simple and there isn't a consistent reason nor us there a master plan to suppress one side of an argument.

 

I tend to be more "Apologist" and Chief tends to be more "Hell in a handcart" Both sides are represented amongst the moderators. Once again... The best advice is... Don't worry about it.

 

There are smart people on this site... This is the only place where I can congregate with fellow baseball freaks that can match my interest level. I've tried to talk about merits of Eddie Rosario at 2B with my wife and she tells me to learn how to fix the car instead.

 

We are just working together... Admins, mods, everyone to keep this site healthy.

[The Wise One]

Twins lack innovation. In stating what they believe to be innovation they completely miss the glaring fact that the Twins right now do not have the kind of talent to make those "innovations" work. I have yet to see one of the stat heavy guys show me with statistics of the Twins players how any of this would make a difference.

[The Wise One]

No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

 

Sigh, All Ryan's fault from before. There are 4 avenues in adding talent as you know. I am having a little trouble recalling, from 07-11 what FA, traded for player, Rule 5 or waiver claim has stuck with the team and contributed? There may not have been many players from the 06 draft stick around, but college players drafted in 08-10 could be in their prime.

[Mike Sixel]

I never said it was all Ryan's fault, never, not once. Smith made bad trades, teh scouts didn't draft well, the minor league coaches didn't teach well. What I want is for people not to blame Smith, and leave Ryan blame free. Perhaps I should just give up on that.

[The Wise One]

I never said it was all Ryan's fault, never, not once. Smith made bad trades, teh scouts didn't draft well, the minor league coaches didn't teach well. What I want is for people not to blame Smith, and leave Ryan blame free. Perhaps I should just give up on that.

 

Ryan doesn't get much credit for building what he did before, why would he get any credit for anything now? It is, well they lost in the playoffs, Ryan didn't do enough. Ryan had overseen plenty of good drafts. Unfortunately 07 was the worst at producing talent. The 06 draft produced 7 players that spent some time in the majors. The 05 draft produced 3 pitchers that were major league starters. One very good, one good for a couple of years, and one soft tossing lefty. In an inexact science, he came darn close to having great drafts.

[Mike Sixel]

the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

 

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

[Brandon]

I am going to chime in on a minor point made earlier in this post. The Santana trade while not great wasn't that bad. We were handcuffed by his no trade clause so we didn't have a lot of options on where we could trade him. We should have just kept him and let him leave after the season but we did flip some pieces of that trade for Rauch and Hardy. Gomez did provide value while he was here. Yes we lost on the trade. The Delmon Young Garza trade was more of a loss for the team.

 

Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

[Willihammer]

Ryan doesn't get much credit for building what he did before, why would he get any credit for anything now? It is, well they lost in the playoffs, Ryan didn't do enough. Ryan had overseen plenty of good drafts. Unfortunately 07 was the worst at producing talent. The 06 draft produced 7 players that spent some time in the majors. The 05 draft produced 3 pitchers that were major league starters. One very good, one good for a couple of years, and one soft tossing lefty. In an inexact science, he came darn close to having great drafts.

 

 

 

If the Twins drafted well despite picking in the 20s all those years, and yet the well dried up, what more evidence do you need that the strategy is flawed?

 

You need to keep acquiring impact players. Easier said than done, I realize. What is a near certainty is that if you rely on the draft for those talents when you're picking in the 20s for back to back years then you're setting yourself up for a long dry spell.

[TheLeviathan]

Twins lack innovation. In stating what they believe to be innovation they completely miss the glaring fact that the Twins right now do not have the kind of talent to make those "innovations" work. I have yet to see one of the stat heavy guys show me with statistics of the Twins players how any of this would make a difference.

 

Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

 

The Twins are basically using leeches (which have some value) and convincing some its the best and only method with limited attempts to modernize or look at other possibilities.

 

It should be an unacceptable mentality.

[Mike Sixel]

I've been thinking, the Twins are the US car manufacturers of the 1970s.....

 

this new thinking of small cars, nobody wants that

no one will buy a japanese car, they are bad and will never improve

we've won doing what we did before, why change now

 

......for those that have studied business, you probably recognize a lot of what is going on with the Twins right now as things that 3rd generation private companies go through, that large prevously successful companies go through, a lot of things you studied in school and have experienced at work that indicate possible problems in the future.....

[Major League Ready]

the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

 

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

 

The organization failed at drafting, development and trading for a few years and now we suck. Anyone that has ever done organzational consulting will suggest that none of us are remotely close enough to conclude who is to blame or exactly the core cause of the failure. Smith and Ryan are responsible by definition.

 

 

The question of why we are bad does not concern me as much as the question of if they have rectified the problems. They now have one of the best farm systems in all of baseball so I would be inclined to believe they have made some changes that are working. Part of that is their international signings. I certainly would not relax where drafting is concerned.

 

Yes, they must be better at drafting but not because they won't as you say draft bigtime FAs. They have to be better because half of the teams in baseball generate more revenue than the Twins. Actually, I really can't conclude what they will do going forward where FAs are concerned. Until 3 years ago, the twins were at the bottom of the revenue rankings and bigtime free agents simply were not feasible. Spending last year would have been futile. Ryan made the right call where this is concerned and is still criticized by the same people who came on here and insisted the FO was incompetent because they did not sign certain FA SPs who ended up being bad or horrible.

 

They also made a couple of agressive trades with Span and Revere. They also drafted heigher ceiling pitchers. Do I think the Twins management is perfect, not at all but alot of the things people won't stop complaining about have changed or are changing.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am going to chime in on a minor point made earlier in this post. The Santana trade while not great wasn't that bad. We were handcuffed by his no trade clause so we didn't have a lot of options on where we could trade him. We should have just kept him and let him leave after the season but we did flip some pieces of that trade for Rauch and Hardy. Gomez did provide value while he was here. Yes we lost on the trade. The Delmon Young Garza trade was more of a loss for the team.

 

Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

 

Rauch was better than Mulvey, but he was and still is a very fungible commodity.

 

There was no need to trade Santana. Even after losing Hunter and trading Garza/Bartlett that team was still fully capable of contending. I suspect TR wouldn't have done it, certainly not for that package. Bill Smith's trades almost always followed the same obvious pattern: "what player do I have to replace?" That offseason, he needed a CF and RH power bat (losing Hunter), so he dealt two pitchers and a shortstop and got back Gomez, Young, plus an alleged replacements at SS (Harris) and pitchers (Humber and Mulvey). You can see similar patterns elsewhere: have a CF, need a SS? Gomez for Hardy. Have a catcher, lost a closer? Ramos for Capps. Lost a few relievers? Hardy for alleged relievers and sign an alleged replacement (Nishioka). To be fair, he had success in dealing low-level prospects (for Pavano, Cabrera, etc) but those were pretty low-risk moves (although maybe not low-risk enough for TR?).

 

It was all very maddening. Just thinking of it makes me glad TR is back, even if TR has his own maddening tendencies.

[The Wise One]

the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

 

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

 

Trades require one of two things. Somebody wants what you have, and you get a good return. Ryan did a good job with this. The other is somebody has something you want. Generally you lose in those trades. That is why Ryan doesn't make many of them. The Shannon Stewart trade comes to mind as a trade that worked in Ryan's favor. In general think of all the trades that involve prospects for established players. If the selling team can create a market, they win. People do not know what is discussed between teams, all we know is the outcome of conversations. When you talk of more than mediocre free agents then you have to have the budget debate. The Twins lost money or broke close to even for the Pohlads until 2004. You can argue the value of the franchise went up so they were not losing money, but Carl Pohlad didn't appear to operate that way. He was probably serious about contracting the team. Money upfront and lots of it. That environment meant that any Twins FO has a budget to work under. Yes there are reports that Ryan could go over. The caveat would be then the next year he would have to figure out how to get back to budget. That would restrict large investments (High quality) in free agents. It is not an apology for the FO, it is merely an observation on how things appear to work in the Twin's Way.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

 

I just don't get this. If the guy is incapable of being a quality major league starter without his slider, you're not doing him or yourself any favors by prolonging his career.

 

I've read this about Liriano before, and I have to believe it's just an over-simplification. Because even the risk-averse Twins shouldn't be THAT averse to pitching injuries, especially if they don't even have a long-term commitment to a guy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

 

I think the Twins front office, as much as they like to compete and win, also are fully aware this is a game and they are playing it. They want to play it with people they know and like. They don't like to play with a lot of outsiders like agents or even sometimes other GMs. They want to keep it low-stakes so they can continue playing it even if they lose. I think that's the "country club" atmosphere that others have mentioned. And it does have some appeal to fans -- no matter how much they suck, you know who the Twins are and who they have always been. This Twins organization has really maintained its old-school identity in the modern era better than most others.

 

Now, most of pro sports (and even many "amateur" sports) don't operate that way, and we all know many cases where teams take it to the other extreme and we generally don't like that. However, it would be nice to see the club be a little more aggressive about identifying and adopting quality "outsiders" into the club every once and while.

 

For example, Thome was a great guy -- but why weren't the Twins aggressive about acquiring him before age 40? Brad Radke was another great fit here -- have there really been no quality pitchers like him worth a free agent overpay? Australia and the Netherlands are fun, but why haven't the Twins tried being early adopters of other (better) emerging international baseball markets? The Legend of Tony Oliva has long expired...

[JB_Iowa]

I think the Twins front office, as much as they like to compete and win, also are fully aware this is a game and they are playing it. They want to play it with people they know and like.

 

While I think this is true for the front office and staff, it certainly wasn't true this year when it came to the players as far as fans go. Unless you are someone who really follows the minor leagues, when the players didn't have names on their jerseys, you really had to pay attention to where they were in the line-up or most fans wouldn't recognize them.

 

My concern over "quality outsiders" is as much about bringing fresh perspectives to the front office and coaching staffs as it is to bringing in players from other organizations or countries.

[nicksaviking]

SO that lack of talent on the current team then could be traced back to the inability of Smith to make trades and get value for his players when he could. You knock the Garza trade but not the Santana one.

You really think he could have got something back for a back of rotation pitcher like Blackburn? With only one good season do you think Liriano would have fetched what Gio Gonzales did? If you spotted red flags, wouldn't the other geaneral managers?

What specifically has Art Howe, Ken Macha, Bon Green, or Bob Melvin done that is new age baseball as they are Beane's hires?

 

You asked what Beane would have done differently. With his track record, trading pitchers at their peak was something he has done and the Twins generally have not. Nick Blackburn is not a good pitcher, but back in the day he was A) a top 100 prospect and a central cog in the stable but unspecatacular Twins rotation. His first couple of years look pretty close to Trevor Cahill's who Beane got a great of a return for.

 

Liriano may not have gotten what Gio Gonzalez did, though it surely would have been closer to that return than to what the Twins actually got for him.

 

As to the managers? Well they platoon the hell out of their lineups, the use defensive shifts. I don't know, what are you looking for? Are you trying to say Beane doesn't hire managers who will play Beane's style of baseball? Or are you trying to say Beene's teams don't actually play baseball with advanced statistics in mind?

 

I'm simply answering your question. I really don't think anyone would truely think Beane would have run the team the same why Ryan/Smith did.

[Alex]

 

They also made a couple of agressive trades with Span and Revere. They also drafted heigher ceiling pitchers. Do I think the Twins management is perfect, not at all but alot of the things people won't stop complaining about have changed or are changing.

 

Yes, hopefully they are changing, but there won't be satisfactory evidence of the truth of that until the major league team stops losing 90 games a season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

While I think this is true for the front office and staff, it certainly wasn't true this year when it came to the players as far as fans go.

 

No doubt. I guess I was thinking front office and coaching staff also (and ownership too). And those guys certainly prefer dealing with their "own" players.

 

I had hoped that recent lousy play and roster turnover would force them out of that comfort zone a little, but maybe the Revere/Span trades and Willingham/Correia signings are the extent of that? I guess this offseason will tell...

[Otto von Ballpark]

His first couple of years look pretty close to Trevor Cahill's who Beane got a great of a return for.

 

Cahill was a second round draft pick out of high school, he was rated the #11 prospect prior to his rookie season, and his three years in Oakland were ages 21-23. And his K rate was double that of Blackburn in the minors, and it trending up at that time of his trade.

 

The "Blackburn mistake" was not passing on trading him, but rather signing him to that contract. I think Bill Smith thought he had another Joe Mays on his hands... and I guess he did.

[nicksaviking]

Cahill was a second round draft pick out of high school, he was rated the #11 prospect prior to his rookie season, and his three years in Oakland were ages 21-23. And his K rate was double that of Blackburn in the minors, and it trending up at that time of his trade.

 

The "Blackburn mistake" was not passing on trading him, but rather signing him to that contract. I think Bill Smith thought he had another Joe Mays on his hands... and I guess he did.

 

That's all fine and true but my point simply was that Beane most likely wouldn't have extended either Blackburn or Mays but would have been more likely to have looked to move them. Whether he got stud players back in return is really immaterial, (though Beane has done great when moving pitchers) the point is that he would have been more likely to flip these guys at their peak.

[howieramone1406390264]

Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

 

The Twins are basically using leeches (which have some value) and convincing some its the best and only method with limited attempts to modernize or look at other possibilities.

 

It should be an unacceptable mentality.

IMO showing support for your local team has nothing to do with shunning new and different ideas, or wanting the best education possible for your children or the finest medical care.

[ThePuck]

Showing support for your team doesn't need to include just accepting everything your team's management says or does as the right thing, either. I support our President, because he's our President, but I don't particularly care for him or think he's doing a great job. Still support him though.

[chopper0080]

What I find most amusing is that in the steroid era the Twins were at the bottom of power hitting and in the recent turn to the pitching era the Twins are in the bottom of strikeouts. Some things don't seem to change I guess. We are still trailing behind the rest of baseball because we choose to go an alternative direction. we couldn't beat the Yankees because we couldn't keep up with their hitting and now we can't keep up with the Tigers because we can't keep up with their pitching. Hopefully our top two prospects are really something special because they a hitters in a pitching era. If they can't hit the best pitchers in baseball then it really won't matter how good the are.

[Major League Ready]

Showing support for your team doesn't need to include just accepting everything your team's management says or does as the right thing, either. I support our President, because he's our President, but I don't particularly care for him or think he's doing a great job. Still support him though.

 

No, it does not and the people here are very knowledgable baseball FANS. I emphasize fans for a couple reasons. One, we have a distant view and a fan's viewpoint. They are two different things but both result in a distorted viewpoint. Two, because we lack the extensive professional experience of the Twin's FO and Terry Ryan in particular. We can certainly question and debate direction, strategy, management style etc, and make a very good arguments for a different approach. However, the indignation that is so common here could be tamed down a bit. We are hobbyist and to presume we know more than the people with considerable credentials in this professionals is a bit naracistic.

 

We don't need credentials on the internet. Everyone gets an equal voice. We need not have managed a P&L of hundreds of millions of dollars. We need not have negotiated contacts worth 10-100 million dollars. We don't need to have any management experience at all or degrees in finance or MBAs. We need no professional baseball experience at all to participate. However, if you don't have these credentials the first presumption should not be that the people who do are the ones who don't understand.