PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Sox & Twins minor league systems


Frater Perdurabo
08-20-2006, 05:22 PM
I am grateful that KW has built the Sox into a large-market franchise.

But I envy the Twins' ability to develop their own players. It seems like they have been able to withstand virtually every injury by finding internal replacements. They know which prospects to retain and which are expendable. Even their mistakes (letting Ortiz go) don't seem to hurt them.

For instance, how the heck did their scouts know enough to completely rob the Giants - getting a future ace (Liriano) and a closer (Nathan) plus more pitching (Bonzer) for A.J. Pierzynski?

Also, I know they "lucked" into drafting Mauer, who has been far more valuable to them than Prior has been to the Cubs. But something tells me that if they had drafted Prior instead, he'd have won multiple Cy Young awards by now and pitched healthy every year.

The Twins' inexpensive team of largely home-grown position players leads the league in hitting, but they also play great defense (Saturday night was the glaring exception) and play unselfishly. That indicates to me they are getting fantastic coaching in the minors. The Sox have developed some great hitters like Maggs and Lee in the last decade, but they have tended to be selfish at the plate and haven't played great defense.

The bottom line is that I wouldn't trade places with them, but I sure would like for the Sox to be able to build as good of a minor league system as the Twins to go along with their big-market payroll and KW's ability to make great trades for major league players who were developed elsewhere.

So I ask of the experts here - what do the Sox have to do to build/have an organization as solid top to bottom as the Twins (other than throw millions of dollars to steal away their scouts and minor league coaches)?

Daver
08-20-2006, 05:41 PM
Spend more on scouting and player development, and change their philosphy on how players move up through the system.

Frater Perdurabo
08-20-2006, 05:48 PM
Spend more on scouting and player development

This part I get; it's self-explanatory.

change their philosophy on how players move up through the system.

This is the part I still don't quite understand. What is the Sox' current philosophy on moving up players now? What kind of philosophy should they adopt? What specifically do they do wrong/bad and why is it wrong/bad? What specifically do they need to do and why would that be better than what they are doing now? I really would like to know; thanks for any answers you can provide!
:smile:

Daver
08-20-2006, 06:26 PM
Players move through the Sox system based on how well they swing the bat, as opposed to the Twins, who will not move a player up a level if his defense is suspect. The Sox need to change this philosphy, and start to require players be able to play their position. The Twins are also very conservative on how they promote pitchers, and will usually not promote a pitcher until he spends a full season at one level, as opposed to the Sox who have a tendency to rush pitchers, particularly starters.

The Twins also spend more money on scouting, and employ more scouts than the Sox, because their philosphy is to build their team from within as opposed to paying free agents, while Kenny uses his minor league talent to acquire major league talent. You can make the argument for or against this philosophy and make a decent argument, it is more a matter of opinion, I feel you get a better team player out of a player you developed in your system.


In the end it comes down to money, with the signing bonuses a lot of teams are paying to top draft picks, they want a as fast a turnaround on that investment as possible, even at the expense of bringing up a player that is not ready to play at the major league level. Brian Anderson is a prime example of this.

CashMan
08-20-2006, 06:56 PM
Players move through the Sox system based on how well they swing the bat, as opposed to the Twins, who will not move a player up a level if his defense is suspect. The Sox need to change this philosphy, and start to require players be able to play their position.


And this has gotten the Twins what in the past 10yrs?

Frater Perdurabo
08-20-2006, 06:56 PM
Players move through the Sox system based on how well they swing the bat, as opposed to the Twins, who will not move a player up a level if his defense is suspect. The Sox need to change this philosphy, and start to require players be able to play their position. The Twins are also very conservative on how they promote pitchers, and will usually not promote a pitcher until he spends a full season at one level, as opposed to the Sox who have a tendency to rush pitchers, particularly starters.

The Twins also spend more money on scouting, and employ more scouts than the Sox, because their philosphy is to build their team from within as opposed to paying free agents, while Kenny uses his minor league talent to acquire major league talent. You can make the argument for or against this philosophy and make a decent argument, it is more a matter of opinion, I feel you get a better team player out of a player you developed in your system.


In the end it comes down to money, with the signing bonuses a lot of teams are paying to top draft picks, they want a as fast a turnaround on that investment as possible, even at the expense of bringing up a player that is not ready to play at the major league level. Brian Anderson is a prime example of this.

Great analysis. Now I understand! Thank you! :smile:

My only point is that with the superior revenue stream, the Sox could be unstoppable (well, even more successful than they already are) if they combined those revenues with the kind of discipline and philosophy that Minnesota practices.

gobears1987
08-20-2006, 07:05 PM
And this has gotten the Twins what in the past 10yrs?They may have not won anything, but the fact that they compete on that payroll should tell us that they are doing something right.

Daver
08-20-2006, 07:23 PM
And this has gotten the Twins what in the past 10yrs?

The Twins in the last ten years, have feilded a competetive team that has made it's share of playoff appearances, or come close, and have done it on a payroll about half of what the league average is. Granted the Yankees and Red Sox skew that average, but none the less, the Twins are doing something right.

Frater Perdurabo
08-20-2006, 08:11 PM
The Twins in the last ten years, have feilded a competetive team that has made it's share of playoff appearances, or come close, and have done it on a payroll about half of what the league average is. Granted the Yankees and Red Sox skew that average, but none the less, the Twins are doing something right.

And if what Daver says is true (and I believe it is), then the Sox really could be dominant if they just combined their superior resources with some of the smarts that the Twins practice. In fact, being more patient/conservative with prospects easily could be combined with KW's tendency to trade prospects for established major league players. The only difference is that the players he trades away might net far more in return.

California Sox
08-20-2006, 09:35 PM
I'm not sure it's merely a money issue. Minnesota has one of the best scouting directors in the game, they get a lot of extra picks because they have to let a lot of players go via free agency and they never give up young players in trade (at least none of their top prostects). You put all that together and you end up with a pretty deep farm system. The scary thing is, right now I'd rank the Sox 4th in the division after Cleveland, Detroit, and Minnesota. And an argument could be made that KC is ahead of us because Gordan and Butler are real impact players. Now some of that is where the Sox draft every year. Their last top ten pick was Alex Fernandez. But some of it is the go-for-today philosophy epitomized by the acquisition of Javier Vazquez. If the Sox still had Lumsden, Gio, Young, and Cortes, their system would be middle of the pack to top third in baseball. As it is, we've got about two players: Fields and Sweeney. I honestly don't think there's anyone else who's more than a role player or fourth starter. Maybe Carter but he's five years away.

Frater Perdurabo
08-21-2006, 10:36 AM
I'm not sure it's merely a money issue. Minnesota has one of the best scouting directors in the game, they get a lot of extra picks because they have to let a lot of players go via free agency and they never give up young players in trade (at least none of their top prostects). You put all that together and you end up with a pretty deep farm system. The scary thing is, right now I'd rank the Sox 4th in the division after Cleveland, Detroit, and Minnesota. And an argument could be made that KC is ahead of us because Gordan and Butler are real impact players. Now some of that is where the Sox draft every year. Their last top ten pick was Alex Fernandez. But some of it is the go-for-today philosophy epitomized by the acquisition of Javier Vazquez. If the Sox still had Lumsden, Gio, Young, and Cortes, their system would be middle of the pack to top third in baseball. As it is, we've got about two players: Fields and Sweeney. I honestly don't think there's anyone else who's more than a role player or fourth starter. Maybe Carter but he's five years away.

I understand and agree to a point. But unless the Sox have a particular pick taken away because they have signed a free agent, they have an opportunity to draft "Player X" in the second round (for example) before the Twins, Tigers, Indians or Royals draft him in the third round. That has everything to do with scouting. Moreover, the Twins may have excellent scouts, but it seems that they pair that excellent scouting with equally excellent coaching and development philosophies.

When was the last time the Sox drafted and developed an MLB-caliber catcher? Ron Karkovice? Even worse, when was the last time the Sox drafted and developed an MLB-caliber shortstop? (Ozzie doesn't count; the Sox got him from the Padres for LaMarr Hoyt.)

I'm not trying to trash the Sox (who seem to have done a good job drafting and developing outfielders, corner infielders and finesse pitchers), but Minnesota's record on player development is far better and seems to be more than just a function of better draft position and more draft picks.

the gooch
08-21-2006, 11:07 AM
what has disappointed me the past few years is the sox inability to get draft picks when their guys leave. Magglio, Valentin, S Alomar, Tony G, R Alomar, C Everett, S Sulivan are some of the guys recently denied arbitration. I won't say i wasn't happy to see them go, but I believe we could have offered to valentin and everett and they would have looked elsewhere. I still believe magglio would have turned down arbitration, and because we won a coin flip against florida that year, wouldn't that have given us detroit's #1 pick (#10 overall)?

Kenny Williams' propensity to include many team options in contracts is mainly the cause of this. club options were denied to thomas, eldred, wells, S Alomar #2, C Everett #2, B Davis, and S Schoenweis, which netted us zero draft picks. That is his style, and I think it is still a good one, so please don't blast me for this. It does a good job of avoiding the bad contracts that can cripple teams.

Perhaps to counteract his philosophy of trading prospects for major league talent, KW can trade a MLB ready prospect that is blocked at the big club for a pair of low A prospects with good upside. But the sox have plans with fields and rogowski isn't hyped very much to get a good return.

when thinking about the sox approach to development, it explains why they pick fewer raw talent guys and go for the lower ceiling college players (mostly pitchers). A perfect example of this is the royce ring pick.
i apologize that this post is long and doesnt add any new insight.

We will see how the future stacks for us.

caulfield12
08-21-2006, 11:11 AM
Don't forget Josh Rupe, he played a part in the Rangers' victory yesterday out of the pen for Koronka.

I feel the White Sox have more of a pressure to win now than ever before, although KW has always used the system to fix gaps in the big league roster. A lot of Twins fans always complain that Ryan never makes that finally move (acquiring a Soriano or Lee) that requires shedding one of their best prospects, usually a pitcher. What's better, to win three division championships in a row and fail to make the WS or do what the Sox did last season? I think most of us would take the latter.

I am curious as to why the Sox passed on Garza...and I think he definitely defies the notion of letting the players progress one step at a time, he's gone from the Florida State League to the majors in less than one season. It just shows how desperate the Twins have become that they're willing to jeopardize his career to get to the playoffs this season...and that they started Liriano in questionable circumstances.

The Twins have showed a lot of patience over the last 2-3 years with Mauer, Morneau and Cuddyer. The White Sox haven't had the same luxury in the past with players like Borchard because we always had to "win now," so last year was very important as they players matured and the patience that was shown paid off. Even this May, they were thinking of sending down Morneau for a wake-up call. And Kubel is still recovering from his knee problems.

But if you at Lohse, Santana, Liriano, Nathan, Bonser, Silva...they were all acquired from outside the organization. The Twins have not had success with Baker either. A lot of their top prospects like Adam Johnson failed to pan out.

And they've made great tweaks like adding Kenny Rogers here or Shannon Stewart there to get them over the top...they totally changed their pen of Hawkins/Romero/Guardardo and remade one that is maybe even better, and this was after the loss of Balfour to injury, who was another key piece.

caulfield12
08-21-2006, 11:22 AM
what has disappointed me the past few years is the sox inability to get draft picks when their guys leave. Magglio, Valentin, S Alomar, Tony G, R Alomar, C Everett, S Sulivan are some of the guys recently denied arbitration. I won't say i wasn't happy to see them go, but I believe we could have offered to valentin and everett and they would have looked elsewhere. I still believe magglio would have turned down arbitration, and because we won a coin flip against florida that year, wouldn't that have given us detroit's #1 pick (#10 overall)?

Kenny Williams' propensity to include many team options in contracts is mainly the cause of this. club options were denied to thomas, eldred, wells, S Alomar #2, C Everett #2, B Davis, and S Schoenweis, which netted us zero draft picks. That is his style, and I think it is still a good one, so please don't blast me for this. It does a good job of avoiding the bad contracts that can cripple teams.

Perhaps to counteract his philosophy of trading prospects for major league talent, KW can trade a MLB ready prospect that is blocked at the big club for a pair of low A prospects with good upside. But the sox have plans with fields and rogowski isn't hyped very much to get a good return.

when thinking about the sox approach to development, it explains why they pick fewer raw talent guys and go for the lower ceiling college players (mostly pitchers). A perfect example of this is the royce ring pick.
i apologize that this post is long and doesnt add any new insight.

We will see how the future stacks for us.


First of all, the most you could cut those contracts was 20%, so it was a tremendous payroll and personnel issue if we ended up retaining those players we didn't want if we were to move forward as an organization.

For a MLB Type A free agent, the signing team gives up its first round selection (if outside the first half of the first round, otherwise, they give up their second round selection) and the team that loses the free agent gets a sandwich selection between the first-and-second rounds. So, you get two draft picks for one player. If a team signs two Type A players, it loses its first two draft picks. Three Type A free agents, first three draft picks.

Type B is similar, except no sandwich pick.

Type C is a sandwich pick between the second and third rounds.

As you can see, we wouldn't have gotten a top draft pick for Magglio. And the risk of cutting a $14.5 million dollar contract (the numbers for Sox players are always bloated as their deals are back-loaded) 20%, we would have had to pay Magglio between $11.5-12.0 million, and I think every Sox fan agrees that money was better allocated amongst El Duque, Dye, Iguchi, Hermanson, AJ, etc.

If the Tigers didn't exist (bidding against themselves for Magglio it seems), then no team would have paid him that much coming off his injury...the Yankees and Red Sox already had RFers. It was too big a risk for KW imo.

the gooch
08-21-2006, 12:23 PM
yes. it was too big a risk. and im sorry i forgot that bad teams always keep their 1st pick. My point was badly worded, I lamented that the sox didnt offer abritration to a lot of players, but I failed to mention that they were all the correct moves to make. it seems the guys we purge are guys nobody else will want either, because they are either a pure suckfest, are due a huge drop in pay, or injury issues complicate things.

Fungo
08-21-2006, 01:06 PM
I am curious as to why the Sox passed on Garza

I'm curious to find out your obsession with Garza? Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don't recall any of the mock drafts tooting his horn before the draft either. He was a supplemental first rounder according to the publications I saw. 23 other team besides the White Sox passed on the guy as well. The Twins saw something they liked and targeted him.

DumpJerry
08-21-2006, 01:46 PM
If I owned a MLB baseball team, I would model it after the 1980's era Dodgers who resemble the present-day Twins a bit. The Dodgers brought most of their players up through the system. I would spend $$ on scouts and minor league coaches to get the "White Sox" system (I cannot own any team other than the White Sox) instilled in the players so that they will be fully ready for Ozzieball when they get called up. When someone declared free agency, I can tell him that if he does not accept our offer, he is free to move on because we have several prospects who can replace him.

I would target high school amd jr. college players with raw talent, the coaching staff will take over from there.

caulfield12
08-21-2006, 02:01 PM
Another interesting aspect is the B/C level prospects that play (or have played) "small/Gardy ball" so effectively and their style of play seemed to designed specifically for that turf.

Bartlett
Punto
Tyner
Hocking
LeCroy
Lou Ford
Rivas
Guzman
Mientkiewicz
AJ
Koskie

I know that half those guys (at least) came from other organizations. They're those "pirahna/death by 1,000 cuts" players that annoy the heck out of everyone.

Daver
08-21-2006, 08:28 PM
I'm curious to find out your obsession with Garza? Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don't recall any of the mock drafts tooting his horn before the draft either. He was a supplemental first rounder according to the publications I saw. 23 other team besides the White Sox passed on the guy as well. The Twins saw something they liked and targeted him.

And that is why the Twins spend the money on scouting that many other teams do not, because if you scout and assess more players, you expand your draft potential, and make it far easier to come up with a pick if the player you targeted is taken before you get to him.

The draft is a crapshoot, Mark Buehrle is a prime example of this, but it is a calculated crapshoot, and the team that calculates it best is going to reap the rewards.

Ol' No. 2
08-22-2006, 02:37 PM
The Twins in the last ten years, have feilded a competetive team that has made it's share of playoff appearances, or come close, and have done it on a payroll about half of what the league average is. Granted the Yankees and Red Sox skew that average, but none the less, the Twins are doing something right.But isn't that basically the Billy Beane argument? Sure they fielded teams better than expected based on their payroll, but it's no substitute for actually winning something.

It's not that I disagree that the Twins do a great job scouting and developing their young players. But until they actually win something, so what?

Craig Grebeck
08-22-2006, 03:04 PM
But isn't that basically the Billy Beane argument? Sure they fielded teams better than expected based on their payroll, but it's no substitute for actually winning something.

It's not that I disagree that the Twins do a great job scouting and developing their young players. But until they actually win something, so what?
I believe it's centered around the idea that the playoffs are a total crapshoot (as evidenced by WC teams winning the World Series). If you get in and get on a hot streak, anything can happen. Competing on that payroll is impressive, no matter what the organizational philosophy.

caulfield12
08-22-2006, 03:25 PM
Or the Braves...however, over 13-14 years of opportunities you would like to think you would have more WS titles to show for your efforts than the Marlins.

All you can do is keep stockpiling quality arms and hope than 10% of them pan out...the "waves and waves" we heard about when the 2000 farm system was ranked first behind the likes of Rauch, Garland, Wright, Ginter, Guerrier, Malone, Jason Stumm, Honel, Barcelo, etc.

We all know how difficult it is to develop frontline starting pitching. Still, over the last 10 years even, we've drafted and produced more quality starters than the Twins.

The Twins have Radke (an 8th rounder in 1991)

We have Buehrle, Kip Wells and Josh Fogg that became regular MLB starters.
Josh Rupe, Lumsden and Gio Gonzalez all have a chance to make rotations in 07. Then we have McCarthy.

The Twins have Garza, while we counter with Broadway from the same draft.

Ol' No. 2
08-22-2006, 03:31 PM
I believe it's centered around the idea that the playoffs are a total crapshoot (as evidenced by WC teams winning the World Series). If you get in and get on a hot streak, anything can happen. Competing on that payroll is impressive, no matter what the organizational philosophy.That's Billy Beane's perennial excuse. It's also hogwash. The fact that WC teams win doesn't prove squat except that a team that finishes one or two games ahead in the standings isn't necessarily a better team, especially considering the unbalanced schedule. I'm not impressed by above average finishes.

There's a difference between building a team to win in the regular season and building a team to win in the playoffs. Over the last 7 years, Oakland and Minnesota have done a good job at the former, but have been abject failures at the latter. For all the "miracles" these low-payroll teams have wrought, Beane has never won even one post-season series, and the Twins in the last 7 years have only won one, and that was by beating Oakland.

caulfield12
08-22-2006, 03:44 PM
On a more uplifting note, out of the 18 series contested in the AL to get to the WS since 2000, 7 have been won by teams with higher ERA's.

2004 Yankees (4.69) over Twins (4.03)
2003 Red Sox (4.48) over A's (3.63)
2002 Twins (4.12) over A's (3.68)
2001 Yankees (4.02) over A's (3.59)
2001 Yankees (4.02) over Mariners (3.54)
2000 Yankees (4.76) over A's (4.56)
2000 Yankees (4.76) over Mariners (4.50)

The Twins, A's and Mariners were all built for regular season success but failed abysmally in the playoffs. So obviously, they were flawed teams that didn't come through at crunch time for one reason or another.

Of course, the only teams to beat these "fundamentally" superior teams have normally been the offensive juggernauts, the uber teams the Yankees and Red Sox.

Daver
08-22-2006, 03:55 PM
But isn't that basically the Billy Beane argument? Sure they fielded teams better than expected based on their payroll, but it's no substitute for actually winning something.

It's not that I disagree that the Twins do a great job scouting and developing their young players. But until they actually win something, so what?

No, not really. Beane's philosphy is targeting high stats guys, and exclusively scouting them, without scouting lower tier players, wheras the Twins scout as many players as they can as thouroughly as they can, regardless of stats. They are willing to draft guys with average numbers if their scouts are convinced that a player has a flawed approach that is causing average numbers, and then let their coaches fix it. the Twins not winning anything is also caused by their philosphy on developing players, they refuse to trade away young talent to buy a veteren prescence for a post season push.

caulfield12
08-22-2006, 04:01 PM
No, not really. Beane's philosphy is targeting high stats guys, and exclusively scouting them, without scouting lower tier players, wheras the Twins scout as many players as they can as thouroughly as they can, regardless of stats. They are willing to draft guys with average numbers if their scouts are convinced that a player has a flawed approach that is causing average numbers, and then let their coaches fix it. the Twins not winning anything is also caused by their philosphy on developing players, they refuse to trade away young talent to buy a veteren prescence for a post season push.

With the exception of Shannon Stewart and signing Rogers in 2003.

And the hitters they gave up to get Stewart were not top flight prospects, wasn't one of them Kielty or Mohr?

Essentially, they have refused to part with any of their top pitching prospects and have paid the price when they couldn't quite scrape by offensively against the Yankees and Red Sox caliber of teams...the differential was just too big for either the A's or the Twins to make it up in pitching superiority.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/daniel_habib/08/13/twins.santana/index.html
Interesting article about the Twins' philosophy

Ol' No. 2
08-22-2006, 04:34 PM
No, not really. Beane's philosphy is targeting high stats guys, and exclusively scouting them, without scouting lower tier players, wheras the Twins scout as many players as they can as thouroughly as they can, regardless of stats. They are willing to draft guys with average numbers if their scouts are convinced that a player has a flawed approach that is causing average numbers, and then let their coaches fix it. the Twins not winning anything is also caused by their philosphy on developing players, they refuse to trade away young talent to buy a veteren prescence for a post season push.That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to the "we did really well for having a small payroll, even though we didn't actually win anything" excuse that the Moneyballistas keep proffering.

Daver
08-22-2006, 04:37 PM
That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to the "we did really well for having a small payroll, even though we didn't actually win anything" excuse that the Moneyballistas keep proffering.

When have you heard Terry Ryan ever say anything remotely close to that?

Beane makes excuses, Terry Ryan will tell you straight out he didn't build a good enough team.

Fungo
08-22-2006, 04:53 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/daniel_habib/08/13/twins.santana/index.html
Interesting article about the Twins' philosophy
From the article...
As a major-leaguer, Santana went from long man to a setup role alongside LaTroy Hawkins, to starter; it was a deliberate, sometimes maddeningly slow process, particularly when the Twins' rotation struggled last summer and Santana was openly craving a starting slot.Sounds familiar, maybe the Sox are trying to take a page out of the Twins book in regards to McCarthy.

caulfield12
08-22-2006, 05:25 PM
From the article...
Sounds familiar, maybe the Sox are trying to take a page out of the Twins book in regards to McCarthy.

They did the same thing w/ Liriano. They wouldn't have had to play .800 ball to catch us had he started the season in the rotation.

And we used Buehrle in the bullpen his first season (by and large) although he was undoubtedly better than some of our ailing, veteran starters like Baldwin, Parque and Eldred.

Ol' No. 2
08-22-2006, 06:02 PM
When have you heard Terry Ryan ever say anything remotely close to that?

Beane makes excuses, Terry Ryan will tell you straight out he didn't build a good enough team.Terry Ryan didn't say it...you did.
The Twins in the last ten years, have feilded a competetive team that has made it's share of playoff appearances, or come close, and have done it on a payroll about half of what the league average is. Granted the Yankees and Red Sox skew that average, but none the less, the Twins are doing something right.Not to disagree with the basic statement. Terry Ryan has done a great job given the meager resources he's allotted by Pohlad. But in the end, he's won only one playoff series, and that was against the A's.

Daver
08-22-2006, 06:36 PM
Terry Ryan didn't say it...you did.
Not to disagree with the basic statement. Terry Ryan has done a great job given the meager resources he's allotted by Pohlad. But in the end, he's won only one playoff series, and that was against the A's.


I never mentioned the A's, not once, you did.

Up until last year, the Sox were worse off than that, and always finished second to the Twins.

It is kind of ironic that the two low payroll teams that actually manage to compete meet in a series, and the baseball genius gets beat by the guy that believes in old school scouting and playing fundemental baseball.

Craig Grebeck
08-22-2006, 11:07 PM
That's Billy Beane's perennial excuse. It's also hogwash. The fact that WC teams win doesn't prove squat except that a team that finishes one or two games ahead in the standings isn't necessarily a better team, especially considering the unbalanced schedule. I'm not impressed by above average finishes.

There's a difference between building a team to win in the regular season and building a team to win in the playoffs. Over the last 7 years, Oakland and Minnesota have done a good job at the former, but have been abject failures at the latter. For all the "miracles" these low-payroll teams have wrought, Beane has never won even one post-season series, and the Twins in the last 7 years have only won one, and that was by beating Oakland.
What is the difference between a team who is built to succeedin the postseason and a team who is built for the regular season?

caulfield12
08-22-2006, 11:48 PM
usually $50-100 million in the starting line-up (offense) OR an awesome 1/2/3 rotation that can dominate a short series with a big-time closer

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 10:08 AM
What is the difference between a team who is built to succeedin the postseason and a team who is built for the regular season?There are more than I care to list, but here are two general differences:

1. You use 5 starters in the regular season, but really rely on only 3 in the post-season. This means you can get by with 5 "pretty good" starters in the regular season. The 2006 Sox are a case in point. Despite all their woes, they're still probably going to win 95+ games, which is a pretty good season. But they have ONE consistent starter, which means a very early playoff exit.

2. During the regular season, you're often facing other teams' 4th and 5th starters, and you also play a lot of weak teams that don't have more than one decent starter. Hitting a poor to mediocre pitcher is not remotely the same as hitting a good starter, but the latter is what you're going to see in the playoffs. It's a hell of a lot harder to slug your way to a win.

Of course, most of the statistical models don't take any of this into account. They think pitching is pitching and hitting is hitting...which is why people often wonder if the people producing these models have ever actually watched a game.

gosox41
08-23-2006, 06:43 PM
But isn't that basically the Billy Beane argument? Sure they fielded teams better than expected based on their payroll, but it's no substitute for actually winning something.

It's not that I disagree that the Twins do a great job scouting and developing their young players. But until they actually win something, so what?

I've been waiting for someone to say this. Great point.



Bob

gosox41
08-23-2006, 06:53 PM
Terry Ryan didn't say it...you did.
Not to disagree with the basic statement. Terry Ryan has done a great job given the meager resources he's allotted by Pohlad. But in the end, he's won only one playoff series, and that was against the A's.


I see what where you're going with this. The A's and Twins are similar in that both are low payroll teams that rely on trades and building their farm systems to compete. Both teams have different ways of building their systems, but both have done an excellent job of having good regular seasons with below average payrolls.

But, as you say, neither team has won a World Series since Ryan or Beane have been around. And out of all those playoff appearnces, the Twins have only won one playoff series against the A's.

On a slightly different note, it's funny that people at various White Sox message boards wish worse on the A's then the Twins. Sure their GM is a loudmouth, but both organizations have philosophies that have worked for them and both deserve respect for keeping a competitive team in a small market. But that's as far as it goes. Personally, I don't worry about how big the GM's ego is or whatever. The Twins are in our division, and I wish only the worst for them. A lot worse then anything the A's go through. If the Twins and A's switch divisions, I'll change my opinion of the teams. But until then Ryan and the Twins are just another obstacle that needs to be defeated.



Bob

fquaye149
08-26-2006, 07:56 PM
But isn't that basically the Billy Beane argument? Sure they fielded teams better than expected based on their payroll, but it's no substitute for actually winning something.

It's not that I disagree that the Twins do a great job scouting and developing their young players. But until they actually win something, so what?

It would be nice if the A's and Twins could field teams that won in the postseason, but you need payroll to do that. Where the Twins and A's are amazing is that they have similar payrolls to much worse teams (and perennially worse teams) and a much smaller payroll than many inferior teams.

Heck--the prime example of great scouting and great management, the Atlanta Braves has the same problem the A's and Twins have of not being successful in the playoffs (of course they do have that ONE WS championship) but the Braves have a significantly higher payroll than the A's or Twins.

I'm no friend of Beane, and I think his impact is signifcantly overstated, but I do have to give infinite credit to the Twins and A's scouting and development. Look at how much more successful they have been, and over an extended period of time than: Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, Cubs, Astros, Orioles, Mariners, Blue Jays, Phillies, and Mets--all teams with much higher payrolls.

Is their system perfect? No, of course not--they haven't won what counts. But they need more payroll to do that and that's not Ryan or Beane's fault. And guess what--you get to hang division championship flags in your stadium and they look pretty pretty

Frater Perdurabo
08-27-2006, 04:39 PM
My whole point with this thread is that with their superior resources, there is no reason why the Sox can't routinely smother the Twins. All they have to do is be as smart as the Twins are when it comes to drafting and development, and then the Sox will be able to do what the Twins cannot - retain their homegrown talent.

caulfield12
08-27-2006, 08:21 PM
My whole point with this thread is that with their superior resources, there is no reason why the Sox can't routinely smother the Twins. All they have to do is be as smart as the Twins are when it comes to drafting and development, and then the Sox will be able to do what the Twins cannot - retain their homegrown talent.

We'll see what happens on that front, beginning with Torii Hunter. Keep in mind, they're erasing a huge contract from their payroll in Radke, so that gives them some flexibility.

With Liriano, Silva (maybe), Bonser and Garza in the rotation, they only have a $15 million dollar rotation, including Santana.

And, with the new stadium on the way, they're going to be very careful about not letting key pieces go so they can open the new stadium with a competitive team.

Personally, I don't think they should spend $10-12 million a year on Hunter at this point. He's definitely lost a step or two, and, at lhis age, it's hard to get that back (look at Pods). Of course, he's been on a huge homer tear the last week, so many would argue that replacing Hunter w/ Jason Tyner long-term just can't work, that Tyner's weaknesses as an everyday player will be exposed. They really need Kubel to turn it up a notch offensively if they are going to shed Hunter...or sign someone much better than Boone, Batista or Rondell White out of the bargain bin.

As far as the other part of the question goes, they need to do a much better job in Latin America (especially the Dominican and Venezuela) than they have recently. When's the last stud Dominican player we scouted and signed? And we need to spend Yankees money to get some of these guys that have escaped. Yes, we did get Magglio and C-Lee out of the Americas, and we're broadening our reach with Iguchi/Takatsu, but we have to get some of those home-grown 16 year olds that turn out to be the next Vladimir Guerrero or Liriano or Santana.

chaerulez
01-04-2009, 11:11 AM
I never mentioned the A's, not once, you did.

Up until last year, the Sox were worse off than that, and always finished second to the Twins.

It is kind of ironic that the two low payroll teams that actually manage to compete meet in a series, and the baseball genius gets beat by the guy that believes in old school scouting and playing fundemental baseball.

The A's swept the Twins in 2006.

voodoochile
01-04-2009, 11:34 AM
The A's swept the Twins in 2006.

Why are you bumping this two year old dead thread to make this silly comment?

Closed.