Comparing Sox & Twins minor league systems

[Ol' No. 2]

Originally Posted by Daver

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.

Originally Posted by Daver

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]

Originally Posted by Ol' No. 2

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]

Originally Posted by Ol' No. 2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Craig Grebeck

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]

Originally Posted by Ol' No. 2

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]

Originally Posted by Ol' No. 2

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]

Originally Posted by Ol' No. 2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo

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]

Originally Posted by Daver

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]

Originally Posted by chaerulez

The A's swept the Twins in 2006.

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

Closed.