I'm not even sure this isn't a joke
According to Dave Golokhov at FOXSports.com, the Twins - AL Central Champions in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006 - are the seventh-worst franchise in professional sports. The quote:
7. Minnesota Twins
"Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep." Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency. The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning.
Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torrii [sic] Hunter.
The Twins are on the list just behind the Boston Bruins, who haven't been to the conference finals in 15 years, and just ahead of the Atlanta Hawks, who haven't been to the conference finals since 1970 - and haven't been to the NBA Finals since before the Twins moved to Minnesota (when they were still the St. Louis Hawks.)
The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won the Stanley Cup since 1967, and are the saddest franchise in the NHL despite having the largest, most rabid fanbase. They aren't on the list.
The Oakland Raiders can't even get players to play for the silver and black, and every draft pick dreads getting the Oakland call. They aren't on the list.
Heck, the Twins aren't even the worst franchise in town by a long shot - yet the Timberwolves are nowhere to be found on the list.
In fact, according to Golokhov, the Twins are a worse franchise than the Los Angeles Clippers. That's a franchise that's been to the playoffs four times since moving from Buffalo in 1979, winning one - one! - playoff series since.
I'm forced to conclude that either Dave Golokhov has no idea what he's talking about, or that this is a prank designed to rile up Twins fans. I'm sure you can name ten or twenty more franchises easily that belong on this list instead of the Twins. But I thought I'd share this, just to remind us all: the Twins might be bad, but when you think about it, things haven't been that bad.
0 recs |
23 comments
Comments
Sounds like
someone who doesn’t really get it.
“we’re not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep.”
That’s right Dave. That’s why Morneau, Cuddyer and Nathan were signed to long-term deals.
Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency.
Yup. That’s why we kiss them goodbye—we can’t afford them, and/or we have a much cheaper in-house replacement who can replicate their performance. That’s sort of how sports (and business, actually) works.
The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again.
Hi, I’m the basics of business economics. Have we met?
The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning.
Wonderful opinion, seeminly based upon a superficial idea of how the team operates.
Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torrii [sic] Hunter.
Sure, why didn’t the Twins cripple themselves financially by signing these two guys to risky long-term deals? Hmm…..
by Jesse on May 4, 2008 10:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
???
when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again.
Branch Rickey made himself a baseball legend with this approach.
Also, the guy isn’t even smart enough to know they are no longer the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. They are just the ‘Rays’
by Johnny Safron on May 4, 2008 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i can name 20
baseball franchises worse than the minnesota twins
http://noblingblings.blogspot.com/
by Aaron Fix on May 4, 2008 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
do the twins
but the Twins do not employ a Sabermetric strategy, right?
I thought Sabermetrics involes playes taking a lot of walks and such. Throw batting average out the window. all that jazz. right?
by DedicatedFollowerOfFashion on May 4, 2008 10:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
not exactly
sabermetrics is just a way of evaluating players through numbers. numbers can tell you who’s good, and they make for easier projections, but it doesn’t tell you everything about the player. it’s easier to see how a guy can/could develop by scouting him. the best way for any franchise to operate is by taking advantage of both arenas. there’s no reason they should be mutuallly exclusive.
i’m sure the twins employ some sort of sabermetrics strategy; all teams do to some extent. it’s more than taking walks and not paying as much attention to BA, it’s about finding peripherals that indicate the true performance of a player. for example you can tell more about how a hitter performs by looking at his line drive percentage than his batting average; if a player hits a lot of line drives, he’s recognizing pitches and getting solid contact…batting average is dependent on defenses and luck (for a 600 at-bat season, the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is 30 hits over an entire year…or 5 extra hits a month…sure, it’s representative of some skill, but there are a lot of other factors involved).
by Jesse on May 4, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Confused
Over the span of the Twins run this decade, what is one player that the Twins let go that didnt turn out good for the Twins. Obviously David Ortiz, but I would argue that he needed to move on, just didnt fit well in this system and its not like teams were lining up to get him. He had been a dissapointment with the Twins. Guzman, Koskie, J. Jones, Lawton, and whoever else has been let go all had their prime with the Twins and havent done much since. I think most knowledgeable fans would agree letting Hunter walk was the right move financially for the Twins. Same with Santana, especially with the talent they got in return for Santana. It’s not like the Twins didnt find ways to keep most key players like Kirby Puckett, Kent Hrbeck, and so on. If this guy ripped the Twins this hard how did he rate the Athletics. The only player they have held onto has been Eric Chavez, which is a lot of the reason they are able to contend year after year. Clearly this writer is either joking or just plain ignorant and lazy.
by .mnqwerd on May 4, 2008 10:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ex-Twins
Some do well. JC Romero is kicking ass these days in Philadelphia. Guzman is playing well. Lohse is Dave Duncan’s latest Cardinal reclamation project.
Here’s a good piece on a kid who started as a Twin. He never lit up a league, but it’s a good story and shows there’s more than a bunch of numbers to the game. Sometimes, teams just need a player, and they aren’t going to find that man in a beer league:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/sports/baseball/05vecsey.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin
by Johnny Safron on May 5, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also Casey Blake...
...would have been nice to keep around, given how badly we have struggled to get production out of third base post-Koskie.
I don’t think the Twins are awful for letting these players go away, mind you, but I agree that not everyone has been worthless after they’ve left the Twins.
by ubelmann on May 5, 2008 3:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake and Ortiz
All of the guys JS mentioned struggled before finding themselves. But Blake was pretty much a hit as soon as he got to Cleveland. I keep thinking about how hard it’s been to fill third base since Koskie left. If we had just managed to hang onto Blake for a couple more years….
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on May 5, 2008 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't we
Didn’t we just run out of options on Blake? He just never could crack it with this team. He was a classic late bloomer…
And JC Romero is having a good start this year, and had another good year last year. But he had a terrible year in 2006, was never a pillar of consistency for the Twins, and the Twins bullpen has replaced him with other good pitchers for a cheaper price. It isn’t like our bullpen is struggling for arms. Kyle Lohse is what he is, inconsistent and average at the end of the day. Once again, we’ve replaced him fully with cheaper players. And Guzman is having a great start this year, after a great year last year (in only 175 AB’s), which is weird because he was one of the worst players in the game in 2006, and he wasn’t really very good for his last couple years in a twins uniform. His big contract was still too much, but at least it looks like the Nationals might get SOMETHING out of him now.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
by AdamOnFirst on May 5, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another Fox village idiot
I remember when Dayn Perry was the village idiot over there. He’s actually improved some. But I still don’t get half of what he says. Apparently Golokhov has won Perry’s old title. If it wasn’t for Ken Rosenthal, I would never go to that site.
The main flaw Golokov’s argument is he talks about losing high-profile players whom we can’t afford, but he never talks about the guys we get in return. It’s tough to argue with the Twins’ scouting of other team’s systems. All you have to do is look at the Twins system and you’ll find 10 guys in the top 20 prospects who came to the team in trades. The current roster has several key players acquired in astute trades. Whatever the Twins are doing, it seems to be working.
And how can a team that has had winning records in six out of the last seven years be considered one of the worst franchises in baseball? The Pirates have not had a winning season in 15 years. The Rays have never had a winning season. The Royals have three 100-loss seasons this decade. The Nationals nee Expos are perennial losers. Ditto the Orioles, and they do it with way more revenue than the Twins.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on May 4, 2008 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't know what he's talking about
Pointing to the Twins as an exemplar of a team that uses sabermetric analysis extensively shows a fundamental misunderstanding of either sabermetrics or how the Twins operate. They are actually known as a team that very much does not use sabermetrics. The manager openly disdains it and the rest of the organization has given no indication that it has adopted it in a big way.
by the kid nyc on May 4, 2008 10:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning.
The Twins know that these two things are related. If you don’t win in this town, you won’t get dollars. It’s that simple. If the 90’s taught this team anything, its that you have to spend money to make money. Cause if you do everything on the cheap, you won’t win and you’ll not get fannies in the seats. Now, the Twins have to invest wisely. They can’t overpay for aging veterans. They have to develop within. They have to follow Bill James’ principle of developing guys who have six years in the majors during their peak years (23-29 give or take). They make some mistakes. But few franchises rebuild on the fly as well as the Twins because they play younger players and they trade older players. Apparently this guy hasn’t read much Sabermetrics. If there’s one principle of Moneyball, it’s just that.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on May 4, 2008 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Huh
I’m forced to conclude that either Dave Golokhov has no idea what he’s talking about, or that this is a prank designed to rile up Twins fans.
I believe that it’s that latter. Golokhov seems to be living by the old Oscar Wilde edict, “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” He’s throwing chum to the sharks with this one.
by Neil on May 4, 2008 11:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The word 'chum' always makes me laugh, thanks to The Hardy Boys.
Frank and Joe, after their introductions in each book, had a friend named Chet, if I recall correctly. And in the books it was always mentioned that he was their ‘chum’.
Even when I was 7 and read those books, I’d laugh. It’s a funny word.
by Jesse on May 4, 2008 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loved those books too.
Chet Morton was a good guy…
by clutchhit20 on May 5, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chum
Is that a British term of endearment? As in, “life is a cabaret old chum.” Kind of makes you wonder about the origins of the term.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on May 5, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure...
I know the Hardy Boys were 100% American made, clean cut boys. But perhaps ‘chum’ was what your enemy referred to you as to your face. One of those friendly terms that really isn’t, because he thinks you’re shark fodder.
That’s dark.
by Jesse on May 5, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boring definition
Mirriam Webster claims that it may be an old shortening of “Chamber roomate,” so you could introduce your roommate as your “chum.”
But I like Jesse’s definition better. Gives it a little gravitas.
Unrelated to this line of discussion but related to the original post, Jonah Keri did a really great in-depth look at what he considers the “Failure Dynasties” of the MLB. It’s a great read, if you haven’t seen it:
by Neil on May 5, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I contacted You
Hey Jesse, I sent you an e-mail via the Blogs system, if you could respond at your leisure that would be greatly appreciated.
by Corey Ettinger on May 4, 2008 11:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what?
I seem to remember a asimilar article like this that ranked all the sports franchises. I don’t remember if it was on ESPN or SI, but it actually ranked the Twins very high. I think they were around 25 or so. They were the highest of all the Minnesota Teams. Anybody remember what I am talking about?
by jtizzle815 on May 5, 2008 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
“Moneyball” is to baseball what frugal is to cheap
I cannot figure out what in the world he’s trying to say with this quote. “Frugal” and “cheap” are basically synonyms (albeit with different connotations); “Moneyball” and “baseball” are nothing of the sort. I’d sort of like to read the rest of the article largely to see how bad it is, but if this is any indication what it’s like, I’m worried that my brain will crawl out of my head and hang itself.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on May 5, 2008 5:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
FireJoeMorgan
I (and apparantly many other people) emailed this article to firejoemorgan.com, and they wrote about it. It’s good to know its not just twins fans who know that this is rediculous.
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/05/cold-war.html
by lookatthosetwins on May 8, 2008 10:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 














