I seriously doubt the twins didn't make serious offer for Grienke and Sanchez.

 

Aren't unverifiable statements fun?

My opinion is that the Twins didn't make serious offers to Greinke or Sanchez. Is it your opinion they did?

 

Seriously?

My opinion is that the Twins didn't make serious offers to Greinke or Sanchez. Is it your opinion they did?

 

Seriously?

 

No, what i'm saying is both of our statements hold equal merit due to the lack of a shred of tangible evidence on either side.

No, what i'm saying is both of our statements hold equal merit due to the lack of a shred of tangible evidence on either side.

So then it IS your opinion that the Twins made serious offers to Greinke and/or Sanchez?

 

Or you don't think they made serious offers either, but you just felt the need to make a personal attack, while acknowledging the accuracy of the poster?

 

Which is it?

So then it IS your opinion that the Twins made serious offers to Greinke and/or Sanchez?

 

Or you don't think they made serious offers either, but you just felt the need to make a personal attack, while acknowledging the accuracy of the poster?

 

Which is it?

 

No, his post was meant to show how ridiculous your posts were, especially about irrefutable facts (that weren't facts or irrefutable) and how the FO works. His sarcasm worked but you didn't get it.

 

But I guess it's good to know that you thought 200m for Grienke or 80+ for Sanchez was a good idea.

Just out of curiosity, why do I keep seeing 200M thrown out for Grienke? He signed for $159M. Is the implication the Twins would have had to outbid the Dodgers by 40M for his services? That seems a bit of a stretch.

Just out of curiosity, why do I keep seeing 200M thrown out for Grienke? He signed for $159M. Is the implication the Twins would have had to outbid the Dodgers by 40M for his services? That seems a bit of a stretch.

 

That's my bad. In another thread (or maybe this one) someone suggested both guys and I just put down 200+ for them and kept doing it.

School of Thought 1: we should have signed a stud pitcher. I think stud FA pitchers are a bad long-term deal more often than not, and this is a club that needs to think long-term. Signing a really good shortstop, had there been any available, would have been a great plan by me. Or someone to play third base.

 

School of Thought 2: the Twins should have signed more pitchers to give themselves a better chance. I can see the logic here; if you pay 4 guys $2.5 million each and you keep 2 of them, you are getting the 2 best ones for $5 million per, in effect.

 

The problem there is you are basically talking about FAs who are hoping for a bounce-back year to a big contract, and they need innings to prove themselves. The Twins don't have many pitchers that were expected to be good, but they do have a lot of bodies that at least could be adequate. If you were a guy who needed to count on 175 IP this year, would you want to be one of 4 projects competing for 2 spots? I'd rather go to a team that was able to basically promise me a rotation spot (barring complete disaster).

 

You can disagree about who we signed, but I don't think the team could have signed more of them very easily, other than guys like Harden or Perez who will need to wait until later in the season anyway.

School of Thought 1: we should have signed a stud pitcher. I think stud FA pitchers are a bad long-term deal more often than not, and this is a club that needs to think long-term.

 

We keep hearing these refrains. If Grienke at 159M (not the 200M that makes an argument sound better) is horrible and stupid and outs you as a dumb poster (as implied just above) then what in the blue hell was the Mauer contract? The worst deal in the history of mankind? The biggest mistake our race has ever made? If you like that deal and guffaw at the Grienke deal....you have some serious 'splainin to do.

 

I'd like to just throw out there that the hyper-focus on Grienke and Sanchez is largely due to a few posters insisting on using them. Personally, I see anywhere from 40-60M unspent (closer to 60) and would have just liked to see it spent on anything that added talent and didn't block a part of the longterm future. Such as:

 

I advocated for Kelly Johnson (who is pounding the ball) for 2B, but what about him at 3B as an option since we don't want to block Dozier? How about Dan Haren? Take a flyer on Ervin Santana? Sign Adam Laroche to DH? Stephen Drew isn't blocking anyone. Take a flyer on Mike Adams, or Ryan Madson, or Joakim Soria? How about Alex Gonzalez at SS?

 

The idea that there was nothing that could make this ballclub better, that couldn't contribute now and in the future, is patently absurd. All these other conversations just deflect away from that central point.

We keep hearing these refrains. If Grienke at 159M (not the 200M that makes an argument sound better) is horrible and stupid and outs you as a dumb poster (as implied just above) then what in the blue hell was the Mauer contract? The worst deal in the history of mankind? The biggest mistake our race has ever made? If you like that deal and guffaw at the Grienke deal....you have some serious 'splainin to do.

 

Mauer had a much better track record of success before he signed his contract. As pointed out before, Grienke had 3.5 1.5 3.6 WAR over the previous 3 years when he signed his big contract at age 29. Mauer had posted 3.9 5.6 7.8 the previous 3 years and signed his deal at 27. Hitters also tend to be better long term bets than pitchers.

Mauer had a much better track record of success before he signed his contract. As pointed out before, Grienke had 3.5 1.5 3.6 WAR over the previous 3 years when he signed his big contract at age 29. Mauer had posted 3.9 5.6 7.8 the previous 3 years and signed his deal at 27. Hitters also tend to be better long term bets than pitchers.

 

All of this and then some. Mauer was younger, more valuable, and position players tend to fair better (especially contact hitters like Joe) through a career.

 

Through their careers, Mauer has averaged one more win a season.

Mauer had a much better track record of success before he signed his contract. As pointed out before, Grienke had 3.5 1.5 3.6 WAR over the previous 3 years when he signed his big contract at age 29. Mauer had posted 3.9 5.6 7.8 the previous 3 years and signed his deal at 27. Hitters also tend to be better long term bets than pitchers.

 

Actually, Mauer had just come off a career year and played the most physically demanding position in baseball. He was almost certain not to hit up to the levels the previous year and ran a higher degree of injury risk than average hitters due to many different factors. If the problem with Greinke is the years, the same concerns apply to Mauer. I'm not saying Mauer is a worse hitter or has a worse contract, but pretending these are radically different risks is just not true.

 

I wouldn't deny that Grienke is overrated largely. But if you're worried about deals hurting you in the long run, we have already had a taste of how the Mauer deal can do that.

So we should rush out and sign a big-time FA pitcher because long-term deals can hurt you? I surrender.

Actually, Mauer had just come off a career year and played the most physically demanding position in baseball. He was almost certain not to hit up to the levels the previous year and ran a higher degree of injury risk than average hitters due to many different factors. If the problem with Greinke is the years, the same concerns apply to Mauer. I'm not saying Mauer is a worse hitter or has a worse contract, but pretending these are radically different risks is just not true.

 

I wouldn't deny that Grienke is overrated largely. But if you're worried about deals hurting you in the long run, we have already had a taste of how the Mauer deal can do that.

 

Even ignoring the career year, Mauer had a larger, longer track record of success and was younger.

So we should rush out and sign a big-time FA pitcher because long-term deals can hurt you? I surrender.

 

Missed that point. All long term deals are overpayments with a lot of risk.....I dont get this "bust the holy water" about Grienke or other FA and then we celebrate the brilliance of Mauer.

 

There is a pretty marginsal difference in risk.

Missed that point. All long term deals are overpayments with a lot of risk.....I dont get this "bust the holy water" about Grienke or other FA and then we celebrate the brilliance of Mauer.

 

There is a pretty marginsal difference in risk.

 

There's also the difference between being a position player at a premium position vs being a starter pitching every 5 days.

 

If you have player A and B are equal levels of talent at their respective position, and Player A is a position player and B is a pitcher... I take player A every time.

 

edit:

 

Also, as far as Mauer goes. He had the Twins by the balls... The Twins had to retain Mauer after getting the new stadium at any cost. Combine that with Mauer just happening to have a career year right before that... The Twins ended up paying Mauer a lot of money.

Is this thread a joke? Ha every fan that knows baseball knows that the Twins needed a top of the roto pitcher, I dont remeber anyone really talking about any of them. Yea there were a couple rumors here and there but everyone knew we needed a proven top of the roto pitcher.

 

...

 

Its sad to see fans say stuff like you try to make the Twins look good or something when they have done nothing to make us fans happy. The only thing they have done is dump 40+ million in the last 2 offseasons.

 

If you want to express YOUR opinion, please feel free to do so. Saying "Everybody knows..." is, in my opinion, your attempt to make someone feel bad. And you kept on trying.

 

If you don't want to talk baseball, don't post here.

There's also the difference between being a position player at a premium position vs being a starter pitching every 5 days.

 

Then you're talking about how you prioritize your money, not about risk. I wouldn't disagree, but it's a different point. Not to mention, one could argue that we signed Mauer to that contract with at least a strong chance that he may not end up continuing to play that premium position as well.

 

As for that last part I completely agree. The Twins had no choice but to sign Mauer, I'm more talking about these deals in a vacuum. Anyone who suggests that there is miles of difference in risk or value - they're fooling themselves. Large FA contracts almost always share the same risks. Some may be riskier than others, but most all of them carry serious risk.

Then you're talking about how you prioritize your money, not about risk. I wouldn't disagree, but it's a different point. Not to mention, one could argue that we signed Mauer to that contract with at least a strong chance that he may not end up continuing to play that premium position as well.

 

As for that last part I completely agree. The Twins had no choice but to sign Mauer, I'm more talking about these deals in a vacuum. Anyone who suggests that there is miles of difference in risk or value - they're fooling themselves. Large FA contracts almost always share the same risks. Some may be riskier than others, but most all of them carry serious risk.

 

I would argue long term contracts to position players are inherently less risky than a pitcher considering the epidemic of Tommy John surgeries.

 

A pitcher has a significantly lower number of injuries they can play through... a hitter like Mauer, can still play first base or DH if injuries take him away from catching. Yes the value is less, but it's not fall off the face of the planet less like a pitcher with a significant injury.

A pitcher has a significantly lower number of injuries they can play through... a hitter like Mauer, can still play first base or DH if injuries take him away from catching. Yes the value is less, but it's not fall off the face of the planet less like a pitcher with a significant injury.

 

Unless you have bilateral leg weakness....or whatever the hell that was. I get the sense that pitchers are injured more, but catchers struggle with long term durability at the position as well. Point is...if you're afraid of the Grienke deal, you should be afraid of most any deal that it takes to retain and add elite talent. That would worry me if I was a fan.

if you're afraid of the Grienke deal, you should be afraid of most any deal that it takes to retain and add elite talent. That would worry me if I was a fan.

 

No, it just means you use your money wisely and actually use it on elite talent, like Mauer.

No, it just means you use your money wisely and actually use it on elite talent, like Mauer.

 

How often does elite talent hit the market? In two years...would you sign, say, a Prince Fielder to his deal? Or Pujols? Is this just anti-Grienke?

No, his post was meant to show how ridiculous your posts were, especially about irrefutable facts (that weren't facts or irrefutable) and how the FO works. His sarcasm worked but you didn't get it.

 

But I guess it's good to know that you thought 200m for Grienke or 80+ for Sanchez was a good idea.

 

Please explain what was "ridiculous" about my post. What was ridiculous about posting my opinion (that the Twins didn't make a serious offer to either Sanchez or Greinke)?

 

I'd really like to hear why that's so ridiculous, since you share the same opinion.

 

I mean, you have to. You can't believe the Twins made serious offers to either, since you've spent dozens of posts telling us all why that would have been such a bad idea, and that Ryan is smarter than that. If Ryan made a serious offer to either, by your own statements, you would be force into the position of disagreeing with those offers, no? Where are those posts?

 

For the record, I don't think it would have taken $200M to sign Greinke. I might even call that a ridiculous post on your part.

Makes sense, but you said yourself neither Greinke nor Sanchez was money well spent.

 

Another request: can you show me where I said that?

How often does elite talent hit the market? In two years...would you sign, say, a Prince Fielder to his deal? Or Pujols? Is this just anti-Grienke?

 

It's pretty rare. I don't think the Twins should have targeted anyone over the last two years, they were too far away from competing to do it. I do think a team close to the top should use money on FA to get over the top, something the Twins couldn't do in their small market days but is something they should do now that they are at TF.

2012 Grienke, Upton, Hamilton

2011 Darvish, Fielder , Puhols, Reyes

2010 Cliff Lee, V Mart, Crawford, Beltre

2009 Holiday, Lackey

2008 Tiexera, Sabathia.

 

There is pretty elite talent every year that becomes available.

It's pretty rare. I don't think the Twins should have targeted anyone over the last two years, they were too far away from competing to do it. I do think a team close to the top should use money on FA to get over the top, something the Twins couldn't do in their small market days but is something they should do now that they are at TF.

 

This seems highly inconsistent after just calling someone ridiculous for thinking the idea of signing Grienke should be entertained. I'm not sure if you are in the drjim camp of not understanding inflation and new revenue streams....but the deals ain't gonna get any easier to swallow.

Edited May 13, 201313 yr by TheLeviathan

This seems highly inconsistent after just calling someone ridiculous for thinking the idea of signing Grienke should be entertained. I'm not sure if you are in the drjim camp of not understanding inflation and new revenue streams....but the deals ain't gonna get any easier to swallow.

 

I'm quite confident I understand salary inflation and new revenues. Not as confident you have as much grasp on risk outcomes since every time it is mentioned you deflect it back to salary and the space

the Twins have.

Another request: can you show me where I said that?

 

I'd like to, but I can't find anything in the forum archives. It was in the last thread we had about what horrible signings Correia and Pelfrey were.

I'm quite confident I understand salary inflation and new revenues. Not as confident you have as much grasp on risk outcomes since every time it is mentioned you deflect it back to salary and the space

the Twins have.

 

When you have elaborated specifics and quantified "risk" for each individual player and share your formula for doing so, I'd be happy to hear why your viewpoint is superior.

 

I did that with revenue, after four or five times I feel like you grasped the elementary math at root in that...correct?

I'd like to, but I can't find anything in the forum archives. It was in the last thread we had about what horrible signings Correia and Pelfrey were.

Or maybe you have me confused with another poster. In any case, in the future please do not attribute statements to me without supplying the quote. Thanks in advance.