Pitchers we didn't get - updated

[drjim]

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?

 

It gets to the point where if you don't want to hear something you won't.

[TheLeviathan]

It gets to the point where if you don't want to hear something you won't.

 

Well, or I could go over the top hitting FAs of the last 5-7 years and show you how much of a crapshoot they are in the last few years of their deals too. Risk comes with signing large FA contracts. Which is required to add elite talent.

 

If you're not ok with doing that - just say it. Quit flailing away in every post to come up with a new excuse to say you are ok with it. It's inconsistent and almost constantly fallacious.

[drjim]

Well, or I could go over the top hitting FAs of the last 5-7 years and show you how much of a crapshoot they are in the last few years of their deals too. Risk comes with signing large FA contracts. Which is required to add elite talent.

 

If you're not ok with doing that - just say it. Quit flailing away in every post to come up with a new excuse to say you are ok with it. It's inconsistent and almost constantly fallacious.

 

How much clearer do I have to say exactly that. Over the next two years the risk for a contract like this is excessive. Especially for the actual pitchers that were available and the actual contracts it would take to sign them.

 

Your comprehension issues aside this has basically been my point the whole time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, enough with the petty bickering or this thread is going to be locked as well.

 

State your points and be done with it. If you can't find resolution, either stop arguing or steer the argument in a different direction.

[TheLeviathan]

How much clearer do I have to say exactly that. Over the next two years the risk for a contract like this is excessive. Especially for the actual pitchers that were available and the actual contracts it would take to sign them.

 

Your comprehension issues aside this has basically been my point the whole time.

 

So you'd rather absorb all the risk at the time it would project to most hurt the team's budget? Does....not....compute. No matter what new way you spin it. I'm done, it's clear you have no idea what you actually think, no point debating someone who hasn't even rectified their own premises for consistency and basic logic.

[ThePuck]

So you'd rather absorb all the risk at the time it would project to most hurt the team's budget? Does....not....compute. No matter what new way you spin it. I'm done, it's clear you have no idea what you actually think, no point debating someone who hasn't even rectified their own premises for consistency and basic logic.

 

I think the point is, defend Ryan's lack of spending at all costs.

[gunnarthor]

Well, or I could go over the top hitting FAs of the last 5-7 years and show you how much of a crapshoot they are in the last few years of their deals too. Risk comes with signing large FA contracts. Which is required to add elite talent.

 

So what "elite talent" did you think the Twins should have been signing?

[TheLeviathan]

So what "elite talent" did you think the Twins should have been signing?

 

I think they should have pursued Sanchez. I also listed a ton of other options on another thread that could have been 2 or 3 year deals as well. Ultimately they may have failed to sign those guys. But I also seriously doubt they tried.

 

And....before you even post it, straight from the mouth of the front office....."dollars and years" that's how you close deals.

[drjim]

So you'd rather absorb all the risk at the time it would project to most hurt the team's budget? Does....not....compute. No matter what new way you spin it. I'm done, it's clear you have no idea what you actually think, no point debating someone who hasn't even rectified their own premises for consistency and basic logic.

 

I guess I'm just not that obsessed with payroll. There are other considerations, which I have tried to explain and I would argue factor more into the Twins decision making, but for some reason it is always about payroll and always gets deflected back to that.

 

It is indeed pointless to debate if that is the only thing you consider no matter what. I concede they have the room for a signing like that bases upon current payroll and revenue streams but I don't concede the specific players available last offseason would have been good signings because of risk factors primarily as well as other considerations.

[drjim]

I think the point is, defend Ryan's lack of spending at all costs.

 

Payroll!

[gunnarthor]

I think they should have pursued Sanchez. I also listed a ton of other options on another thread that could have been 2 or 3 year deals as well. Ultimately they may have failed to sign those guys. But I also seriously doubt they tried.

 

And....before you even post it, straight from the mouth of the front office....."dollars and years" that's how you close deals.

 

Well, I'll include Sanchez on these updates going forward. I'm not opposed to signing him and I would have been happy if we did. But I think it doesn't make much sense during a rebuild to invest that much in a pitcher with his limited track record and age.

[ThePuck]

Sanchez has an ERA under 3.90 in the last 4 seasons going into this season...pitched a hair under 200 innings the last three season going into this season...and he just turned the ripe old age of 29. In two years over 30M of our current budget will likely be off the books and Hicks and Arcia will be a year or so into arbitration by the time Sanchez current deal ends. If he continues at anywhere near this rate, his salary will be a bargain and our payroll would be lower than it is now...all the way through his contract...even if we had signed Sanchez.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I'm just not that obsessed with payroll.

 

Um, we're in discussions about payroll. That is largely going to center around, well, payroll. Why is that surprising? That's not being "obsessed", it's being "on topic"

 

As cmat and I discussed in the other thread - a strong farm is essential to the team's future. But there are really only three viable ways to add talent (especially elite talent): Draft it, trade for it, or sign it in free agency. You are basically advocating for the outright dismissal of 1/3 of those options.

 

Personally, I don't like closing off ways to make the team better, even if sometimes that pill is bitter to swallow. St. Louis and Atlanta (similar markets with a farm-first mentality) DO use dollars in FA and in being willing to hand out hefty extensions to guys they trade for. They don't balk at that. And it has paid major dividends for them both in terms of their team's talent levels.

 

I'm not obsessed with the payroll, but I'm obsessed with the idea that they shouldn't dismiss it as a tool to make the team better. Most all of your argument suggest exactly that. (Well, the ones that don't contradict the other ones.)

[jokin]

Well, I'll include Sanchez on these updates going forward. I'm not opposed to signing him and I would have been happy if we did. But I think it doesn't make much sense during a rebuild to invest that much in a pitcher with his limited track record and age.

 

A "rebuild" is when you gut your entire lineup of high dollar players and bring in youngsters and ultra-cheap, veteran placeholders. That is not the current state of affairs with the Twins. With the intact core from 2010, this easily could/should have been a reload/reboot team. The key part in this strategy would have been in identifying and acquiring the needed assets as they become available, elite players for the longer term (Sanchez) and stop-gap rent/flip-a-players (Maholm, Carroll) while waiting for the farm to mature.

[cmathewson]

Sanchez has an ERA under 3.90 in the last 4 seasons going into this season...pitched a hair under 200 innings the last three season going into this season...and he just turned the ripe old age of 29. In two years over 30M of our current budget will likely be off the books and Hicks and Arcia will be a year or so into arbitration by the time Sanchez current deal ends. If he continues at anywhere near this rate, his salary will be a bargain and our payroll would be lower than it is now...all the way through his contract...even if we had signed Sanchez.

 

I looked more closely at the numbers and they look like a number 3 starter at best. You can expect 195 innings and an ERA+ of between 105 and 115. Nothing in his stats screams top of the rotation to me, except perhaps the Ks. But that's in the NL, where you get three extra Ks a game.

 

The only reason this guy got 5/85-6/96 is because he was one of two front of the rotation starters under 30 in his FA class. I stand by my assessment: Save your money and sign Johnson, Nolasco, Volquez or E. Santana for the less after the season.

[Oxtung]

A "rebuild" is when you gut your entire lineup of high dollar players and bring in youngsters and ultra-cheap, veteran placeholders. That is not the current state of affairs with the Twins. With the intact core from 2010, this easily could/should have been a reload/reboot team. The key part in this strategy would have been in identifying and acquiring the needed assets as they become available, elite players for the longer term (Sanchez) and stop-gap rent/flip-a-players (Maholm, Carroll) while waiting for the farm to mature.

 

Sanchez is a good player, certainly above average, but he doesn't fall into the elite category unless one wants to stretch the term to absurd proportions.

[ThePuck]

I looked more closely at the numbers and they look like a number 3 starter at best. You can expect 195 innings and an ERA+ of between 105 and 115. Nothing in his stats screams top of the rotation to me, except perhaps the Ks. But that's in the NL, where you get three extra Ks a game.

 

The only reason this guy got 5/85-6/96 is because he was one of two front of the rotation starters under 30 in his FA class. I stand by my assessment: Save your money and sign Johnson, Nolasco, Volquez or E. Santana for the less after the season.

 

Getting just under 200 IP with that ERA is huge...and he averages more Ks/9 IP in the AL than he did in the NL...though the sample size is smaller for the AL for sure. It's certainly not 3 three extra Ks a game in the NL.

[TheLeviathan]

I looked more closely at the numbers and they look like a number 3 starter at best. You can expect 195 innings and an ERA+ of between 105 and 115. Nothing in his stats screams top of the rotation to me, except perhaps the Ks. But that's in the NL, where you get three extra Ks a game.

 

"At best"? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Sanchez is a lower class 2/high end 3. Which would all but make him our ace.

 

But you did actually compare Sanchez to the group you later posted right? Nolasco is a career 93+ ERA in a dominant pitchers park, Johnson can't stay healthy, Volquez is career 89+ ERA, and Ervin Santana is 98+. So you're after inferior pitchers on the assumption they will be cheaper. I'd like to suggest that that particular premise is dubious at best.

[whydidnt]

I don't know, I think you could see these numbers as a #2 (or a number 1 for most Twins teams of recent vintage). There are a couple of positives too - he's been pretty consistently good, he's been healthy, he didn't get blown up while pitching in the AL last year. In any event he didn't get the "elite" money that guys like Sabathia, Hernandez, Grienke, Verlander have gotten, so it's a bit of a stetch to put his deal in the same breath as theirs or other "elite" pitchers. He got what the market for reliable #2-3 pitchers dictates, and frankly I think he's better than every one of the guys you listed that might be available this year.

 

I will agree, though, that Sanchez wanted to stay in Detroit and it probably wouldn't have taken more either $'s or years to get him to come here.

 

In any event, the Twins could have landed 3 starters with considerably more upside this year for roughly 15-20 Million, which they have available to spend - and still brought in Corriera if the were so fascinated with him. Guys like Marcum, McCarthy and Villanueva. Marcum and McCarthy have been disappointing so far, but McCarthy is showing signs of life and when you are bottom feeding you're going to have to accept that not every signing is going to work.

 

I would have been much more excited about laying my money down to buy tickets if the Twins had spent a little in this manner during the offseason.

 

I looked more closely at the numbers and they look like a number 3 starter at best. You can expect 195 innings and an ERA+ of between 105 and 115. Nothing in his stats screams top of the rotation to me, except perhaps the Ks. But that's in the NL, where you get three extra Ks a game.

 

The only reason this guy got 5/85-6/96 is because he was one of two front of the rotation starters under 30 in his FA class. I stand by my assessment: Save your money and sign Johnson, Nolasco, Volquez or E. Santana for the less after the season.

[jokin]

I don't know, I think you could see these numbers as a #2 (or a number 1 for most Twins teams of recent vintage). There are a couple of positives too - he's been pretty consistently good, he's been healthy, he didn't get blown up while pitching in the AL last year. In any event he didn't get the "elite" money that guys like Sabathia, Hernandez, Grienke, Verlander have gotten, so it's a bit of a stetch to put his deal in the same breath as theirs or other "elite" pitchers. He got what the market for reliable #2-3 pitchers dictates, and frankly I think he's better than every one of the guys you listed that might be available this year.

 

I will agree, though, that Sanchez wanted to stay in Detroit and it probably wouldn't have taken more either $'s or years to get him to come here.

 

In any event, the Twins could have landed 3 starters with considerably more upside this year for roughly 15-20 Million, which they have available to spend - and still brought in Corriera if the were so fascinated with him. Guys like Marcum, McCarthy and Villanueva. Marcum and McCarthy have been disappointing so far, but McCarthy is showing signs of life and when you are bottom feeding you're going to have to accept that not every signing is going to work.

 

I would have been much more excited about laying my money down to buy tickets if the Twins had spent a little in this manner during the offseason.

 

I concur with your list, they were on mine, too. Also Jackson and Lannan. Jackson is pitching far better this year than his ERA numbers indicate, periphs good at, better, or near, career levels, FIP at 3.50, Big Innings Guy---200 IP/Yr over the last 5 years. Is anyone on the Twins going to reach even 175 innings this year? Lannan is also an autmatic 200 inning/yr. guy, on the ultra-cheap. He pitched great in his first 2 outings before an injury in his 3rd- he's out until June, but like you stated, that's baseball.

[jokin]

Sanchez is a good player, certainly above average, but he doesn't fall into the elite category unless one wants to stretch the term to absurd proportions.

 

How absurd is "absurd", by your definition? 160 or so SPs in baseball over the last 4 years. Sanchez is the top rated SP in 2013. #8 for 2012-13. #8 for 2011-13. #8 for 2010-13. # 8 would place him in the top 5%. My definition has him as "elite."

[drjim]

Um, we're in discussions about payroll. That is largely going to center around, well, payroll. Why is that surprising? That's not being "obsessed", it's being "on topic"

 

As cmat and I discussed in the other thread - a strong farm is essential to the team's future. But there are really only three viable ways to add talent (especially elite talent): Draft it, trade for it, or sign it in free agency. You are basically advocating for the outright dismissal of 1/3 of those options.

 

Personally, I don't like closing off ways to make the team better, even if sometimes that pill is bitter to swallow. St. Louis and Atlanta (similar markets with a farm-first mentality) DO use dollars in FA and in being willing to hand out hefty extensions to guys they trade for. They don't balk at that. And it has paid major dividends for them both in terms of their team's talent levels.

 

I'm not obsessed with the payroll, but I'm obsessed with the idea that they shouldn't dismiss it as a tool to make the team

better. Most all of your argument suggest exactly that. (Well, the ones that don't contradict the other ones.)

 

Is it hyberbole, twisting of my words to fit your simple narrative or willful ignorance of what I have been saying the whole time?

 

I can't believe after this whole time this is how you would summarize my position but I do have better insight as to how so many of your debates ended so smoothly on BYTO.

[TheLeviathan]

Is it hyberbole, twisting of my words to fit your simple narrative or willful ignorance of what I have been saying the whole time?

 

Are you clear on what you've been saying "the whole time"? I'm not, I won't claim otherwise. It's hard since it's shifted so many times I lost track of whatever point you may have thought you had.

[Oxtung]

How absurd is "absurd", by your definition? 160 or so SPs in baseball over the last 4 years. Sanchez is the top rated SP in 2013. #8 for 2012-13. #8 for 2011-13. #8 for 2010-13. # 8 would place him in the top 5%. My definition has him as "elite."

 

I'm not sure what "#8" means since you supplied no statistic to go with it. I'll toss a few out there though. Among starting pitchers:

 

2012

WAR - 22nd

ERA - 50th

xFIP - 22nd

 

2011

WAR - 27th

ERA - 47th

xFIP - 13th

 

2010

WAR - 19th

ERA - 34th

xFIP - 54th

 

The only number approaching "elite" status there is his xFIP in 2011. Now combined with his IP and he is a good starter. Still not elite though.

[ThePuck]

There are 30 teams...being 22, 27th and 19th in WAR for SP is NOT considered to be a solid #2?

[gunnarthor]

A "rebuild" is when you gut your entire lineup of high dollar players and bring in youngsters and ultra-cheap, veteran placeholders. That is not the current state of affairs with the Twins. With the intact core from 2010, this easily could/should have been a reload/reboot team. The key part in this strategy would have been in identifying and acquiring the needed assets as they become available, elite players for the longer term (Sanchez) and stop-gap rent/flip-a-players (Maholm, Carroll) while waiting for the farm to mature.

 

I believe we have 5 players on this years team that was on our 2010 team and two of them Perkins and Plouffe didn't play much.

 

Glad to know we're not rebuilding.

[gunnarthor]

Lannan is also an autmatic 200 inning/yr. guy, on the ultra-cheap. He pitched great in his first 2 outings before an injury in his 3rd- he's out until June, but like you stated, that's baseball.

 

He's done it once, he's a bad pitcher and he's back on the DL. He hasn't had a WAR above 1 since 2009.

[gunnarthor]

Marcum and McCarthy have been disappointing so far, but McCarthy is showing signs of life and when you are bottom feeding you're going to have to accept that not every signing is going to work.

 

I'm not sure we're so open minded about Twins pitchers posting 60ish ERA+ or accepting of those signings.

[Oxtung]

There are 30 teams...being 22, 27th and 19th in WAR for SP is NOT considered to be a solid #2?

 

Solid #2 definitely. Since I only believe there are 10ish elite pitchers in MLB he doesn't fit the term. Perhaps we're just arguing semantics. I would definitely call him a #2 starter.

[ThePuck]

Solid #2 definitely. Since I only believe there are 10ish elite pitchers in MLB he doesn't fit the term. Perhaps we're just arguing semantics. I would definitely call him a #2 starter.

 

I never said he was an ace or elite...