Doomtints

The Twins have been doing this for years -- signing washed up guys before spring training. Sometimes the players make it through spring training, sometimes not. Sometimes they are cut a month or two later, sometimes not. Nothing new to see here. The Twins are still rolling the dice on has-beens. The front office change hasn't changed a hell of a lot with how this team is run.

Yes, there was an armed guard who not only did not engage the shooter but who went nowhere near the situation. No one can explain why, but whatever excuse we hear later will be ridiculous. What this amounts to is the guard thought he was making an easy salary and he disappeared when it was time for him to work. (But, on the other hand, it's not like he would have made much of a difference. The armed guards on campus thing is a giant red herring. They won't help defuse anything, they will only raise tensions in an active shooter situation.) Did you know that gun violence in the US costs every American man, woman and child $700 per year? Where are the "fiscal conservatives"?

This is what we should have expected. No bad feelings here. But if plan B is gutting the team for a statistical #3 pitcher, well ... that might be a tougher pill to swallow.

There was a very interesting article written which listed out the best ways to predict future ERA after analyzing all of the data. Here are the findngs, in order from "most predictive" to "least predictive": SIERA xFIP ERA FIP ERA is a better predictor of future performance than FIP. fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP or SIERA.

Yes, that's the textbook definition of FIP for anyone new. Now what? Do you trust this rubbish when it comes to Archer, whose other stats don't match it?

I know. I already corrected my typo. See above.

fWAR uses FIP which makes your point circular.

It is? Perhaps if you delete 90% of what I wrote, sure.

You missed the point. If you are looking at a data point and it doesn't match the rest of the data, you have to think about it critically. Literally no metric, including bWAR, matches fWAR for this player. How can you trust it? Anyone who "buys high" on Archer has no business anywhere near baseball metrics, or any metrics, or any business for that matter.

fWAR doesn't match his other metrics. How can a supposed top-5 pitcher have an ERA+ of 100, an ERA over 4, and 31 losses in two years? Some of us are looking at numbers on a page and not thinking critically about what they are looking at. bWAR matches his other metrics and calls him out as the #3 that he actually is. We had these types of debates over Ricky Nolasco, everyone in Twins territory was convinced he was a steal, all based on bloated numbers on Fangraphs. Give me this promise ... when Archer is less than exciting in the near future ... we all retire fWAR forever (or at the very least, we look at numbers with a critical eye).

Archer has been a below average pitcher (negative WAA) for the past two years. If WAA isn't your fancy, feel free to use ERA+, WAR, or whatever, and you will see he is a #3 and not an ace. (And stop lumping in his WAR from three years ago to say he's been one of the best pitchers in the game three years running. That's ridiculous.) Twins fans are overvaluing him and willing to make a substantial cut to our prospects to land him. I hope Twins management isn't thinking the same way. Right now, Archer is a #3 and he is right at the age where the decline usually begins. He may stay a #3, he may not, but he won't be a #1 or #2. Archer's strength is his cost, which is disgustingly cheap for a #3. If I were him I would consider filing a grievance with the union to force a new contract. He already fired his old manager. In any case, the question becomes ... are the Twins willing to gut the pipeline to save a buck and get a league average pitcher at best? God, I hope not. If the Twins want to part ways with Sano (who is cheaper than Archer AND a better player), and do a 1:1 trade... sure. I wouldn't do that but I could understand it. Kepler might be the only 1:1 trade that makes sense when talking about player value. If the Twins are at all considering giving up multiple players for Archer, they are nuts.

I would wager the front office was very serious about trying to land Darvish. It's all they talked about. In a bubble, they probably would have loved to offer him six years and more money. What happened here was very likely Mr. Pohlad pulling them back a bit. Terry Ryan learned over the years never to ask for certain things, the new crew is learning why. Now what will happen is the Twins will overpay for a #3/#4 rather than paying market rate for a #1/#2. Same old story.

Football contracts aren't guaranteed anyway. Give him what he wants, cut him later if it's not working out. He should at the very worst make it through two years, which would gobble up any of the guaranteed money and leave the Vikings off the hook if he is cut. Football doesn't have to worry about the back end of contracts sinking the ships.

The Twins are trying to trade for a cheap #3. That's something, right?

This is as "real" as your Dozier trade thread last year. I'm not sure why you do this stuff.

How so? Archer is a #3.

FAKE.

DaveW, you seem pretty upset. But, come on, this is what you expected to happen. I purposely avoided most threads on the Darvish topic because I didn't want to get sucked into anything that wasn't going to happen. Chicago is a great city and, all other things being equal, that's where I would go for a job too. Plus, the current Cubs club is built to win, just like the Red Sox club was a few years ago. Darvish can play for the Cubs with high expectations for the team, whereas in MN there is still a chance the team tanks for another five years.

Sure. I'm more conservative with my projection, but I think if you are getting 90 wins v. 85 wins, you're increasing your playoff odds by a lot more than 2%.

Wouldn't a healthy Darvish be worth around 5-6 wins (no, I'm not talking about WAR)? That's more than 2% if the Twins are slated to finish around .500 with what they've got.

Landing near 81 is a fair assessment.

Groundhog week. :/

Yeh. Sometimes we go too far down the rabbit hole and start talking about which #5 to pick up or which bench players to pick up. The Twins should work from the top down.

The defensive play Santana got was a bit different from the defensive play some of the other guys got. You gotta be a great guy in the clubhouse to really get peak effort from guys ... that's just reality/human nature.

I don't think the OP picked the best players on the pool, but this team would do some damage.