PDA

View Full Version : Should The Twins Bring Back Scott Baker?



BBWriterMan
10-02-2012, 03:30 PM
I think it's safe to say the Twins will not pick up Scott Baker's $9.25 million option for next year, but I do think they could bring him back at a much lower salary if he looks healthy coming back from TJ surgery. I really think other teams will have tepid interest in him at best, so it may come down to him taking the Twins' offer or simply not signing a major league contract that has any type of guarantees with any team for 2013.

What do you all think?

Here's my analysis of the situation, featured at Rant Sports.com

Link: http://www.rantsports.com/mlb/2012/10/02/mlb-rumors-should-the-minnesota-twins-bring-back-scott-baker/

old nurse
10-02-2012, 07:24 PM
What teams pick up the options of their pitchers and how ealy they are announces will set a payroll level for all teams. That will set if 9 million for Baker is too big of a reach. More than likely they will negotiate a deal that still overpays Baker. Offer to little and they have nothing. Sign him and they still might have nothing.

kab21
10-02-2012, 08:03 PM
Perhaps if you read TD more often then you would know that this has been discussed many times already including an article. http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php?1044-Should-Twins-Sign-Scott-Baker-Now

BBWriterMan
10-02-2012, 10:29 PM
Sorry, I actually just joined late last week and did not peruse the archives re: Baker. And there actually was some new news that he is throwing off flat ground now, which prompted my article.

Just trying to get some renewed discussion going, and bring people like me that did not participate here previously the chance to do so.

twinsnorth49
10-02-2012, 10:42 PM
Sorry, I actually just joined late last week and did not peruse the archives re: Baker. And there actually was some new news that he is throwing off flat ground now, which prompted my article.

Just trying to get some renewed discussion going, and bring people like me that did not participate here previously the chance to do so.

Just try to ignore the d**k heads or you'll never survive here, besides his Mom probably grounded him and took away his PS3.

To answer your question, I think yes, on a 1 year, incentive heavy deal with an option.

BBWriterMan
10-02-2012, 10:50 PM
Thanks, that's good advice. I guess I just didn't appreciate the insinuation that I am not well-informed.

I agree with you, but I'm not so sure about the option? A cheap option ( around $1 million) maybe?

twinsnorth49
10-02-2012, 11:04 PM
Thanks, that's good advice. I guess I just didn't appreciate the insinuation that I am not well-informed.

I agree with you, but I'm not so sure about the option? A cheap option ( around $1 million) maybe?

Option will need to be better than that, 6-10 million likely or why would he bother? If he comes back and has a successful year it's well worth it to have the control for the 2nd year.

kab21
10-02-2012, 11:32 PM
Sorry, I actually just joined late last week and did not peruse the archives re: Baker. And there actually was some new news that he is throwing off flat ground now, which prompted my article.

Just trying to get some renewed discussion going, and bring people like me that did not participate here previously the chance to do so.

Just try to ignore the d**k heads or you'll never survive here, besides his Mom probably grounded him and took away his PS3.

To answer your question, I think yes, on a 1 year, incentive heavy deal with an option.

You show a lot of maturity yourself. I get sick of people dropping in with links to their blogs like it's something that hasn't been discussed before. And it's discussed in some thread almost weekly.

snepp
10-03-2012, 12:03 AM
I'm with kab, three of his first five posts were trolling for traffic, it reeks of shameless self promotion to me.


Maybe the powers that be don't mind, but I know I would.

BBWriterMan
10-03-2012, 10:58 PM
The powers that be did tell me I could post links to my work here, but maybe I should refrain if others are offended. Oh, and I'm not "trolling for traffic"-it's called promoting my work, but call it whatever you want.

BrentMpls
10-04-2012, 12:32 AM
I sure hope not

old nurse
10-04-2012, 09:25 AM
The powers that be did tell me I could post links to my work here, but maybe I should refrain if others are offended. Oh, and I'm not "trolling for traffic"-it's called promoting my work, but call it whatever you want.

Your "work" needs work if you are trying to be a writer.

Twins Fan From Afar
10-04-2012, 09:53 AM
Wow. I have to say that this thread seems unnecessarily nasty.
Plenty of people here with independent blogs, such as myself, do link to their work from time to time. Not sure what the harm is. It's just like anything else in life: you have a choice -- either click on the link, or don't.

IdahoPilgrim
10-04-2012, 10:23 AM
Ignoring the shift of topic from Baker to site participation standards (and ignoring hyperlinks as I always do), I think you absolutely bring Baker back, with a one-year deal low on base salary but with substantial incentives, and with a sizable team option for 2014. My guess is that's all Baker could expect anyway given his recent injury and, to be blunt, Baker at 80% is still better than most of the people who started for the Twins this year.

Dilligaf69
10-04-2012, 10:36 AM
YES! and I think they pretty much decided they want to to try, and I think Baker will accept a VEY reduced salary. He and his family like it here and are comfartable and that goes a long way in these players decision. Now if he's blown away by a multi million dollar offer(which is less then likely) then i think he returns and I would welcome him back.

Dilligaf69
10-04-2012, 10:38 AM
wow. I have to say that this thread seems unnecessarily nasty.
Plenty of people here with independent blogs, such as myself, do link to their work from time to time. Not sure what the harm is. It's just like anything else in life: You have a choice -- either click on the link, or don't.


this!

BBWriterMan
10-04-2012, 10:49 PM
The powers that be did tell me I could post links to my work here, but maybe I should refrain if others are offended. Oh, and I'm not "trolling for traffic"-it's called promoting my work, but call it whatever you want.

Your "work" needs work if you are trying to be a writer.

This will be last word on this, then I'll let it go- I like to think I do good work, and others seem to give me positive feedback whether they agree with what I say or not. And I'm not "trying" to be a writer, I am one and have a fairly solid resume of work. I don't think it's right to degrade others if you don't have the guts to put your writing out there yourself?

BBWriterMan
10-04-2012, 10:50 PM
Ignoring the shift of topic from Baker to site participation standards (and ignoring hyperlinks as I always do), I think you absolutely bring Baker back, with a one-year deal low on base salary but with substantial incentives, and with a sizable team option for 2014. My guess is that's all Baker could expect anyway given his recent injury and, to be blunt, Baker at 80% is still better than most of the people who started for the Twins this year.

I absolutely agree, Baker at any level as long as he is healthy is better than most that made a start this year.

Chip Chipperson
10-04-2012, 11:57 PM
I'd bring Baker back for a one year deal. It seems like the whole "it takes a season to recover from TJ surgery" idea is real, so my expectations aren't very high. If we had a little more depth in our pitching ranks, I probably would not want him back.

As far as the nastiness of this site, it's like some of the posters here got up on the wrong side of the wall or somethin...tse tse tse

kab21
10-05-2012, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure what's considered the nastiness of the site. I would encourage BBwriter to do more than just popping in to drop a link to drive traffic to his website. There are a lot of great content (both articles and forum topics) here that he could participate in.

greengoblinrulz
10-05-2012, 11:41 AM
Im all for bringing him back on a decent yearly salary (2m) with a huge incentive base (additional $8).
If Scot's healthy & gives ya 33 starts & 200+ innings, Im good for giving him 10m.....that's what we're looking for in FA anyways.
Scot's never been able to stay healthy as he's always got at least 1 stint on DL missing a couple starts.
Id also include an option yr (or 2) that kicks in (10m??) if he reaches maybe 75% of incentives.
I like Scot Baker (when healthy & big IF) better than the majority of any FA pitchers/pitchers that would be available in trades. He was a near All Star last yr & looked to be fullfilling his promise before MN missed his injury. He is a solid 2/3 type starter & that is what MN is missing.

Fire Dan Gladden
10-05-2012, 03:30 PM
Ignoring the shift of topic from Baker to site participation standards (and ignoring hyperlinks as I always do), I think you absolutely bring Baker back, with a one-year deal low on base salary but with substantial incentives, and with a sizable team option for 2014. My guess is that's all Baker could expect anyway given his recent injury and, to be blunt, Baker at 80% is still better than most of the people who started for the Twins this year.

Agreed. Baker has always put up strong numbers, but injuries have kept him down. I would think a base salary of $2 mil with decent incentives based on innings pitched would be enough to get him. I would also think that a team option year of $5-6 mil that would auto kick in at 150 innings would be good too.

Of course all of this is dependant on Baker actually being ready for the season.

Wolfy
10-05-2012, 04:49 PM
Yes bring him back. He's had the best arm in the organization since we traded Santana. You won't be able to afford to bring in anyone better next year unless you pay twice as much as it would cost to pick up that option.

old nurse
10-06-2012, 01:36 AM
Wow. I have to say that this thread seems unnecessarily nasty.
Plenty of people here with independent blogs, such as myself, do link to their work from time to time. Not sure what the harm is. It's just like anything else in life: you have a choice -- either click on the link, or don't.

There is no harm in a reasonably well thought out and researched blog like you regularly provide. There is no harm in an overlong opinion piece with no factual data. Nor is there any harm encouraging a higher bar for writing..