Thread: Kevin Correia?

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Whatever budget Terry Ryan is working with, he just committed $5 million of it toward a bad player for the next two years. I don't see any positive way to frame this.

I... I... Just... COME ON, JR. This is awful. You have $25m to spend and you dump $5m into Kevin ****ing Correa?

COME ON.

I honestly think the Twins are done after this signing with their rotation. I don't like the signing, but why waste time complaining? What's done is done and nobody here has the power to change anything.

We're looking at next season with:
Diamond
Worley
Correia
Hendricks
Gibson/Blackburn/Deduno/DeVries/Etc

Think about it ... Diamond and Worley are locks. Bringing Corriea in will lock him up to a spot. Hendricks is cheap and the Twins still think he has some upside. They are going to force Blackburn into the rotation and either send him to the pen or AAA once Gibson is ready to get some starts in. If Gibson gets hurt or isn't ready, Deduno is back or one of the other AAA pitchers.

We already have our lefthander in Diamond.

This is it. We already have a full pen. Our last move will be a trade with St. Louis for Schumacker (sp) or another cheap MI option.

Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan

With the heat down in San Diego, the ball travels better than it does back here.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan

With the heat down in San Diego, the ball travels better than it does back here.

No, it doesn't.

you and your math, and science! Enough already!

The could have used this money to lower beer prices at the stadium. That would probably get more fans in the park than this pitcher.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan

With the heat down in San Diego, the ball travels better than it does back here.

No, it doesn't.

Why is San Diego important anyway? he's been in Pitt for 2 years.

I'm mostly indifferent to this signing. JR always signs a few washed up vets and there's a chance he might not be horrible. I can forgive him as long as he has another good move or two left this offseason. I'm concerned that he might be hinting that he won't be able to sign a better starter but he did say that he planned on bringing in 3 starters this season. The offseason isn't over yet.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I thought it was excessive, given his injury and no option year

You can keep twisting your own words around to make it sound better, but you called 5.5M excessive. You then came on this thread and said 2 years and 10M (guaranteed, not an option year! Which HURTS trade value, not helps it!) is "not that bad". Those opinions together are stupid. There is no twisting this into "not that bad" in any world, but certainly not when you called a 1 year 5.5M deal "excessive". All the hand wringing and laughing about that looks mighty stupid now.

Just to recap a third time for you, they just paid a player who is bad at baseball as much money as the Cubs did for one meh guy and one guy who, if healthy, is pretty darn good. If you asked anyone before the offseason which of those two scenarios you would rather be in (bad player vs. two players) they'd have said the two players with meh ability and upside/health concerns 100 out of 100 times. It's a no brainer.

You, Nick, and many others shouted across this forum what silly moves those were by the Cubs. They look pretty damn sharp to me as we sit and look at a 10M dollar turd today.

Look, you're strawmanning. How many times do I have to say I don't like the deal. I'm holding out hope he can establish some trade value. That you want to have the Baker argument again strikes me as petty.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Look, you're strawmanning. How many times do I have to say I don't like the deal. I'm holding out hope he can establish some trade value. That you want to have the Baker argument again strikes me as petty.

Petty sounds funny considering how aggressively you wanted to shame my take on things before. I made three simple points:

1) Baker at 5.5M was not an overpayment.
2) The Cubs were not wildly overspending
3) The Twins were not going to fix the 2013 rotation in one offseason

All three of those things were 100% correct. You, and others, decided to call Baker's contract "Excessive" and a variety of other adjectives to justify the Twins not matching. You called out the Cubs for signing meh talents for more money than you thought they deserved. And you kept saying..."wait and see" about the offseason.

Well, now we've waited and now we see. Baker looks like a god damn bargain at 5.5 million even if his arm was half attached compared to Kevin "I'm pitch to contact personified, barely a 4th starter in the NL, and making TRIPLE what Marquis was paid last year for basically being his clone" Correia. The same guy you posted was signed to a deal that was "not that bad". This after arguing Baker was overpaid. How anyone can feel that 5.5M for Baker is excessive overpayment and 2 years 10M for Correia is "not that bad" is insane. Those positions cannot be rectified sanely.

Second, this offseason we have made two very nice deals that have restocked our 2015 rotation well and added one nice arm for 2013. We're out of trade chips unless we want to completely destroy the offense in the process. We now have roughly 20-25M to spend in FA and promptly kicked 20-25% of it on a horsecrap pitcher who should make us recall the days of Blackburn not Santana. Exactly what you and others complained the fatal problem with signing Baker was for 5.5. Now we not only anchored 5M to this year's budget, but next years as well for a key that, at best, provides more veteran presence then the guys we already had. Leaving us with exactly one choice: Spending the rest of the budget on one arm. Which, I don't know about you, but my confidence is pretty shaken on that happening considering this contract.

And third, in the context of free agency, what the Cubs did was read the market early and sign players to deals better than they would have likely got a month later. FA contracts are always higher than we like to stomach, but if you get in exceptionally early and exceptionally late with the right factors, you can sometimes dodge the ugliest bullets. Last night we took one ugly friggin bullet. No matter how much you want to paint it as "not that bad" It's ugly. Baker for less total dollars with much more upside is a no-brainer. Your aggressive approach to shaming me for that position earlier gives me every right to remind you of what it looks like now.

The reason Baker at 5.5 guaranteed is an Overpay has nothing to do with his talent and everything to do with the likelihood that he won't pitch 15 games for the Cubs. It's not a 'bad contract', though. It only becomes a bad contract if he can't pitch any games. Or if you pay him 5.5 mil to rehab, look good in late season work and then sign with the Cards or Brewers and beat the Cubbies for years after.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Look, you're strawmanning. How many times do I have to say I don't like the deal. I'm holding out hope he can establish some trade value. That you want to have the Baker argument again strikes me as petty.

Petty sounds funny considering how aggressively you wanted to shame my take on things before. I made three simple points:

1) Baker at 5.5M was not an overpayment.
2) The Cubs were not wildly overspending
3) The Twins were not going to fix the 2013 rotation in one offseason

All three of those things were 100% correct. You, and others, decided to call Baker's contract "Excessive" and a variety of other adjectives to justify the Twins not matching. You called out the Cubs for signing meh talents for more money than you thought they deserved. And you kept saying..."wait and see" about the offseason.

Well, now we've waited and now we see. Baker looks like a god damn bargain at 5.5 million even if his arm was half attached compared to Kevin "I'm pitch to contact personified, barely a 4th starter in the NL, and making TRIPLE what Marquis was paid last year for basically being his clone" Correia. The same guy you posted was signed to a deal that was "not that bad". This after arguing Baker was overpaid. How anyone can feel that 5.5M for Baker is excessive overpayment and 2 years 10M for Correia is "not that bad" is insane. Those positions cannot be rectified sanely.

Second, this offseason we have made two very nice deals that have restocked our 2015 rotation well and added one nice arm for 2013. We're out of trade chips unless we want to completely destroy the offense in the process. We now have roughly 20-25M to spend in FA and promptly kicked 20-25% of it on a horsecrap pitcher who should make us recall the days of Blackburn not Santana. Exactly what you and others complained the fatal problem with signing Baker was for 5.5. Now we not only anchored 5M to this year's budget, but next years as well for a key that, at best, provides more veteran presence then the guys we already had. Leaving us with exactly one choice: Spending the rest of the budget on one arm. Which, I don't know about you, but my confidence is pretty shaken on that happening considering this contract.

And third, in the context of free agency, what the Cubs did was read the market early and sign players to deals better than they would have likely got a month later. FA contracts are always higher than we like to stomach, but if you get in exceptionally early and exceptionally late with the right factors, you can sometimes dodge the ugliest bullets. Last night we took one ugly friggin bullet. No matter how much you want to paint it as "not that bad" It's ugly. Baker for less total dollars with much more upside is a no-brainer. Your aggressive approach to shaming me for that position earlier gives me every right to remind you of what it looks like now.

Feel better?

Originally Posted by LoganJones

The reason Baker at 5.5 guaranteed is an Overpay has nothing to do with his talent and everything to do with the likelihood that he won't pitch 15 games for the Cubs. It's not a 'bad contract', though. It only becomes a bad contract if he can't pitch any games. Or if you pay him 5.5 mil to rehab, look good in late season work and then sign with the Cards or Brewers and beat the Cubbies for years after.

I'll take 5.5M on the chance of Baker's talent over 2 years and 10M for a no-talent. Baker wasn't an overpay based on market prices this year. He'll look like a bargain by the end of this.

You could argue he wasn't a good fit because the team needs durability - fine. But because he was paid too much? Um, no.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Feel better?

Absolutely. That stump was well earned.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan

With the heat down in San Diego, the ball travels better than it does back here.

No, it doesn't.

San Diego is notorious for its not-balmy 70 degree game time.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Feel better?

It's your own fault. Never wrestle with a pig. You both end up muddy and the pig likes it.

There's an "ignore poster" function, y'know.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

It's your own fault. Never wrestle with a pig. You both end up muddy and the pig likes it.

There's an "ignore poster" function, y'know.

Cute, care to bring any of your sage advice on statistics to the table?

Why is the Baker signing such a great move again? We know this? Hasn't played in almost two years, Tommy John last April, he's a lock?

I'm not defending JR for the Correia signing, brutal and unnecessary, but that has nothing to do with me thinking that Baker would have been worth the risk. I don't believe the Twins didn't give Baker a similar deal as the Cubs because they felt it was overpaying, I think they just felt it was too high considering the risk and where it would have left them if it didn't work out.

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

Why is the Baker signing such a great move again? We know this? Hasn't played in almost two years, Tommy John last April, he's a lock?

I'm not defending JR for the Correia signing, brutal and unnecessary, but that has nothing to do with me thinking that Baker would have been worth the risk. I don't believe the Twins didn't give Baker a similar deal as the Cubs because they felt it was overpaying, I think they just felt it was too high considering the risk and where it would have left them if it didn't work out.

We already know the answer - they wanted a team option and he didn't. That appeared to be the crux of the issue. I don't disagree that it would have been nice to have, but saying "see ya" because 5.5M was "Excessive"? Um, no. It's not a matter of being a lock, Baker was a damn good AL pitcher in the past. But contracts being the same (5M) I'll take "slated to be ready, but a rough recent injury history with significant talent" over "durably not very good" any day of the week. We have durable and not very good, that's not what we should have been after.

I didn't realize the Twins' two free agent pitching options were Kevin Correia and Scott Baker.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I didn't realize the Twins' two free agent pitching options were Kevin Correia and Scott Baker.

Depends how realistic you wanted to be. I don't deny I put a lot of eggs in the Baker basket. McCarthy too. Was hoping we'd land one or both of them. After that I felt our odds of landing a serious talent were extremely slim.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

Why is the Baker signing such a great move again? We know this? Hasn't played in almost two years, Tommy John last April, he's a lock?

I'm not defending JR for the Correia signing, brutal and unnecessary, but that has nothing to do with me thinking that Baker would have been worth the risk. I don't believe the Twins didn't give Baker a similar deal as the Cubs because they felt it was overpaying, I think they just felt it was too high considering the risk and where it would have left them if it didn't work out.

We already know the answer - they wanted a team option and he didn't. That appeared to be the crux of the issue. I don't disagree that it would have been nice to have, but saying "see ya" because 5.5M was "Excessive"? Um, no. It's not a matter of being a lock, Baker was a damn good AL pitcher in the past. But contracts being the same (5M) I'll take "slated to be ready, but a rough recent injury history with significant talent" over "durably not very good" any day of the week. We have durable and not very good, that's not what we should have been after.

I didn't say it was excessive, although I can understand anyone at the time Baker was signed, thinking 5.5M was a bigger risk than necessary. You can't deny there is a notable risk involved.

I'm not comparing the two deals anyway, that whole thing is irrelevant, I'm in the neither camp, Correia is awful and Baker is too risky considering the situation we're in.