Thread: Would You Have Gone 2 Years, $30M for Dempster?

Sounds like he'll sign with Boston for around 2/26, and according to Doogie the Twins didn't make an offer. Who knows if kicking in a few extra mil would've been enough to entice Dempster, but would you have made a 2/30 bid if you were Terry Ryan? Keep in mind that Morneau's expected departure takes $14M off the books for next year.

Going to go out on a limb and say yes. I don't like the price tag one bit, but it seems as though that's what it takes to get a guy like that. And if he doesn't require a 3rd year, then all the better. I think he'll be effective for another couple years.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Sounds like he'll sign with Boston for around 2/26, and according to Doogie the Twins didn't make an offer. Who knows if kicking in a few extra mil would've been enough to entice Dempster, but would you have made a 2/30 bid if you were Terry Ryan? Keep in mind that Morneau's expected departure takes $14M off the books for next year.

My guess is we've seen the extent of TR's FA pitching acquisitions. I'm as hard as the next guy on last year's staff, but I've seen enough of Dempster to persuade me he is not $26 million better than what we have. If Ryan picks up another pitcher, it more likely will come by trade. And while we keep saying Mauer can't/won't be traded and it's unlikely Morneau will be moved, keep an eye on Boston and Baltimore.

No, but mostly because I don't really like Dempster...I'd rather have Marcum or Jackson.

It depends.

1. You're not going to get Marcum. Then yes, I'd definitely go 2/$30m for Dempster.

2. You have a good shot at Marcum or Jackson and you're bidding competitively. Then no, I'd probably hold off on Dempster.

I have kind of given up at this point....still hoping to he wrong.....

I'd say no because that contract would likely make him untradeable without picking up a bunch of the contract anyway.

No, Dempster is old and was a disaster in the AL last year.

He will struggle to post a sub 4.50 ERA

So just signing him to put a competitive team on the field is a bad idea?

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Sounds like he'll sign with Boston for around 2/26, and according to Doogie the Twins didn't make an offer. Who knows if kicking in a few extra mil would've been enough to entice Dempster, but would you have made a 2/30 bid if you were Terry Ryan? Keep in mind that Morneau's expected departure takes $14M off the books for next year.

Guh, I posed a similar question a few minutes before as a followup in a thread. I suggested $28M as a starting point to get him to give the Twins the time of day, but $30 may be more realistic. Might need a vesting option for a third year, as well, or he'd say no thanks I'll go with a contender for now. That's still better (to me) than a fully guaranteed third year for when the team has really turned the corner and he could have proved to be useless by then.

We really were fed bad information, with a presumption of 3 years, and a preference for the NL, and for Spring Training in Arizona. This actual deal blows up all three. Agents lying? When did that start?

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

I have kind of given up at this point....still hoping to he wrong.....

Ditto.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Might need a vesting option for a third year, as well, or he'd say no thanks I'll go with a contender for now.

Honestly, I feel the Twins are closer to competing than the Red Sox. They have a much smaller hill to climb to top the Central.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

It depends.

1. You're not going to get Marcum. Then yes, I'd definitely go 2/$30m for Dempster.

2. You have a good shot at Marcum or Jackson and you're bidding competitively. Then no, I'd probably hold off on Dempster.

I completely agree... If Marcum and Jackson are off the board... Then Yes to Dempster because he is the best option left.

But If I'm overpaying... and I do think we should (have to) overpay over what is comfortable... I'm overpaying for Marcum or Jackson. At this point... The length of the deal or dollar amount doesn't even matter to me. We got some cash to spend and we need someone to move into our #1 Slot (even if that pitcher isn't a #1) to push everyone else down one slot.

It's not spending to spend because money is the answer... It's not... It's spending to bring in a much needed arm.

The alternative is trading Willingham plus someone like Kepler to get someone like Marcum or Jackson... or ... Inking more pitchers like Correia (which we should also do).

Honestly... This is kind of my Terry Ryan test for the off season... One Arm out of the Top Group. Just one.

The Trades were nice... Correia didn't impress or bother me... I'm still holding out hope that TR can go over the sensible number with one of the top group guys.

AND land him!!!

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Honestly, I feel the Twins are closer to competing than the Red Sox. They have a much smaller hill to climb to top the Central.

Depends then on whether Dempster accepts the conventional wisdom that the Red Sox are never more than a few check-signings from legitimate contention.

I'm also not that enthused about a 2013-14 Twins squad "competing" where the bar is around .500. That to me is just a fluke, although an enjoyable one, compared to the World Series-contending team that we hope is brewing ca. 2015 forward. Signing Dempster to 2 years is just a bridge to that, and I presume Dempster can infer the same as I can.

I also want to add for no necessary reason at all...

Dempster and Youkilis both bother me. It would seriously drive me nuts to watch the Youkilis batting stance every night with the Twins. It would also bother me to watch Dempster and that Glove Flip thing every 5 days.

I'm sorry... I'm just thinking of the kids watching at home... Ttrying to copy that ****. It just ain't good for them.

I can't see him pitching to value under that contract. I'd pass.

Twins will not spend THAT MUCH for starting pitchers period.. they can sign 3 Kevin Corriea's for that kind of money.and believe me, they will

I think Seth's point about trade-ability is the key. That's why this isn't attractive.

Taken on comparative value to last year, Dempster's normalized numbers do provide quite the boost to the 2k12 numbers. Correia and Worley are already in the fold, like it or not. That's got the rotation down 50-55 runs. Poke in Dempster and that would drop an additional 30-40 Runs.

The fluctuation is weather we calculate actual innings pitched per start, averaging only one starter's numbers to fill the gap. I tried to guess who would have got those starts, but the back end of the rotation was so sad, it really doesn't mater much. The actual start thing gives the rotation a lot more innings, as we're able to throw out whole players. Not that ou can do that in reality, since things are connected, but still. We're trying calculate relative value to evaluate contract worthiness. So while the runs allowed tend to be higher, since we have to take on some of the lesser outings, the over all innings pitched by the starters goes up, because we're able to avoid all those short starts. This means that with Dempster, the rotation could have given as much as 40 extra innings last year. That's lie never having to use Maloney, Manship or Some of the longer outings for Swarzak.

There appears to be a lot of value there to Dempster, on a two year deal, of course. Hard to see that 3rd year working out. Might be even better to toss more cash at Sanchez.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

It depends.

1. You're not going to get Marcum. Then yes, I'd definitely go 2/$30m for Dempster.

2. You have a good shot at Marcum or Jackson and you're bidding competitively. Then no, I'd probably hold off on Dempster.

Honestly, I don't see a reason you can't afford Dempster and one of Marcum/Jackson. 2/30 is high, but doable. And a heck of a lot more doable before we went 2/10 on Correia. I love Ryan but this time of the year really sucks.