Printable View
Is there any shred of evidence to suggest that Ryan would do what it takes to bring Marcum in to the fold? $5M tops for a FA SP is the "Twins Way". Brandon Webb returning to become a MLB replacement level starter?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave
Those who believe in this scenario most likely attend The Divine Church of Rainbows and Unicorns.
Bring on Bedard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Otwins
TJ surgery just last May? I haven't seen the numbers, but how many pitchers are effective 11 months out? Every case is different, but IIRC, Joe Nathan had his TJ in March of 2010 and had one good month of pitching results in all of 2011 (July ERA of 0.79)Quote:
Originally Posted by darin617
Desperate times call for desperate, but very fiscally conservative, measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePuck
The crew that insisted that Ryan would spend upwards of $30M on FA pitching upgrades is eating a healthy load of crow right about now. Ryan is in the process of doing for the SP staff what he did for the RP staff in 2012, unfortunately, for every Jared Burton find, there are multiple Gray/Zumaya/Maloney signings. The days of Deduno, DeVries and Duensing may not be over quite yet.
Hopefully, both Correia and Pelfrey perform well and are both gone by July for decent prospects, I hope Ryan is wise enough to realize that this is by far the soundest strategy, neither should be in the long-term plans (barring some miraculously unlikely dominating performance from Pelfrey). Hopefully the Twins remember how they disastrously extended soon-to-be worthless arms in the past (maybe not, they re-signed Capps just this last season).Quote:
Originally Posted by joeboo_22
TR should really be put in charge of this whole fiscal cliff issue, heck, the entire CBO - no would complain about him then.Quote:
Originally Posted by jokin
The Twins are just becoming a pathetic parody of themselves.
Well, I didn't expect him to spend $30 million but even in the pre-Span trade days, I did expect him to spend around $15m and we're not there. I was just hoping that the $$$ would bring back a little better return.Quote:
Originally Posted by jokin
I have no problem with the Pelfrey signing taken by itself. And I'm not even that concerned about how horrific the 2013 rotation will be. I AM concerned about the Twins overall budget and the return they are getting for their free agency money. I'm assuming that the budget, as it now stands, is still less than $75m. Since I have NO faith that the TR will "carry over" about $15-$25m to put the payroll in the 50% range (as the Twins self-servingly have always previously said they are doing), I'm waiting to see him spend that money either to make a significant improvement in the pitching staff for 2013 OR to sign several position players who will not only improve the team for 2013 but who may be "flippable" for more prospects down the road.
Your feet are to the fire, Ebenezer Ryan.
Player W L IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR Pelfrey 50 54 896.1 5.08 3.19 0.7 0.307 70.90% 48.60% 7.60% 4.36 4.2 4.5 9.2 Baker 63 48 958 7.23 2.1 1.16 0.302 73.30% 34.10% 9.30% 4.15 3.95 4.07 17
The obvious comparable for Pelfrey next year is going to be Baker. Both guys are coming off Tommy John and have signed 1 year deals to prove they are back before going back into the market in 2013, Baker for $5.5 and Pelfrey for $4.0 with the same $1.5 million in incentives. I think Baker looks like the better guy with a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, FIP, and xFIP over a comparable amount of innings. I also think Pelfrey's HR/FB% is artificially low due to being in the NL. The only area Pelfrey looks better in is durability with 4 seasons of innings over 184.
This is what you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwak
I think the elbow trouble was more likely caused by the reliance on "sinkers" rather than the cutter,etc. The Twins used to strongly advise against throwing the split-fingered fastball, because they believed it was injurious. The "sinker" is a less extreme version of the "splitter".
The "sinker" is NOT a "less extreme version of the splitter."
A "sinker" is just another name for a 2-seam fastball. If reliance on a fastball caused Pelfrey's elbow problems (any more than throwing a baseball overhand is hard on anyone's elbow, and shoulder for that matter) then there is no future.
The grip for a "sinker" is nothing at all like the grip for a split-finger.
The Twins preach throwing a "sinker" for pete's sake. They LOVE the "sinker."
I don't mind this signing. Much better than the Correia deal -- less money, a little upside, better track record aside from the injury. Would have probably preferred Baker, assuming their recovery timetables are similar. Swap Lannan for Correia and I would actually be pretty OK with this offseason, although I'd certainly welcome a low-risk signing to top off the rotation.
Apparently neither Baker nor Pelfrey wanted to give a team option year -- they are clearly looking to hit the market again next offseason. Could be bad for the Cubs and Twins, respectively, if they take a while to re-establish themselves in 2013 and the teams don't get a discount or first refusal rights on a 2014 contract. (Although a fully recovered Baker could almost be worth a qualifying offer.)
I too am curious if the Twins expect Pelfrey to be ready by opening day (or if not, when?).
I like it. Never too many guys. And waaaay too much fodder, though, at AAAA that needs to be shaken out.
So, there really are people really believe in this kind of strategy to build a rotation?
Interestingly, Pelfrey is a guy we should have gotten in the Santana deal. (Well, we shouldn't have dealt Santana at all, but if we were going to deal him to the Mets at that time, and we wanted some near-ML ready starting pitchers, Pelfrey would have been light years better than Humber and Mulvey.) Would have definitely changed the complexion of that deal and a little bit of Bill Smith's legacy.
Yes? Not for a contender, mind you -- if the Twins had a halfway decent infield, and starting pitching was the ONLY weakness, I would probably insist on a top-of-the-rotation acquisition for 2013 and aiming for 90 wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePuck
Otherwise, when it's just one of several weaknesses, and you are coming off some ~65 win seasons, it's probably best to address them all conservatively and aim for 80 wins in 2013.
(That reminds me -- what are we doing about the infield?)
And, spycake, when would you fix the pitching? It's not like signing a legit pitcher or two to multi year deals is only for 2013. You really think these pitchers will get them to 80? Then I'd expect signing Marcum and Jackson/Sanchez would get us to 87 or so....why not try that?
Interesting, the main guy that was wanted in the Santana trade five years ago may now finally become a Twin. Talk about coming full-circle.
I like this signing much better than Correia. I've always been interested in Pelfrey and thought he might be a good fit here. I hope this signing improves the relationship with the Twins and Boras (I'm sure Boras is a bit peeved at the Twins for taking away Bourn suitors). The Twins are giving a Boras client a chance to market himself back to a better deal next offseason if he recovers ok.
I'm not expecting big things from Pelfrey. For some odd reason, I think he'll have a 3.94 ERA, which would be great for an NL pitcher coming to the AL. I'm not well versed in all the WAR stats or anything like that, but I think a 3.94 ERA would be great for anyone with Pelfrey's skill level. Maybe he goes 8-12 (not the best team behind him for defense)? A record and ERA like that (provided K's are ok and BB's aren't inflated) will probably earn him a deal for 3 years at 36 million in this inflated market. If he's good at the deadline, the Twins have a chance to earn something back, but I have a feeling they'd extend him first if he's respectable.
One note on the Correia signing: I read some tweet (I forgot if it was Mackey, Neal, etc) that said the Twins had to give Correia the extra year to even get him to sign here. IDK if other Correia suitors were offering multiple years (I'm guessing not), but I wonder if the Twins got him for less per season than what another team may offer for one year? I still don't look at it good at all the Twins gave him 2 years. Not when Lannan got what he got for 1 year.
Outside of that, it does make me wonder about Correia getting multiple years. In all honesty, I could see the Twins going an extra year with Correia over Pelfrey and Baker for example. Both Pelfrey and Baker are coming back from TJ. Correia hasn't had TJ yet. In the Twins eyes, Correia is probably the safer investment at least at staying healthy (again, not a reason to sign him for 2 years ... I'm just trying to understand it). Maybe Lannan got a 1 year deal due to being in the minors a majority of the year while Correia's reps can point out he pitched for a somewhat contending team last year while at least remaining durable (besides getting demoted to the pen a couple times?). I see someone like Blanton (who I think was healthy last year??) getting 2 years (and more than Correia as he is a better pitcher) and Haren getting 1 (back issues). Maybe those "durable" pitchers from last year are able to command 2 years where the other pitches like Pelfrey can only get 1? Am I crazy here or onto something? Anyone feel free to put me in my place.
Incentives breakdown:
100K at 150 IP
150K at 160 IP
250K at 170, 180 and 190 IP
500K at 200 IP