Thread: Marcum signing just got "cuirouser" and the Twins have some 'splainin' to do

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Ok, back up and think. We all would love a couple Grienkes or something. But our GM hates large contracts to pitchers, so that wasn't going to happen. Here we had a very good pitcher, with serious injury concerns no one is denying, but with serious talent and excellent results in his career who was not being offered a multi-year deal and best he could do was 1 year and 4M. Meaning he fell right into the wheelhouse of what our GM can stomach.

If someone prior to this offseason said "We could sign Marcum for 1 year 7M" or even "2 years 12M" you would have had people laughing at the absurdity of such a good deal. We had a chance at that or LESS and failed to even offer. There are no excuses for that. None.

I think the Twins should have made an offer but I'm sure they kicked the tires and were one of the 15-20 teams asking about him. You never know what the agent might have wanted when they contacted him but either way they should have offered him some sort of contract. Absolutely under no circumstances should they have offered more than one year though.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Absolutely under no circumstances should they have offered more than one year though.

Marcum probably wouldn't want a low-ball two year deal anyway. If he truly believes he's healthy I'm sure he'd rather have the single year and hit the market again next offseason.

Evidently 30 other teams have some splanin to do. Marcum could convince just one team of his health, the Mets, the envy of front offices everywhere.

Originally Posted by mcrow

I think the Twins should have made an offer but I'm sure they kicked the tires and were one of the 15-20 teams asking about him. You never know what the agent might have wanted when they contacted him but either way they should have offered him some sort of contract. Absolutely under no circumstances should they have offered more than one year though.

Then outbid the one year offer. You're not spending the money anyway. Again, even double the 4M he got would've been well within what most any sane fan would've been ok with gambling on a talent like him.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Evidently 30 other teams have some splanin to do. Marcum could convince just one team of his health, the Mets, the envy of front offices everywhere.

Another scarecrow bites the dust! This stuff lately is straight out of Hot Shots Part Deux.

Originally Posted by snepp

This "they suck so why bother trying to improve" line of thought is beyond maddening.

That's not what I'm saying though. I would have loved picking up a big name starter. Or even a lesser named pitcher who is healthy. Or maybe you sign a durable innings eater fairly cheap and sign a guy like Marcum, then you at least have insurance on him. If he doesn't get injured and pitches well you have guy who is a solid #2 maybe #1 pitcher and still have the durable inning eater as well.

Now if they had Saunders:
#1 Marcum
#2 Worely
#3 Diamond
#4- Saunders
#5- Pelfrey, Correia, Gibson, Hendricks..ect

If Marcum works out you have a competent rotation and depth. So I'm in favor of picking up both guys for around $12M, but not really that excited about a likely to be injured guy without any real insurance on the staff. If we could have both, I want both. If we can only have one I'd rather have Saunders and I'm not over joyed about settling for Saunders as the big FA pitching upgrade for the year either.

Originally Posted by mcrow

That's not what I'm saying though. I would have loved picking up a big name starter. Or even a lesser named pitcher who is healthy. Or maybe you sign a durable innings eater fairly cheap and sign a guy like Marcum, then you at least have insurance on him. If he doesn't get injured and pitches well you have guy who is a solid #2 maybe #1 pitcher and still have the durable inning eater as well.

We tried - we overpaid him and then didn't add Marcum. That's the whole friggin point!!!!!!

Originally Posted by mcrow

Did the Twins even make an offer?

I think I'd rather have Saunders for $8m than Marcum for $4M. That thing with his elbow that nobody seems to know what was causing it would be a big red flag. However, the upside of picking up Marcum is a lot higher than Saunders. I can see why the Twins wouldn't want to go with him though, they really don't need another Zumaya issue and you already have Harden who is high injury risk.

Would have been nice to get a healthy year out of Marcum but that weird arm thing sets off some alarms. Might have been worth a risk but maybe not.

So your ok with Correia on a 2 year deal , but not Marcum on a 1 year deal?

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

You answered your own question. If you're not a contender....who cares? Let one of the many fill-in guys from last year take the spot. Again, offer him 2 years and 10M and you hurt NOTHING while taking a great buy-low opportunity. Marcum might fail miserably and be hurt.....but again....who cares? They failed to take advantage of a market blip that they absolutely had to. And the only reason was their own stubborn attitudes. As a fan, that is irritating as hell and shows a very narrow scope for how to improve this club.

Hard to disagree with this. The Twins were as well positioned to take this gamble as any team in baseball. Unless it is commonly known among front offices that the guy's arm is on the verge of falling off, I can't make any sense of it.

The thing is, he came back from the elbow injury last year and pitched well in August and September. Lights out in his last three starts. Just bizarre. Can't see any way he'd be viewed as a bigger risk than a guy 10 months removed from freaking Tommy John surgery.

Originally Posted by mcrow

If Marcum works out you have a competent rotation and depth. So I'm in favor of picking up both guys for around $12M, but not really that excited about a likely to be injured guy without any real insurance on the staff. If we could have both, I want both. If we can only have one I'd rather have Saunders and I'm not over joyed about settling for Saunders as the big FA pitching upgrade for the year either.

I can understand that, but I take the shot on Marcum regardless, his potential upside is just that much better than Saunders. I would have much preferred a combination of both (without any Correia), but sadly that ship set sail way too early in free agency.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Another scarecrow bites the dust! This stuff lately is straight out of Hot Shots Part Deux.

How is that a scarecrow? It's not. The title of the thread incriminates the Twins, as if they have any more explaining to do than any other team (but the Mets). I directly engaged the premise of the OP. Maybe if I bold parts of my post, it will pass your BS scarecrow test?

Seriously, the same few posters seem to lamely reach for any piece of evidence that supports their pet narrative of the Twins FO failures. We all get what you guys think. There's no reason to start another thread about this article; the purpose is to strut and provoke, rather than have an honest discussion. Frankly, there's something juvenile about it. (To be clear this isn't directed really at any one poster, but there is a collectiveness that legitimates these discussions again again).

That sound you hear is a stick, bang, bang, banging away.

Option A: 31 teams foolishly choose not to risk four million (for a total of eight).
Option B: There's legitimate concerns about Marcum's health.

Look, Marcum could very well have a healthy season, but it's clear that the general consensus among baseball FO's that Marcum is not worth the risk in salary. It's made clear by the contract he ended up signing.

While the Twins were well positioned to take this risk, they took other risks with Peflry and Harden; just because everyone's pet health risk went to another team doesn't mean that the Twins weren't already trying to buy low on players with health risks.

I just think the premise of thread is bunk and needlessly inflammatory.

Originally Posted by snepp

That sound you hear is a stick, bang, bang, banging away.

You just watch it.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Option A: 31 teams foolishly choose not to risk four million (for a total of eight).
Option B: There's legitimate concerns about Marcum's health.

Look, Marcum could very well have a healthy season, but it's clear that the general consensus among baseball FO's that Marcum is not worth the risk in salary. It's made clear by the contract he ended up signing.

While the Twins were well positioned to take this risk, they took other risks with Peflry and Harden; just because everyone's pet health risk went to another team doesn't mean that the Twins weren't already trying to buy low on players with health risks.

I just think the premise of thread is bunk and needlessly inflammatory.

When did MLB expand to 32 teams, or were Nishi's old and new teams in Japan in on passing on Marcum, too?

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I just think the premise of thread is bunk and needlessly inflammatory.

Yes, it's a totally "bunk" premise that if there were 3 guys who should have been in consideration in Ryan's off-season goal of acquiring "a pretty darn good pitcher" at bargain prices, that it isn't at all "curious" that the Twins chose to sign the 2 guys who were no longer in their previous team's rotation through major surgery and major suckiness and completely ignore the guy who was pitching decent to very good over his last 9 starts through to the close of the season. (Oh, and happened to have the best career, and best 3 year, stats, of any of the 3).

Just because the other 29 that didn't sign Marcum doesn't mean they thought he was a health risk. Several may have all of the pitchers they want. Others might have passed because they didn't think he was good enough. A few others may not have enough left in their budget to sign him. The Mets (signing team) might believe that the $4MM is an affordable risk--say like what MN's signing of Zumaya last year, or the minor league contracts tendered this year to several players. It isn't axiomatic that teams were foolish because they didn't ( or did) sign Marcum.

Originally Posted by Kwak

It isn't axiomatic that teams were foolish because they didn't ( or did) sign Marcum.

In Pseudo's world, it's both axiomatic AND inflammatory.

It is axiomatic on this board if you disagree with a core group you will be pilloried.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Or maybe you sign a durable innings eater fairly cheap and sign a guy like Marcum, then you at least have insurance on him. .

Again: See Kevin Correa. Except we overpaid him and then didn't get Marcum. That's the whole point!