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

My '83 AMC Eagle stopped running. But instead of just buying a new Kia on sale for $15,000 and have it be a decent deal on a reliable vehicle (which I can afford), I'm going to jump at my buddy's '91 Escort that he is selling, and I am going to pay him $1,000 over book value just to make sure I have a vehicle to drive (even though it has 170,000 miles and might break down in a month, to which I will be in the same situation I was just in).

What is more likely, Marcum is healthy and good, or correia is healthy and good? Given their previous choices, I do not know the right course on Marcum and Saunders, frankly.

OK. And Correia and De Vries might not be better than a 14 year old little leaguer if they can't pitch or they get injured. Harden's arm might fall off high fiving Butera during Spring training. The point is that there would have been no harm in adding an addition pitcher to our roster on a 1 year deal, who would be the best pitcher on our team if healthy, especially considering our payroll flexibility.

That's the point. The most likely outcome here is that at some point in the season the Twins rotation will be in the same condition and they'll just be out $4m. If there was a decent chance that he plays the whole season I'd pay the guy $8M and be happy with taking that chance but not in this case where it's very likely he won't ptich the whole season.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Talent isn't the question. More talent doesn't matter if you can't pitch. Better means overall impact on the team. He has the talent to be a #2 starter on most teams, but he might not be better than Correia or De Vries if he can't pitch or if he's pitching injured.

The difference is we have evidence from the close of last season that he was eminently better than both of your alternatives, in real time.

I'd argue that Correia and DeVries have demonstrated that they frequently "can't pitch" when fully healthy.

And again, most importantly, there was more than ample money available to take an "all of the above" approach and see how it shakes out. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

Originally Posted by mcrow

That's the point. The most likely outcome here is that at some point in the season the Twins rotation will be in the same condition and they'll just be out $4m. If there was a decent chance that he plays the whole season I'd pay the guy $8M and be happy with taking that chance but not in this case where it's very likely he won't ptich the whole season.

Again, it's even MORE likely that Harden and Pelfrey won't pitch the whole season and Marcum in place of one or both puts you out about the same or little more than the same $4M+ Harden, and it's not like they didn't have the payroll flexibility to take on the ENTIRE risk of all three.

Originally Posted by jokin

The difference is we have evidence from the close of last season that he was eminently better than both of your alternatives, in real time.

I'd argue that Correia and DeVries have demonstrated that they frequently "can't pitch" when fully healthy.

And again, most importantly, there was more than ample money available to take an "all of the above" approach and see how it shakes out. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

Well, you might be right to a point with Correia and DeVries. And like I said, I'm not really against signing Marcum all together but I understand why they wouldn't and don't disagree with it either. If they would have signed him some of the same people bellly-aching about not signing him would have complained about them signing him. Why? Because it's not clearly a good or bad move.

So you'd rather the Pohlad's pocket a little bit more money than have the Twins put a better product on the field unless they're going to win the World Series?

Maybe I missed it somewhere in here, but I take it you were opposed to us signing Harden and Pelfrey as well? What exactly are you even suggesting? That because our team is bad, we shouldn't spend anything because the end result will still not be us winning a Pennant?

Usual suspects, prior to Marcum signing with Mets: "Marcum is still out there and would be a good get, if the price is right. The offseason isn't over yet, let's just see how this plays out, yada yada yada." Usual suspects, after Marcum signs with Mets: "Too risky. Didn't want him. Nobody else wanted him either. Need to see what Devries, Deduno and Walters have, yada yada yada."

Originally Posted by jokin

Again, it's even MORE likely that Harden and Pelfrey won't pitch the whole season and Marcum in place of one or both puts you out about the same or little more than the same $4M+ Harden, and it's not like they didn't have the payroll flexibility to take on the ENTIRE risk of all three.

Actually, I think that Pelfrey has more chance to pitch a whole season than Marcum does and Pelfrey is already signed so it's not like we could change that.

Capps to Clev on a minor league deal.

Originally Posted by S.

So you'd rather the Pohlad's pocket a little bit more money than have the Twins put a better product on the field unless they're going to win the World Series?

Maybe I missed it somewhere in here, but I take it you were opposed to us signing Harden and Pelfrey as well? What exactly are you even suggesting? That because our team is bad, we shouldn't spend anything because the end result will still not be us winning a Pennant?

No, I think the Pohlads are bunch of money grubbers and I'm not happy they are holding on to something like $20M they said they'd spend on payroll.

I'm 100% for the Harden signing, it was a minor league deal for almost nothing so there's no risk there really. Pelfrey I didn't like that much because I didn't think he was that good before TJ and this is his first year after TJ which is normally not at 100%. That's not about money. If he he was not in his first season post TJ then maybe you're getting a guy that's going to get you 200 innings. I think he's still more likely to pitch 180+ than Marcum though.

Money for most of these players isn't that much an issue for me it's more about if they can play, how well, and how long.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Actually, I think that Pelfrey has more chance to pitch a whole season than Marcum does and Pelfrey is already signed so it's not like we could change that.

Well, thats great. But that is a baseless guess you're making. Once again, how would it have hurt the team in any way to sign Marcum as well as Harden and Pelfrey?

Originally Posted by mcrow

Actually, I think that Pelfrey has more chance to pitch a whole season than Marcum does and Pelfrey is already signed so it's not like we could change that.

This thread is assessing the offseason acquisitions, as a whole, and asking for a rationale from the Twins for why they did what they did.

Come on, Pelfrey coming into the starting rotation right out of the shoot?, 11 months after TJ, is highly speculative, in and of itself, let alone the likelihood of a 15-day DL list tour for "arm soreness" or a few skipped-start "setbacks" and then ultimately being shut down due to innings limitations medical issues.

So despite the claims of at least one person that the gaggle of FO defenders that they "get it" about the uproar about this, we're five pages in of more arguments like "well, we're not contenders anyway", "don't spend just to spend", "we already took risk on Pelfrey" and other equally inane nonsense.

The "risk" of Pelfrey is WORSE in terms of recent health and worse in terms of upside. The problem is that the Twins again avoided a high-risk/high-reward situation and this time the price wasn't even that friggin high!!!! That's the problem, please at least try and get that through your head. Shaun Marcum could dissolve into a puddle of hair ooze on the mound and for 5-8M the risk was STILL worth it for the reward. What we have is, again, more evidence of just how ridiculously gun-shy this FO is. And that concerns me deeply for this team's future ceiling.

Originally Posted by jokin

This thread is assessing the offseason acquisitions, as a whole, and asking for a rationale from the Twins for why they did what they did.

Come on, Pelfrey coming into the starting rotation right out of the shoot?, 11 months after TJ, is highly speculative, in and of itself, let alone the likelihood of a 15-day DL list tour for "arm soreness" or a few skipped-start "setbacks" and then ultimately being shut down due to innings limitations medical issues.

Very best case is that Marcum and Pelfrey are both iffy.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Very best case is that Marcum and Pelfrey are both iffy.

See the post just above yours. The case has been made that, yes, they are both iffy, with the critical distinction that:


Marcum last pitched effectively 4 months ago.

Pelfrey's last effective pitching occurred in 2010!

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

So despite the claims of at least one person that the gaggle of FO defenders that they "get it" about the uproar about this, we're five pages in of more arguments like "well, we're not contenders anyway", "don't spend just to spend", "we already took risk on Pelfrey" and other equally inane nonsense.

The "risk" of Pelfrey is WORSE in terms of recent health and worse in terms of upside. The problem is that the Twins again avoided a high-risk/high-reward situation and this time the price wasn't even that friggin high!!!! That's the problem, please at least try and get that through your head. Shaun Marcum could dissolve into a puddle of hair ooze on the mound and for 5-8M the risk was STILL worth it for the reward. What we have is, again, more evidence of just how ridiculously gun-shy this FO is. And that concerns me deeply for this team's future ceiling.

Oh come one now....lets stop with the dramatics.

Marcum is a talented pitcher but has a serious health risk/question. It's not like this signing would have been so obviously good to begin with. I would like to see them take more chances but it's hard to cry over the loss of a guy like Marcum.

Like you I'm PO'd that the owners are pocketing cash they said they'd spend but I wouldn't doubt either that they gave Ryan a budget for the season and they are darn close to the max of that money. So, I place the blame on the owners as well. I would rather have taken a chance on Marcum than Correia. I just don't see Correia being anything but a marginal #5 starter and we have a few younger guys that can be at least that. I may have been for Marcum over Pelfrey for similar reasons but both these signings are done already.

Originally Posted by mcrow

Marcum is a talented pitcher but has a serious health risk/question. It's not like this signing would have been so obviously good to begin with. I would like to see them take more chances but it's hard to cry over the loss of a guy like Marcum.

Of the three SP they signed, two were serious health risks. Just what exactly, in your bizarre view, is "A guy like Marcum"? What exactly does that mean? Maybe you just don't realize he's a good pitcher, something we have none of.

Plenty of blame to go around between Ryan and the Pohlads, but this was Ryan's call.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Just what exactly, in your bizarre view, is "A guy like Marcum"? What exactly does that mean? Maybe you just don't realize he's a good pitcher, something we have none of.

Originally Posted by mcrow

His average WAR for a season is around 2.5 which barely makes him a top 30 starter.

We should be so lucky to have pitchers who are barely top 30 starters