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

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Sorry, Captain Discourse.

Well jesus man, how many times does it have to be clarified? I specified it at least twice.

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

Originally Posted by snepp

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

Hard to say, but St. Peter and Ryan have acknowledged it and tried to tease a mid-season acquisition with it. (Which, to me, sounds a lot like more hope being sold ala pre-offseason talk) So seems pretty real to me.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Well jesus man, how many times does it have to be clarified? I specified it at least twice.

I was being sarcastic. I think it's completely unreasonable to restrict the conversation to free agency when we are speaking about things as grand as the Twins pitching philosophy and their motives in regards to 2013. I prefer looking at a broader context when wanting to make evaluations about the FO's competence. Last years offseason, this years draft, this years trades, the acquisitions of Pelfry and Harden all undermine the notion of the Twins being risk adverse. But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

Pseudo...that has been the point! We all got on here and praised the Twin's trades. You can search my Ryan posts - I'm a fan of his. I like his emphasis on the organization, I really do. BUT.....we are not a penny-pinching small market anymore. He has financial resources and this team is going to have significant financial room. This offseason was started with a promise of aggression and was completed with the same old, risk-averse, poor allocation of resources, limited upside moves. Again, if their approach to this critical component of team improvement (FA...not trading) is this narrow and stubborn - I have serious concerns as a fan. That's the vibe I get that others are trying to communicate as well.

Originally Posted by snepp

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

That's my thinking. I think TR was given a number that was substantially less than the 50% to work with and I'm sure that's supposed to be a secret. I don't think they ever intended to approach 50% this season.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Saying that someone's logic seems faulty to me is not derogatory, distasteful, nor contemptible. We're allowed to disagree with each other's reasoning. You're being ridiculous.

When I called you 'asinine,' that was a perjorative, 'specious,' is not.

You missed the part about you originally denying that your opening gambit in debate is always to use the perjorative and the fact that I stated that you use other perjoratives in conjunction with "specious", thus making its intent also perjorative.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Sorry Captain Discourse.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

Pseudo-passive? Meet your cranial neighbor, SABR-agressive.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Twins Daily logic: "I'll just continue to ignore the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks, and continue to hate on the Twins."

You seem to have missed the obvious...why did "the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks" suddenly become an issue on the day Marcum signed with the Mets, but wasn't an issue right up until that point? Where were all the don't-sign-Marcum posts before he signed elsewhere?

Originally Posted by USAFChief

You seem to have missed the obvious...why did "the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks" suddenly become an issue on the day Marcum signed with the Mets, but wasn't an issue right up until that point? Where were all the don't-sign-Marcum posts before he signed elsewhere?

Because the contract tells us something that we didn't know before.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Because the contract tells us something that we didn't know before.

That cutting payroll is priority one for Twins ownership? That's been obvious for some time now.

Definition, Risk/Reward;

Direct relationship between possible risk and possible reward which holds for a particular situation. To realize greater reward one must generally accept a greater risk, and vice/versa. Also known as risk/return trade-off.

What's the risk to the Twins in this situation? They lose a pitcher to injury (even though he's not officially injured and pitched through the end of last season effectively) and be no further behind than they are now except 4 million or so dollars they said they would spend anyway but haven't.

Reward, they immediately get a legitimate MLB pitcher and show their fanbase that they are serious about putting a quality product on the field and value their support.

The Twins comfort level in this situation should be high, the reward far outweighs the risk and has virtually no quantifiable effect on any further investment strategy going forward. It's a pretty simple equation.

Both Marcum and Pelfrey signed for 4M ish... Both have injury risks, and one a much higher upside than the other. Perhaps Marcum wasn't in the mood for 4M when the Pelfrey signing was in the works... I don't know, but it seems to me that if I had to choose my injury risk, I'd take Marcum over Pelfrey any day of the week, and I'd likely take Marcum and Pelfrey over Pelfrey and Correia as well. I get that TR cannot go out and sign every pitcher (as eventually, they realize there won't be playing time), bit I have to admit that this one is odd.

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

Perhaps Marcum wasn't in the mood for 4M when the Pelfrey signing was in the works...

That's a great sentence that is worth considering. When Pelfrey was signing for 4M... Maybe Marcum was holding firm at 10M. I don't know either but I will certainly consider that a possibility to be factored into my thinking.

All in all... I can't explain Marcum at 4 Million... I really wanted the guy.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

That's a great sentence that is worth considering. When Pelfrey was signing for 4M... Maybe Marcum was holding firm at 10M. I don't know either but I will certainly consider that a possibility to be factored into my thinking.

All in all... I can't explain Marcum at 4 Million... I really wanted the guy.

This is the problem with the whole discussion. We don't know the behind the scene talks that may have happened. If TR calls Marcum's agent and says "we have $5M for you right now, take it or leave it, but if you leave it we're going another direction" and his agent comes back with wanting $8m then is it TR's fault that the deal didn't happen?

For all we know they could have offered $4m or even more to Marcum a while back and he turned it down thinking he could get more and then the Twins just said forget it because the price is too high and went with Pelfrey. Eitherway, I still think that they have the money for both guys if they wanted them unless TR was given some absurdly low budget to work with.

Originally Posted by snepp

Yeah, all those strikeouts he gets would have been a real drag on our league "best" strikeout rate.

I don't think, if the K's continued, they would be a drag on the strikeout rate. Oh.... you don't really either? Oh, I get it now. What an idiot i am. Certainly Marcum has been a 7K/9inning guy..... which I always found amazing with a mid 80's heater, and not that much difference in the speed of his change-up. The opposing batter's average has been creeping up (not signigficant), but I just think adding him to the rotation with who they have now would be too similar and slower. Having him as a contrast to a flamer, would be much better. They could have thrown Marcum after Pelfrey, then..... if Pelfrey was/is in the rotation. Oh well........... none of the discussion really matters after the Met's have signed him.

Originally Posted by jokin

You missed the part about you originally denying that your opening gambit in debate is always to use the perjorative and the fact that I stated that you use other perjoratives in conjunction with "specious", thus making its intent also perjorative.

I hope it's not taken as pejorative that I point out that neither you nor Pseudosabr seems to know that the word has only one 'r'.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

I hope it's not taken as pejorative that I point out that neither you nor Pseudosabr seems to know that the word has only one 'r'.

Not at all, grammar-minders are a necessary function, you would have to use a "perjorative" for it to actually be taken as one.

Originally Posted by snepp

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

It is hard to say. St Peter will say one thing, Ryan might say something a little different. St Peter says that Ryan has lattirude in signing players, Ryan has said that he has to run contracts past Pohlad. So I would think that if there is any payroll limit that it would come from Pohlad. Perhaps they all have profit sharing.

Originally Posted by jokin

Not at all, grammar-minders are a necessary function, you would have to use a "perjorative" for it to actually be taken as one.

Both PseudoSABR and jokin clicking "like" on my little attempt at humor gives me hope that this site isn't doomed. Good sports, both of you - I'm not sure I'd be as big.