Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

Article: Contemplating Bringing Scott Baker Back

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Cody Christie

Cody Christie

    Twins Contributor

  • Twins Contributors
  • 845 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:20 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...cott-Baker-back

#2 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

The only thing i remember about Scott Baker is he is great when their is no pressure. Maybe a 1 yr 3 million deal would work.

#3 nick5253

nick5253

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:57 PM

I would like to see Bake back next year. He actually has some upside and would sign for a reasonable 1 year deal, perhaps with an option or two.

Assuming they sign him, I'd like to see the Twins get creative in how they limit innings for him as well as Gibson. I would recommend going with a 6 man staff, but not a 6 guys taking each turn type of rotation. I would do:

Normal 5 man rotation type workload:
#1 FA Signing (Marcum, Sanchez, whomever they sign from that 2nd tier group)
#2 Diamond

Take 3 out of every 4 turns in a normal 5 man rotation:
Baker
Gibson
Hendricks
Deduno

Basically keep 4 guys on your 25 roster to take up those 3-5 spots in the rotation. It would slightly limit your bullpen, but having a 12 man bullpen is over-kill anyway. This would result in the FA signing & Diamond getting 33 starts and the other 4 guys getting 24. Obviously injuries would play a part. but this plan would keep the young & recovering arms to around 160 innings instead of 200+.

#4 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,131 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

The only thing i remember about Scott Baker is he is great when their is no pressure. Maybe a 1 yr 3 million deal would work.


There's nothing wrong with bringing him back on a one year deal with incentives, just as long as he's not counted on as one of the three pitchers Ryan says he needs to find in the offseason.

But that won't happen. The Twins would absolutely count on him to duplicate his best season, and if/when he gets hurt, they'll probably misdiagnose it again, and he'll end up missing half the season or more, again. When that happens, there will be no backup plan in place, and Ryan will try to wave away the injury as both unforeseeable and unpreventable. And when the fan base questions the credibility of a front office that obtuse, Ryan will politely instruct them to shut up and eat their seven dollar bratwursts.

Edited by LaBombo, 24 October 2012 - 04:20 PM.


#5 Jack Torse

Jack Torse

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:06 PM

Would Baker want to come back? They (the Twins) never seemed too thrilled with him while he was healthy and called him out in the media at the very time they couldn't figure out he needed TJ procedure. Not to mention other teams will surely show interest in his services.

I hope they say goodbye. He's never been durable, or as you mention been an innnigs eater. At this time I think they're better off with some of their younger guys or just about anything else. Truth be told, the guy could flat out dominate at times and I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if he comes back strong. But is it worth paying and waiting and hoping?

I would put odds at 95% the Twins don't offer him anything after they reject his option.

#6 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

I am convinced Baker will be back--and will count as one of three "new" pitchers referenced. Let's face quality pitchers will not be eager to play for the Twins next season and it appears that Baker is interested (at least) to stay.

#7 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,785 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:32 PM

How is bringing Baker back at the right price not a good idea? So he's had some health issues, so have lots of guys.

#8 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:54 PM

I am convinced Baker will be back--and will count as one of three "new" pitchers referenced. Let's face quality pitchers will not be eager to play for the Twins next season and it appears that Baker is interested (at least) to stay.


So...Baker, Gibson, Diamond, Marcum (maube) and maybe, Deduno?

#9 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

any rotation that is nothing but a bunch of names from this organization is a failure. They need new pitchers.

#10 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:38 PM

They can guarantee his return by picking up the option. At one year, I would pay the premium to guarantee he is on the roster.

I would not count on his public comments that he would like to return as a sign that the Twins can get him at a bargain price.

My guess is his agent will push for him to go elsewhere once the option is declined. It is very rare for a player to have an option declined and then return to the same team at a bargain rate.

#11 Teddy

Teddy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:33 AM

There are only two rock-solid sure things we can count on right now regarding this rotation:

1. Scott Diamond will be back
2. Nick Blackburn will be given every opportunity to make it back onto the 40-man roster

I doubt we'll see Gibson until mid-June, to avoid Super-2 status on him. If the comments of Ryan are to be taken seriously, and they are targeting adding three pitchers, Baker will likely be one of the three. Marcum would be a typical Twins-type acquisition, and I'd be fine with that. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan count another year from Pavano as one of the three. I'm not so enthused about that choice, as he wasn't too effective this year before the injury.

So, don't be surprised to see your 2013 Twins' opening day roster of starters to be Marcum, Diamond, Baker, Pavano and Blackburn (with Deduno back in Rochester working on his control and Hendricks waiting for an injury or for the inevitable Blackburn-sucks demotion to occur).

#12 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,840 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:42 AM

There are only two rock-solid sure things we can count on right now regarding this rotation:

1. Scott Diamond will be back
2. Nick Blackburn will be given every opportunity to make it back onto the 40-man roster

I doubt we'll see Gibson until mid-June, to avoid Super-2 status on him. If the comments of Ryan are to be taken seriously, and they are targeting adding three pitchers, Baker will likely be one of the three. Marcum would be a typical Twins-type acquisition, and I'd be fine with that. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan count another year from Pavano as one of the three. I'm not so enthused about that choice, as he wasn't too effective this year before the injury.

So, don't be surprised to see your 2013 Twins' opening day roster of starters to be Marcum, Diamond, Baker, Pavano and Blackburn (with Deduno back in Rochester working on his control and Hendricks waiting for an injury or for the inevitable Blackburn-sucks demotion to occur).


I think you're on the right track but I don't think we'll see Pavano back on the team. Maybe someone like him but not Carl himself. As a second or third FA option, I'm not against that kind of pick-up as long as the org picks up a legitimate free agent alongside him.

I doubt we'll see Blackburn back on the 40 man unless he absolutely shuts down Spring Training hitters (I mean, really shuts them down). Teams don't take guys off the 40 man without the expectation that they will stay off of it. Moving guys on and off the list is too complicated, especially mid-season.

Besides, I think the team is probably more keen on De Vries at this point than Blackburn anyway (as they should be).

#13 sorney

sorney

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:28 AM

Baker is a no-doubter in my mind. The dude is a quality pitcher (albiet not super durable) on a staff that is full of question marks to say the least.

#14 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:03 AM

What can the Twins get for $20 million in 2013, and add another $30 million to the mix in 2014...all earmarked for starters. That is the question. One $10 and two $5, and how much for a second, not to bring up options for a third.

#15 StormJH1

StormJH1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 472 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:14 AM

I support bringing back Baker. No sure thing there, but he should be ready early enough next year, and let's not forget that this guy was essentially our "ace" before everything fell apart. Not Liriano (too erratic), not Pavano (had one good year), but Baker. So if he could've made $9.25 million without the TJ surgery, I don't think he's taking $1 million or $2 million next year. He can get a better 1-year deal somewhere for sure, but even in the $3 to $6 million range he's a better value than paying a healthy guy in the FA market.

#16 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:01 PM

I support bringing back Baker. No sure thing there, but he should be ready early enough next year, and let's not forget that this guy was essentially our "ace" before everything fell apart. Not Liriano (too erratic), not Pavano (had one good year), but Baker. So if he could've made $9.25 million without the TJ surgery, I don't think he's taking $1 million or $2 million next year. He can get a better 1-year deal somewhere for sure, but even in the $3 to $6 million range he's a better value than paying a healthy guy in the FA market.


Colby Lewis got a 1 year deal for $2 million with up to an additional $4 million in incentives. That's about the same range I expect for Baker. I just hope they add a second year option.

#17 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

I support bringing back Baker. No sure thing there, but he should be ready early enough next year, and let's not forget that this guy was essentially our "ace" before everything fell apart. Not Liriano (too erratic), not Pavano (had one good year), but Baker. So if he could've made $9.25 million without the TJ surgery, I don't think he's taking $1 million or $2 million next year. He can get a better 1-year deal somewhere for sure, but even in the $3 to $6 million range he's a better value than paying a healthy guy in the FA market.


Colby Lewis got a 1 year deal for $2 million with up to an additional $4 million in incentives. That's about the same range I expect for Baker. I just hope they add a second year option.


Baker and the Twins are a good fit--and both know it. Baker will have a savvy agent and will have "sniffed around" to gauge Baker's market value. The Twins will assuredly have a codicile in the contract to allow them to extend it beyond 2013--the need for pitching goes beyond 2013 and they won't want to lose Baker without compensation should he have a strong season.

#18 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:11 AM

I support bringing back Baker. No sure thing there, but he should be ready early enough next year, and let's not forget that this guy was essentially our "ace" before everything fell apart. Not Liriano (too erratic), not Pavano (had one good year), but Baker. So if he could've made $9.25 million without the TJ surgery, I don't think he's taking $1 million or $2 million next year. He can get a better 1-year deal somewhere for sure, but even in the $3 to $6 million range he's a better value than paying a healthy guy in the FA market.


Colby Lewis got a 1 year deal for $2 million with up to an additional $4 million in incentives. That's about the same range I expect for Baker. I just hope they add a second year option.


The Rangers take on the risk that Lewis will not pitch until after the all star break and possibly much later. Even then, it may take some time to get back to speed and he may be on reduced pitch counts. Baker is much further along on the recovery path.

#19 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:45 PM

I doubt we'll see Gibson until mid-June, to avoid Super-2 status on him.


Just to pick a nit here, but if Gibson made the rotation out of spring training, he would not be super 2 elligible after his second season, as he would have exactly 2 years of service time. Super 2 tends to affect people who get called up for a good chunk of a partial season (i.e. calling him up in say June and he stays on the roster)... you have to have aproximately 2 1/3 years of service to be a super 2.

#20 jm3319

jm3319

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

Bye-Bye Baker. http://espn.go.com/m...r-contract-2013

#21 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

Bye-Bye Baker. http://espn.go.com/m...r-contract-2013


Clearly you don't understand the nature of this option.

#22 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:01 PM

Now that the Twins have navigated through the winter and made additions to their rotation we can look back at the decision on Scott Baker.

While other pitchers like Joe Saunders chose other teams in spite of the Twins interest, Baker was the one pitcher the Twins could have guaranteed signing. They simply needed to pick up his option at 9.25 million. If he is healthy this year, he will achieve the performance bonus and earn 7+ million with the Cubs. The Twins would have overpayed by 2 million, but it is clear now that they were going to have to overpay someone. Had they offered the 9 million to Saunders, he may have taken it. He could have been a Twin for a year. I would rather have had Baker. It seems like there was a better chance that Baker would be open to an extension and Saunders a one year rental.

I think Baker will be healthy and pitching well by the end of May. I would be much more confident in their rotation this year if Baker were in camp.

#23 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,340 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:00 PM

Now that the Twins have navigated through the winter and made additions to their rotation we can look back at the decision on Scott Baker.

While other pitchers like Joe Saunders chose other teams in spite of the Twins interest, Baker was the one pitcher the Twins could have guaranteed signing. They simply needed to pick up his option at 9.25 million. If he is healthy this year, he will achieve the performance bonus and earn 7+ million with the Cubs. The Twins would have overpayed by 2 million, but it is clear now that they were going to have to overpay someone. Had they offered the 9 million to Saunders, he may have taken it. He could have been a Twin for a year. I would rather have had Baker. It seems like there was a better chance that Baker would be open to an extension and Saunders a one year rental.

I think Baker will be healthy and pitching well by the end of May. I would be much more confident in their rotation this year if Baker were in camp.


It will be interesting to see how well he does this year. I share your feeling that it would have been good to keep him, but only time will tell whether he is able to perform post-surgery.

#24 LoganJones

LoganJones

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:12 PM

I would have liked to see Scotty succeed here. I just never really saw it happening.

#25 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

I would stand by the decision not to pick up that option. No way they can guarantee that kind of money coming off of TJ.

#26 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

I would stand by the decision not to pick up that option. No way they can guarantee that kind of money coming off of TJ.


This. Besides, it's hard for me to get behind the idea that "now that the free agent market has shaken out, we can assess..." That's like saying "now that I know I have a losing lottery ticket, I can assess whether I should have played the lottery." No; you do the best with what information you have beforehand. I think a lot of us, myself included, were pretty darn surprised at the money Baker got from the Cubs. People around here were talking about resigning him for $1 or $2 million.

#27 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:50 PM

This. Besides, it's hard for me to get behind the idea that "now that the free agent market has shaken out, we can assess..." That's like saying "now that I know I have a losing lottery ticket, I can assess whether I should have played the lottery." No; you do the best with what information you have beforehand. I think a lot of us, myself included, were pretty darn surprised at the money Baker got from the Cubs. People around here were talking about resigning him for $1 or $2 million.


My comments on the Twins decision on Baker are absolutely consistent with a comment I wrote in this thread on 10/24. I said at that time that he was the one pitcher the Twins could guarantee on the roster. While others counted on the Twins opening their pocket books for the numerous free agents dreaming of the chance to play in Minnesota, a few had a more realistic outlook. Baker has more upside than any other free agent they signed.

and John... Instead of giving the money to Baker, haven't they simply put it in their pocket? The 9 million didn't go anywhere else.

#28 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

I didn't get any of that $9MM.

#29 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:11 PM

and John... Instead of giving the money to Baker, haven't they simply put it in their pocket? The 9 million didn't go anywhere else.


Well, sure, but there isn't a pitcher or player you can't say that about.

Even now, I would call it borderline crazy to promise Baker 9.25M. I understand you have lots of confidence in Baker. I don't.

#30 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 682 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

I'll just weigh in as another that does not see $9.25 million as a good idea for Baker this year.
I wish him all the best and expect he'll do OK, but that is too much to guarentee to a guy with his injury history.