Defending the signing of a bad pitcher by pointing out that he's slightly less horrible than the worst pitchers on one of the worst staffs in the majors last year, and then calling others irrational, is... odd.
Honestly, I think the justifiable frustration with the Correia signing stems mostly from two things: 1) He was the premier free agent pitching acquisition by a team that claimed to be serious about wanting to turn around a horrendous rotation. 2) The extra year. It means this isn't quite as simple as -- in your words -- "if he sucks, he'll get cut." The Twins are now obligated to stick with him past the point where he proves himself a liability because they have a chunk of cash committed to him the following year. See: Nick Blackburn.
If You think that 8% in a rate stat like ERA+ is 'slightly less', then I wonder if you really have been thinking about it in terms of baseball. Imagine if the Tigers had received that slight of a difference in their run differential last year? They got the 88 wins they were expected to have based on surrendering 670 runs. Instead they surrender 723. A measly 8% more runs, right? Well that pushes their win expectancy to 81 wins, assuming their offense stays the same. Their Team ERA+ was 112. So we'll be charitable and say that the crazy high number of unerned runs doesn't increase with that worse pitching, and only increase the number of earned runs allowed 8 percent. 718 runs. Tigers are now 82 and 80. Obviously the Os can talk about beating Pythagorean records, but it's right a lot more than it's not. Let's be crazy and give the Twins an 8% reduction in earned runs last year. The win total isn't awe inspiring, but it is 73. Obviously, Correia's contribution to that would be 1/5 and you'd like to shoot for more, but just holding your breath and saying it not any good at all, is just not correct.
It's been established that he wasn't a super desirable signing. Making that point a month ago is not irrational, still banging on about it day after day like it will do any good is plain insanity. They needed stability, their scouting department looked at the things they look at and valued the guy at 5 mil. He obviously had other offers and they felt that going 2 years wasn't crazy or a huge waste of cash. His signing did not preclude the signing of actual better players. They still have plenty of flexibility to add other people. They acquired Worley, they signed Pelfrey. They didn't sign Jackson, Marcum or Baker. These are all guys who various people had hoped they would. There is no chance they signing of Correia is the reason they didn't move on any of the other guys. Focusing on him like he's the reason they're not going to win next year is, yes, totally irrational.
Edited by LoganJones, 30 January 2013 - 05:45 PM.