Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

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

  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

#41 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,798 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:48 AM

I wanted Marcum bad... It feels like a kick in the gut to see him sign with the Mets for 4 Million. I had to walk it off.

Then you think... He signed with the Mets for 4 Million. 4 freeking million... What about all the other squads? What about the Brewers? It is a fair point.

The Brewers have dropped Payroll from 97 to 69 million. They could afford 4 million for him easy and they are going with so so youth in the rotation for 2013 so they need him. Maybe they believe in that youth but having Marcum around for 4 million would be great insurance unless something is wrong with Marcum. The Brewers may have needed him worse than the Twins do and the Brewers didn't offer dollar one.

I read articles saying Marcum would like to return to the Brewers so it wasn't Marcum not wanting to return. The Brewers kicked him out the door for seemingly no reason. I would love for the Twins to roll the dice here but there is much more to this story.

Edited by Riverbrian, 31 January 2013 - 07:50 AM.


#42 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,181 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:48 AM

[quote]How is that a scarecrow? It's not. The title of the thread incriminates the Twins, [/quote]

Because we're Twins fans on a Twins board. If you want to open the thread about Houston, Pitt, KC, etc - by all means. They probably have some explaining to do here, but in the interest of this being a Twins board I'm guessing we'd like to focus in on that.

[quote] We all get what you guys think. [/quote]

If you did then why......

[quote name='PseudoSABR']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. .[/QUOTE]

You DON'T get it by evidence of this next thing you posted! Look, before the offseason started if someone had said you could have had Shaun Marcum for an investment of LESS THAN 5 MILLION - people would've ripped that person for being pollyannish. But here we are, in reality, and the Twin's best case scenario came true: A truly good pitcher with a lot of talent and a good track record fell through the cracks of FA. Hell, this was better than best case scenario. And yet again, rather than assuage all of our fears about this organization and it's GM and going out and getting this guy, they stoked the flames of the fears all of us have: That this team's leadership is too tight-fisted, too narrow-minded, too stuck in their own ways, and too risk-averse to climb on market blips like this.

It shouldn't matter if Marcum's arm is held on with gum and it falls off three pitches into ST - this is precisely the best case scenario the Twins should have been hoping for and they utterly failed to take advantage when the team needed them most. It does nothing for me with 2013, but it deflates my 2015/2016/2017 balloon a lot. If they can't, while sitting on more than quadruple this amount of money in "payroll flexibility", why in the hell should I believe that will change in 3 years? And if they are this stubborn and tight-fisted it will seriously hamstring this team when it is ready to compete again. That's what is frustrating and that is why people will continue to vent.

Hopefully this time you actually got it so you can stop soapboxing on strawmen. This is a Twins forum, god forbid we talk about a critical offseason component this team miserably failed on.

/rant

#43 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:26 AM

This is the signing I have least understood in the past couple of years. He and McCarthy are the two I wanted for the Twins.

As mentioned above I still think the Brewers passing on him in their current situation is the most suspicious fact.

#44 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,335 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:53 AM

[QUOTE=
You DON'T get it by evidence of this next thing you posted! Look, before the offseason started if someone had said you could have had Shaun Marcum for an investment of LESS THAN 5 MILLION - people would've ripped that person for being pollyannish.
/rant[/QUOTE]
Marcum was at 7.7 mil. and has missed time. From comments made early in the free agency period on this board 5 million would not have been out of line of what people had posted. After the signings started you would have been surprised, but your comment says before. Your own post says why teams would have shied away from him. Your are too stubborn in your beliefs to even pay attention to it. "Nothing alarming" is not a clean bill of health. Too bad you just don't get that. Marcum is a great pitcher, but the arm scares people off.

#45 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,267 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:58 AM

Insanity. The only word I can use to describe this FO.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#46 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,277 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:02 AM

Marcum was at 7.7 mil. and has missed time. From comments made early in the free agency period on this board 5 million would not have been out of line of what people had posted. After the signings started you would have been surprised, but your comment says before. Your own post says why teams would have shied away from him. Your are too stubborn in your beliefs to even pay attention to it. "Nothing alarming" is not a clean bill of health. Too bad you just don't get that. Marcum is a great pitcher, but the arm scares people off.


How many great pitchers do the Twins have? None by my estimation. This is the exact type of gamble the Twins should have made to fulfill some promises made in the fall, they have the flexibility to do it and lord knows they have the need. If they were willing to take on risks,( albeit far cheaper ones), with Pelfrey and Harden, this was seemingly the least serious and most effective one they could have taken from a playing standpoint.

It's a slap in the face to the fans that they weren't willing to take the "risk" because it happened to more "expensive". Can't wait for this year.

#47 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

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


NO. As I've said I don't like the Correia deal but the market this year makes it look better than it would have been last year. Not to mention what the market will be next year with all the money coming in. I'm not totally against picking up Marcum but when you already took chances on Pelfrey and Harden and you don't really have any workhorse types on the roster I think adding another risky guy isn't a good idea.

I think if you had a Saunders or Radke clone on the roster already maybe you take a more serious look at Marcum.

Right now you have 3 starters in the rotation that you can't be sure what you're going to get out of them. I think we know what we're getting with Worley (He might really be the hands down best pitcher on the staff by season's end) and we know what Correia is and it's not impressive. Diamond is basically coming into year 2 as a full time starter and there is reason to believe he will regress. Pelfrey coming off of TJ. Whoever ends up in the 5th spot at this point is obviously a question mark.

All I'm saying is given all of the uncertaintity in the rotation why add another huge question mark? Particularly given the chances that he's with the Twins for more than a year are next to none.

#48 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Cham-Peen of the World

  • Members
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:37 AM

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.


Not every team is shopping for mid-level starting pitching. Very few should be as interested in it as the Twins.

#49 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 1,472 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:46 AM

Personally, I am very happy that Marcum is not going to be a Twin. Another soft tossing pitcher is not what was needed. At all. For any length of time.

#50 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Twins Mods
  • 7,799 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:48 AM

So if the Twins were right to avoid Marcum because 28 other teams passed on him, wouldn't the same logic say they were wrong for signing Correia and Pelfrey? The other 29 teams passed on them too.

#51 LoganJones

LoganJones

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:49 AM

It's a bummer that Marcum isn't going to be suiting up for the Twins. Particularly at that price.

#52 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,335 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

How many great pitchers do the Twins have? None by my estimation. This is the exact type of gamble the Twins should have made to fulfill some promises made in the fall, they have the flexibility to do it and lord knows they have the need. If they were willing to take on risks,( albeit far cheaper ones), with Pelfrey and Harden, this was seemingly the least serious and most effective one they could have taken from a playing standpoint.

It's a slap in the face to the fans that they weren't willing to take the "risk" because it happened to more "expensive". Can't wait for this year.


Harden should not even figure into any equation of Twins pitching. If he contributes to the Twins this year it is all bonus and all good. In regards to the risk medically with Pelfrey there is none. There risk post TJ surgery is what? The procedure is done. The question there is the recovery time to be back to 100%. That is a completely different issue than Marcum. Nowhere have I read that Marcum has a clean bill of health. It is reasonable to think there is breakdown in Marcum's future. I do not know the medical reports to identify how much risk there is. I don't know what reports the teams other than the Brewers have. I know that the Brewers have exactly one very good pitcher in Gallardo and a collection of starters that can be described as less than average. With the medical reports the Brewers decided to pass on Marcum. Doesn't that raise the littlest of red flags that there is a good potential for a problem more than a medium risk? I do not disagree with that even at 7 million Marcum would be money well spent if he played for a half season. I also don't think that teams want to plan that way. The Mets can because the have a guy almost ready in AAA in Zach Wheeler. The Mets will worry about 2014 when it happens and they have that hole to fill. I don't think the Twins think that way. In regards to Pelfrey and Harden and the Twins I would think, given the Twins way of doing business, if they work out the Twins would work at resigning them.

#53 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:02 AM

So if the Twins were right to avoid Marcum because 28 other teams passed on him, wouldn't the same logic say they were wrong for signing Correia and Pelfrey? The other 29 teams passed on them too.


I don't think 28 other teams passed on Pelfrey, there were around 7 teams with serious interest in him where as most of the teams mentioned for Marcum were more than likely just inquiries which don't mean they were all that serious about signing him. Not to mention Pelfrey's situation is a more of known, he's coming off of TJ and we basically know how pitchers coming off TJ work. Correia reportedly left money on the table which indicates he had more than one offer and he's not really an injury risk at this point.

I think the whole issue with Marcum is a history of injury and the last one is so strange that you don't know for sure it's not going to happen again and I'm not taking a player's word on that. The combo of Marcum having almost zero buzz about being signed and his mystery injury makes him a lot more risky than taking a guy coming off of TJ.

#54 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:07 AM

Harden should not even figure into any equation of Twins pitching. If he contributes to the Twins this year it is all bonus and all good. In regards to the risk medically with Pelfrey there is none. There risk post TJ surgery is what? The procedure is done. The question there is the recovery time to be back to 100%. That is a completely different issue than Marcum. Nowhere have I read that Marcum has a clean bill of health. It is reasonable to think there is breakdown in Marcum's future. I do not know the medical reports to identify how much risk there is. I don't know what reports the teams other than the Brewers have. I know that the Brewers have exactly one very good pitcher in Gallardo and a collection of starters that can be described as less than average. With the medical reports the Brewers decided to pass on Marcum. Doesn't that raise the littlest of red flags that there is a good potential for a problem more than a medium risk? I do not disagree with that even at 7 million Marcum would be money well spent if he played for a half season. I also don't think that teams want to plan that way. The Mets can because the have a guy almost ready in AAA in Zach Wheeler. The Mets will worry about 2014 when it happens and they have that hole to fill. I don't think the Twins think that way. In regards to Pelfrey and Harden and the Twins I would think, given the Twins way of doing business, if they work out the Twins would work at resigning them.


TJ is done, will have nearly a full year behind him on that front going into the opener. He might not be 100% back but the risk of injury isn't all that much more than it was before he got injured. I agree on Harden, low risk and high reward pick up there. You're in no way counting on him giving the team anything. If you sign Marcum you're counting on him to produce.

#55 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,340 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:44 PM

Personally, I am very happy that Marcum is not going to be a Twin. Another soft tossing pitcher is not what was needed. At all. For any length of time.


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

#56 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 14,944 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:51 PM

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


Hey, any contract to Marcum would have tied up payroll for at least 180 days.

#57 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 2,927 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:49 PM

So many reasonable people are taking on faith or on Marcum's word that the medical records/evaluations really aren't that bad. It's odd.

#58 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,277 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:50 PM

TJ is done, will have nearly a full year behind him on that front going into the opener. He might not be 100% back but the risk of injury isn't all that much more than it was before he got injured. I agree on Harden, low risk and high reward pick up there. You're in no way counting on him giving the team anything. If you sign Marcum you're counting on him to produce.


And that's a bad thing? As opposed to expecting the other slop they picked up to produce? What exactly is the gamble here? The Twins have loads of payroll flexibility and all the reasons in the world to take a chance on a guy like this, how does it set them any further back? It can only help, if it doesn't work out then that's the price of playing, when you're sitting on 20 million and really have nothing to lose, you should be all in.

#59 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:00 PM

And that's a bad thing? As opposed to expecting the other slop they picked up to produce? What exactly is the gamble here? The Twins have loads of payroll flexibility and all the reasons in the world to take a chance on a guy like this, how does it set them any further back? It can only help, if it doesn't work out then that's the price of playing, when you're sitting on 20 million and really have nothing to lose, you should be all in.



I think if you're the Twins you have to either be all in and think you can contend or realize it's a rebuilding year. Seems to me that they don't know which way they think they're going yet which is part of the issue. If the team is rebuilding a guy like Marcum doesn't really make much sense. If you think you could compete them maybe the possible reward is worth it. IMO, the Twins are still a rebuilding team and they'd be better served seeing what some of the younger guys can do given they already picked up 3 vets for the rotation already. If they had not already signed Correia and/or Pelfrey then maybe it makes more sense to give Marcum a chance.

I don't have a problem with the price really, $4M for a breathing pitcher is relatively cheap these days. It's more of a philosphical issue for me.

#60 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,277 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

Why does rebuilding= you shouldn't sign better players when you can, especially when they are cheap and you can afford them?. So what if they have already signed 3 "vets", if Marcum is a better option you move one of them to the BP. Which of these younger guys are we waiting to find out about? Gibson and Hendriks in reality and Gibson will be limited at that, who would be blocked? May, Meyer? They're not coming before September at the earliest anyway.