Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

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

#151 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:04 AM

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.

#152 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,001 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:18 AM

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.

#153 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,160 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

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.

#154 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,173 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:38 AM

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.

#155 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

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.

#156 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 528 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:11 PM

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.

Edited by h2oface, 01 February 2013 - 12:22 PM.


#157 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 6,100 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:19 PM

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'.

#158 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 8,057 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:23 PM

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.;)

#159 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 822 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:39 PM

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.

#160 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 6,100 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:42 PM

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.

#161 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:45 PM

Option A: 31 teams foolishly choose not to risk four million (for a total of eight).
Option B: There's legitimate concerns about Marcum's health.

Look, Marcum could very well have a healthy season, but it's clear that the general consensus among baseball FO's that Marcum is not worth the risk in salary. It's made clear by the contract he ended up signing.

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.

I just think the premise of thread is bunk and needlessly inflammatory.


31 teams, did a couple of teams from japan pass on him also?

#162 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:47 PM

Who is ignoring it? That very real possibility is why he was as available as he was for that price. It's huge risk....but it also comes with tremendously more upside than the deals we inked. I thought you understood all this already?


personally i think Marcum at 1 year for 4 million is less risky then Correia at 2 years for 10 million

#163 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:57 PM

Feel better?

Honestly, Smerf, it's hard for me to get worked up about this Marcum or Correia or Pelfry. When the Twins traded Span and Revere for Meyer, Mays, and Worley. That's ****ing LIGHT YEARS of progress to prior off-seasons. However distasteful lamely treading water is in 2013 and how cheap it is for management, I see a real legitimate shift in their pitching the philosophy. In some ways, this is an extension of what we saw in the draft, with more high-risk and high-velocity arms (maybe they'll even turn one of the bullpen arms into a starter, at least the approach is somewhat novel). The tone of your post just seems to miss the forest for the trees and unreasonably harsh.


speaking of light years, what have they done for us this year??????? We acquired a pitcher on the D.L twice last year, a flop at AA and a single A pitcher....its not like we picked up a Cole , Bauer ,taillon or Bundy....i hope all 3 turn into the best starting rotation in baseball history ,but dont be surprised if it falls to the wayside ....

#164 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:00 PM

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.


What is there a midseason free agency now? or are we going to acquire such a good player we are going to need an extra 20 million just to pay his salary for half a season? or are we just going to offer up moralas and 20 million for for king felix? please explain how we need to save 20 million for mid season trades?

#165 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

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.

More likely payroll slashing bonuses

#166 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,514 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:18 PM

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


So what does it tell? We have read for years from ryan that patience often pays-off when offering contracts to unsigned free agents as ST nears. Maybe teams just "waited-him-out"? Maybe he was trying to bluff other teams that the Twins were really interested in him--when they weren't interested in Marcum. He took the $4MM (plus $4MM more available in incentives) rather than wait for an offer that wasn't coming!

#167 one_eyed_jack

one_eyed_jack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 617 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:28 PM

Pursuing Correia over Marcum has always been a curious decision. This article with a few self-serving quotes from Marcum doesn't change anything or add to the conversation.

I'm a little surprised that it took Marcum this long to land a job, maybe concerns about his health are legit.

Still, at least with Marcum, we would at least have had a shot at getting a guy who could make a difference.

I hope to God he proves me wrong, but I have trouble seeing Correia becoming anything more than a marginal 5th starter.