Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

The Twins have had one of the worst 5 offeseasons so far???

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,483 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 09:20 AM

yeah, I have to question the premise here. I don't get the reasoning though. The Twins definitely needed lots of help in the rotation. Saving up money for Tanaka has some significant risk to go with it as well, but from the sounds of it, he's going to be freaking expensive. I still think the Twins signed one guy too many (unless KC is traded), but this team needed significant help in the rotation... they addressed that.

#22 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,889 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:41 AM

Not sure how it bottom five, but the allocation of resources to Pelfrey and KC both, when the smartest GM ever just traded for Worley and you have Gibson and Deduno, and your offense is terrible, well, it is not an A offseason for me yet.

and, judging Ellsbury on OPS is pretty lazy Brock.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#23 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,980 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:56 AM

Not sure how it bottom five, but the allocation of resources to Pelfrey and KC both, when the smartest GM ever just traded for Worley and you have Gibson and Deduno, and your offense is terrible, well, it is not an A offseason for me yet.

and, judging Ellsbury on OPS is pretty lazy Brock.


I've judged Ellsbury's contract on multiple occasions using far more than OPS. If you want me to rehash that argument for the twentieth time, I can do so.

For example, Ellsbury is a 30 year old signed to a seven year contract. Here are his WAR numbers by year:

1.4, 4.1, 2.1, 9.1, 1.4, 5.8.

There are way too many low numbers in there for a guy being paid over $21m a year through his age 36 season.

Hell, some around here crucify Mauer and his paycheck and he has posted a WAR under 3.0 twice in his career. His rookie season (injured) and 2011 (injured).

#24 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:21 AM

I don't know as much about other teams as I should. But I saw some ugly contracts. The Ellsbury one is one of the worst I've ever seen. That set the market for position players, so the Rangers signed Choo for way over his value. It seems like the writer is basing much of the analysis on what teams spent, not on the quality of their investments.

All I know is this is the best offseason the Twins have had in years. If this is a bottom 5 year, I wonder how 2008 or 2011 should be judged.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#25 mikecgrimes

mikecgrimes

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 245 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:25 AM

I need new flooring in my house. I purchased some middle of the road flooring. It was a bad purchase because it wasn't a new car.

#26 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,889 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:29 AM

Well, in fairness, you judged him on ops in this thread.......we all disagree on that one, clearly. Since the yanks have infinite money, the cost is really irrelevant. It is about how he does. That said, on topic of the twins......not top five, not bottom five. So far, they have not fixed the offense, and again effectively cut payroll, rather than going all in.

For those that say they should just pocket the money because they are not close, if you sign a good player two years ago, and then two good ones last year, you are "close".....and then your argument is moot. At some point, you should apply your resources. And right now, they are not fully doing so.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#27 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,984 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:43 AM

It's incredible to me that someone would actually pay for garbage analysis like that. I think we just write this one off to, "consider the source," and move on.


BINGO! (but I think it is free)

The other inane thing about this, is to try to judge off-seasons with 3 months plus left before opening day and arguably the top 5 SP FAs and a bunch of position player FAs still out there...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#28 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:51 AM

Well, in fairness, you judged him on ops in this thread.......we all disagree on that one, clearly. Since the yanks have infinite money, the cost is really irrelevant.


I don't get that. The Yanks don't have infinite money. It is more than other teams, but it is finite. And his contract will limit what they do elsewhere.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#29 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 517 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 12:40 PM

I don't get that. The Yanks don't have infinite money. It is more than other teams, but it is finite. And his contract will limit what they do elsewhere.


While it is technically true that the Yankee's don't have infinite money, for all practical purposes they do. They have $1B (yes that is a B as in Billion) in revenue, so they can spend as much as they desire. Their only true limiting factor is their stated desire to get below the luxury tax threshold.

#30 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,889 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:17 PM

I don't get that. The Yanks don't have infinite money. It is more than other teams, but it is finite. And his contract will limit what they do elsewhere.


have you seen the Yankees be limited recently? You do know they have a billion or so in revenue? Two or three useless contracts won't stop them from doing what they want. Only a self imposed limit will......which would surprise me if true.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#31 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 726 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:25 PM

The more I looked at this article, the more I'm reminded of a few papers I wrote in college. You know, the ones that I started the day before they were due and stayed up all night long to craft. Rambling, illogical, often contradictory, netting me a C if I was lucky. No thought, no research, or worse, made up research. Pretty font, slightly narrower margins and wider spacing to cloud the eyes and pad length.

Basically a waste of time, energy and space for me and the poor prof. who had to grade it.

#32 B Richard

B Richard

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 528 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:50 PM

Poor article, irresponsible at best.

If you aren't a big fan of judging players by OPS+ to measure hitting skills, consider Ellsbury has only posted a WRC+ of 100 or more just twice in his career.

#33 Tibs

Tibs

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 850 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 02:41 PM

Maybe the writer is a White Sox fan?
I couldn't be a player because of bad eyesight, so I decided to be an umpire instead.

#34 thetank

thetank

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 02:46 PM

Poor article, irresponsible at best.

If you aren't a big fan of judging players by OPS+ to measure hitting skills, consider Ellsbury has only posted a WRC+ of 100 or more just twice in his career.


Yankees overpaid for Ellsbury and Beltran. Beltran has declined in the 2nd half in the past 2 years and his range is limited in the OF.

The Twins haven't replaced Morneau's bat.

#35 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,542 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:39 AM

Without getting into his analysis of other teams, that I don't know well enough to comment on, I found his Twins blurb to have a lot of merit. Many posters seem to be glossing over his intent and skipping straight to the number of the ranking.

He writes that we are hoping that Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey all improve. Well, how many people here have commented that they hope Hughes will be better after getting out of Yankee Stadium or that he is still young enough to learn? Aren't many of us hoping that Pelfrey has a bounce back a second year after TJ surgery? Aren't we hoping that Nolasco is the 2013 version with his 101 ERA+ instead of the '09-12 version with an 87 ERA+?

That seems like a lot of wishing for improvement to me and yet the most likely outcome is that they remain who they have been for their whole careers. If that happens we will have a rotation filled with back half of the rotation pitchers that are signed for years to come.

It is clear that the Twins could have a potent lineup as early as 2015 if everything fits together perfectly. Yet that will mean very little without great starting pitching. His point seems to be that if you're going to hope and take a risk, then do so on players that have a legitimate shot at being a great starting pitcher. A player that could be slotted into the front of the rotation when the Twins young bats arrive because they have precious few arms that fit that description arriving from the minors in the next year or two. If you don't like Tanaka, fine, there are other pitchers who fit his description of "hope and risk".

If you can get past his ranking and who he names specifically as upgrades and drill down to his larger points I think he brings up a very valid point of view.

#36 stringer bell

stringer bell

    Front office apologist

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,926 posts
  • LocationZumbrota MN

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:23 AM

I think it is safe to say that the acquisition of three free agent starters this winter has raised the floor considerably for starting pitching in 2014. None of the four acquired in the last two years profiles as an ace or even a number 2. With about five candidates to fill out the rotation out of Spring Training and a top prospect (Meyer) getting close, I think it can be reasonably expected that the Twins starting numbers will be quite a bit better, but quite a bit better might still land the Twins in the bottom quadrant of starting pitchers. How much value does one give for going from 29th to 22nd?

Meanwhile, most of the offensive issues haven't been addressed. The Twins are hoping for young and youngish players to establish themselves and for veterans to bounce back. Yes, help in on the horizon, but 2014 looks a lot like the year I foresaw for 2013--transition with a bright future probably a year away--and it doesn't look promising that the Twins will contend in the coming year.

#37 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,254 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 10:33 AM

This is my favorite aspect of the article(s). The Rays retained a 2.7 WAR first baseman, a guy coming off his best season since 2007. They, uh, picked up a couple of relievers as well. Relievers. Yay.

Great pickups, obviously the second best in all of MLB this offseason! Because the Rays are GREAT! Obviously, retaining Loney was smart because the Rays are smart, right? Right? There's no way a smart team could make a bad bet on a guy after a bounceback season. That's unpossible.


I'm sure the article is bad and don't intend to read it, but your criticism of the Loney deal could easily be applied to the Nolasco deal (particularly if you prefer ERA+/rWAR to FIP/fWAR). Our biggest/best acquisition was a 1.8 WAR SP (about the same as Correia last year) who just had his best season since 2008.

This offseason looks great compared to past poor FA offseasons, and it looks pretty good considering how awful our SP has been the past two years. But objectively, it looks like we've just removed a few negative value players, rather than truly adding any plus value guys. Considering the Twins position, that's not necessarily bad, but I probably wouldn't rank their offseason yet as anything more than middle of the pack.

#38 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,254 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 10:45 AM

Without getting into his analysis of other teams, that I don't know well enough to comment on, I found his Twins blurb to have a lot of merit.

Good points! Much better stated than my post above. :)

#39 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,980 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:44 PM

I'm sure the article is bad and don't intend to read it, but your criticism of the Loney deal could easily be applied to the Nolasco deal (particularly if you prefer ERA+/rWAR to FIP/fWAR). Our biggest/best acquisition was a 1.8 WAR SP (about the same as Correia last year) who just had his best season since 2008.

This offseason looks great compared to past poor FA offseasons, and it looks pretty good considering how awful our SP has been the past two years. But objectively, it looks like we've just removed a few negative value players, rather than truly adding any plus value guys. Considering the Twins position, that's not necessarily bad, but I probably wouldn't rank their offseason yet as anything more than middle of the pack.


Which is fine. Personally, I'd rank the Twins offseason somewhere in the 8-12 range because they improved so much from last season, which isn't saying much but it IS an improvement.

I have no issues with someone questioning the Twins' offseason and not ranking it near the top of the league. I have issues with a guy who ranks the Twins #26 and the Rays #2 because that is, well... it's damned ridiculous, that's what it is.

#40 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 8,538 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:45 PM

The Tigers, Rays and Yankees have not had good offseasons so far.

The Rays gave multiple years to Loney and signed Dejesus to an extension. And the Yankees have spent most of the their money without getting one starter (other than Kuroda) if they actually plan to stay under the luxury tax (talked about for years). And they will be starting Kelly Johnson and Eduardo Nunez in the infield.


The Yankees might be a bit of a stretch at #5, but maybe not too far from that #. Like the contract for Ellsbury long-term, or not, they got huge upgrades in 2014 with the premiere OF on the FA market, another big OF bat that plays every day and is well-familiar with the New York media from his many years with the Mets...... and the premiere FA C signing with them, as well as retaining Kuroda.

They've already made it clear that they are going to completely ignore the International signing restrictions for 2014-15, so there's no reason to think that they will abide by their supposed self-imposed luxury tax limit...therefore no one should be surprised when they end up getting at least one of the 3 best SPs on the market, and quite possibly 2, especially if Arod serves the whole 211 game suspension.

Kelly Johnson isn't great, but as a dead pull lefty, the short porch in RF should serve him quite well- the overall production will certainly be down at 2B, but he is fully capable of beating the 99 OPS+ that he got in 2013, which should translate to 20+ HRs in Yankee Stadium. And Nunez won't be going into the season as a starter on the depth chart, the Yankees will surely sign a veteran or make a trade before that happens. With the possible return of strong production from a fully healthy Tex and Ivan Nova for a whole season and plenty of potential excess trading chips in the OF and DH, the Yankees aren't that far away.

Edited by jokin, 01 January 2014 - 12:21 AM.