Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Matt Capps, Bill Smith and the trade that ruined Twins baseball

  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#121 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:59 AM

That's an wacky extension of logic, Chief. Let's try speculating that Jim and Terry hold the same longer-term view of things. That would maybe explain the multi-year committments to those FA pitchers. And let's perhaps speculate that perhaps one of the reasons Ryan hasn't pulled the trigger on, say, Drew, is because the extra two wins don't mean squat in the longer term.

I'm still not clear why two extra wins in 2014 from Hughes mean squat but two extra wins from Drew don't.It seems contradictory to me to be in favor of signing FA pitching if 2014 is a lost cause but to then post that its not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause.Unwacky my logic for me, if you don't mind.

#122 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,609 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:04 AM

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#123 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,549 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

It definitely made the team better. The move was made to bring the worst starting staff in baseball toward respectability.

What's underestimated is, it allows us to bring two of our most highly rated starting pitching prospects to Target Field when our favorite team feels they are ready, and not rushing them out of desperation. Further, although additional moves may be necessary,

we have bridged the gap
until our own numerous starting pitching prospects are ready in 2016 and/or 2017.
All this was accomplished without taking on an albatross contract or touching our farm system.


By this logic, the club was equally obligated to making a more concerted effort in upgrading the SS, CF, DH, positions..... in which Twins players all were the AL worst or near the overall bottom..... and they would have at least tried to break even or attempt to make a net upgrade between the 1B/C combo, with the loss of Morneau.

Put me down in favor of even more bridge-gapping.

All of these moves could have been accomplished without taking on any albatross contracts, and maybe would have only cost draft picks beyond the #45 overall pick to do so.

Edited by jokin, 27 February 2014 - 11:44 AM.


#124 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,638 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:27 AM

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?


Yeah, the more the dust settles on the Pelfrey signing the more akin to Correia I find it. And right now if Correia decided to go on a sabbatical for the next 6 months I wouldn't miss him. I really don't like that 40% of our SP innings are going to guys with limited ceilings.

#125 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,549 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:31 AM

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?


Based on the latest StarTribune coverage, it's apparently the Pelf's mirth-making, tension-reducing prankersterism among the SPs in the bullpen between starts. I personally like the guy, and a good attitude combined with his bulldog work ethic can be plusses. I more object to Ryan seemingly bidding against himself for #5-level talent, of which there was already a surplus, and not more strongly considering other short-term options, of which there were also plenty.

#126 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,645 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:34 AM

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?


I think this is a bit too simplistic. What SS could they have signed for 2 years? I see Drew as the only reasonable option (and it sounds like he wants more than 2 years). He also wants a lot more money than Pelfrey as well and costs a draft pick... even if it is a 2. There's more at stake here. The SS market just sucks.

#127 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,549 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:41 AM

The SS market just sucks.


Funny, so does the Twins' SS depth chart.

Is anyone arguing that a 2-year contract for Drew is going to somehow bust the payroll? It really isn't that much more money, and there is a lot at stake when the alternative is a SS who very well may struggle breaking .600 OPS on an already-offensively-challenged team.

#128 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:44 AM

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?


Mike, it's to be expected you're confused when comparing starting pitching to SS's. You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's. It's always confusing when you compare apples to oranges.

#129 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,642 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:46 AM

I'm still not clear why two extra wins in 2014 from Hughes mean squat but two extra wins from Drew don't.It seems contradictory to me to be in favor of signing FA pitching if 2014 is a lost cause but to then post that its not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause.Unwacky my logic for me, if you don't mind.



Two pieces of unwacky logic:

1. They didn't sign Hughes for the fairly unimportant two extra wins in 2014.

2. I don't recall any argument from the Twins that it's not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause. The arguments tend to be about an analysis of benefits versus costs and about the time horizon being considered. And also about one's view of the player's likely impact.

The impediments to reaching a common view about a FA signing decision are two-fold: one being your perspective regarding the value of a few extra wins in 2014, the other being your perspective regarding the value of the Twin's shareholder's money.

Edited by birdwatcher, 27 February 2014 - 11:53 AM.


#130 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,549 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:48 AM

Mike, it's to be expected you're confused when comparing starting pitching to SS's. You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's. It's always confusing when you compare apples to oranges.


I'm definitely not worried about too many "SS's" in the Twins depth chart. How about just one ML SS?

Edited by jokin, 27 February 2014 - 11:53 AM.


#131 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 20,004 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:50 AM

You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's.


That's because the saying about SS's is phrased differently. "When you shake the baseball tree, about 99 gloves fall out and maybe 2 bats". (Adjust the ratios to suit.)

It's also said that good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa. Personally, I think the reverse is true.

#132 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:59 AM

That's because the saying about SS's is phrased differently. "When you shake the baseball tree, about 99 gloves fall out and maybe 2 bats". (Adjust the ratios to suit.)

It's also said that good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa. Personally, I think the reverse is true.


Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#133 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,549 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:20 PM

Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.


Or that clubs already have the position filled.

Or that his asking price/years requested is too steep.

Or that his health is in question.

Or that clubs don't want to deal with Boras.

Or that Drew is mulling the reported interest of 6-8 clubs, determining the best offer.

Or that most clubs don't value a MLB SS=1st Rd Draft Pick.

Lots of possible reasons besides yours.

#134 oldguy10

oldguy10

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:34 PM

When this terrible situation arose when Smith was the G.M. why didn't Ryan step in and help him out? After all, he was still Smith's boss.

#135 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,645 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:12 PM

When this terrible situation arose when Smith was the G.M. why didn't Ryan step in and help him out? After all, he was still Smith's boss.

.

He reported to Smith during that tenure... not vice versa.

#136 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,575 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:16 PM

Funny, so does the Twins' SS depth chart.

Is anyone arguing that a 2-year contract for Drew is going to somehow bust the payroll? It really isn't that much more money, and there is a lot at stake when the alternative is a SS who very well may struggle breaking .600 OPS on an already-offensively-challenged team.


I think if it is anywhere but Boston Drew is holding out for more than 2 years on a contract or close to QO money. QO money is more than people want to pay him. Boras has faith in himself to get one or the other. In a couple weeks people can have the I told you so thread on Drew one way or the other.

People are correct in that Drew would get the Twins a couple more wins over Florimon. I don't see how anyone couldn't see that for this year. Drew versus Santana would be a different argument. I have no clue how good he could be. Don't know how quickly Goodrum or Polanco would be either, or how fast they could move up.
I don't think the Twins would want to sign Drew for more than 2 years as they do have hopes for prospects. A reasonable contract for the money isn't the obstacle, I think the years are. With rare exceptions the Twins tend to stick with the good players they sign. I would add, they wouldn't sign Drew if they did not think they were getting a good player. Stopgap players are usually what many here call dumpster diving.

#137 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:25 PM

2. I don't recall any argument from the Twins that it's not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause

Neither do I. That perspective came from you. Well technically from MLR, but you liked his post and then speculated that Ryan had that exact conversation with Jim Pohlad, so I can only assume you agree with that position.

#138 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,693 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:25 PM

Bill Smith was an administrator. He traded Hardy and singed Nishioka because Gardy wanted more speed. He got Capps because Gardy n Andy wanted "a proven closer". He traded Garza for Young because Garza would not listen to the way Andy wanted him to pitch. If you want to point fingers point them right at the Twins dugout.


Gardy also loves hard throwing right handers in the pen. So Bill got him one in Hoey. Nice work.

#139 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,710 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:33 PM

Neither do I. That perspective came from you. Well technically from MLR, but you liked his post and then speculated that Ryan had that exact conversation with Jim Pohlad, so I can only assume you agree with that position.


2014 being a lost cause is not at all the argument. As amatter of fact, the argument is that the logic is not singular. It is about draft pick or not, optional solutions, needed ABs for other players, flexibility, relative value and/or risk of any given transaction, and probably a couple other things that don't come to mind right now.

#140 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,693 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:37 PM

At the time, I remember reading it in a couple places that he presented Pohlad with his blueprint for 2012 and he didn't like it and Smith was fired. Common sense tells you the part Pohlad didn't like was the payroll increase. As far as my source, I doubt I could find it even if I wanted to waste the time searching for it. My source is my memory. I don't make things up.


Here is the press release from ESPN. The twins cited "philosophical differences" regarding the direction of the club. We had a $115M payroll, came of a 99 loss season, and in the next 1-2 months several key free agent decisions needed to be made.

From there, many concluded with the logic that Smith wanted to re-sign veterans, which would have kept payroll around $115M. People speculated Pohlad thought, why would I pay $115M to lose 99 games when I can have an $80M payroll and lose 99 games. So you have some evidence and a dash of speculation. We can all conclude that the return on investment was very low.

http://espn.go.com/m...ry-ryan-interim