35 million dollars ... 3 pitchers vs an ace

[DaveW]

 

One topic at a time ... this thread is about 3 pitchers vs an ace.

I think it is somewhat relevant, since there has been a question of "money" when it comes to the Twins and its the same concept (why sign a bunch of meh to average players, when you can sign a true impact player or two)

[Squirrel]

 

I think it is somewhat relevant, since there has been a question of "money" when it comes to the Twins and its the same concept (why sign a bunch of meh to average players, when you can sign a true impact player or two)

Yes ... but this isn't about money and impact players ... this is about money and 2-3 pitchers vs an ace. We are not going down the road of Terry Ryan decisions of who he has signed and who he could have signed. That's what I meant by one topic at a time.

[DaveW]

 

 

Still ... you don't know, none of us does ... who would have signed with us the last two years?

Have you ever heard of a free agent saying they would refuse to sign with Minnesota? I haven't. Nor have the Twins ever actually made an offer towards an ace.

[sane]

 

Uh, none of those guys with the exception of CC were ever an Ace or considered an ace.

Uh, Opening Day starting pitchers:

 

Samardzija Cubs 2013-2014

Tillman Orioles 2014-2015

Norris Astros 2013

Sabathia. Yanks 2009-2014, Indians 2003-2008 (except 2005)

[SwainZag]

 

Kazmir is the guy I wanted the Twins to target the past two years, that is the #2 that costs $10 million a year.

 

In regards to Verlander, not sure how you can say his contract is an albatross moving forward, he was hurt for like the first time ever seemingly this year which lead to early on bad results, however in his lat 10 starts he is looking like the Verlander of old rocking a 2.03 ERA and even a dominant no hitter.

 

Pretty much everyone else on that list besides Sabathia you have used the reasoning "Oh well he has looked good so far, but you never know what will happen in the future!" Sorry, that just isn't a strong argument when you are talking about Nolasco, Santana and Hughes who combined have done zero this year in the present.

 

I don't see how you can say you wouldn't be a little worried about Verlander going forward.  Arm injuries are first sign of decline, followed by declining K rates.  He might not fall off the table, but paying that much for a guy with a 3.80 FIP.....and he has 4 more years left?

 

When using the quote, "Etc etc who were well worth the price." to talk about a group of guys who are under the age of 30 and/or in the 1st year of a multi year deals they better be worth the money.  It's the 150+M in the rest of those deals you need to worry about.  

 

I am not comparing that list to Nolasco, Hughes and Santana.  I was merely stating a lot of those guys have the majority of their contracts at old ages yet to happen.  

 

Kazmir would have been a good signing.  He is making $13M this year and will probably make a whole lot more than $10M next season on the open market.

[SF Twins Fan]

I don't even think if the Twins signed an ace a few years ago instead of Nolasco or Hughes would have really done the team that much good. It's not like the Twins were an ace away from contending for the WS or even making the playoffs. They were a TERRIBLE team the last 4 years all the way around from starting pitching to bullpen to fielding to hitting. Adding an ace wasn't going to make them a good team. All it would have done was prolonged the mediocre play and draft picks. With the Twins going full rebuild 3 years ago it allowed them to get some big time prospects that are now making it to the majors. This off season or the next is the time to make the move for a true ace not two years ago when the whole team was awful. The team is young and is moving in the right direction now.

[Dr. Evil]

I like the Hughes and Santana signings. Both should provide value for a few more years. In my mind we went two for three on these signings working out. Not too shabby. If Nolasco can get healthy and return to form........bonus.

[DaveW]

 

Uh, Opening Day starting pitchers:

 

Samardzija Cubs 2013-2014

Tillman Orioles 2014-2015

Norris Astros 2013

Sabathia. Yanks 2009-2014, Indians 2003-2008 (except 2005)

Your point? Blackburn and Nolasco both started opening day for the Twins, would anyone sane (heh) call them an ace?

[spinowner]

 

Also, money talks, if the Twins offered the most money, an ace would have came here anytime the past 3 years.

Keep in mind, this is your guess, not a fact. I happen to think that this guess is incorrect, keeping in mind that that's also a guess on my part. However, check out the press conferences when top name free agents sign. The player almost always says that he chose a team because he wants to win. I don't recall a player ever saying he signed somewhere because that was the biggest contract.

[sane]

 

Your point? Blackburn and Nolasco both started opening day for the Twins, would anyone sane (heh) call them an ace?

I guess you don't define "Ace" as the best starting pitcher on any given staff. Nolasco and Blackburn fit that definition for brief periods.

[diehardtwinsfan]

How about we define an ace as a top 30 MLB pitcher. 

[sane]

 

Your point? Blackburn and Nolasco both started opening day for the Twins, would anyone sane (heh) call them an ace?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_(baseball)

Wikipedia
"In baseball, an ace is the best starting pitcher on a team and nearly always the first pitcher in the team's starting rotation. Barring injury or exceptional circumstances, an ace typically starts on Opening Day"

[Minniman]

 

Hughes: 9.2 million dollars (13+ mil starting in 2017 for 3! years). 4.58 ERA. 147 IP. 1.6 WAR
Santana: 13.5 million dollars (next few years) 4.55 ERA 87 IP. 0.5 WAR
Nolasco: 12 million dollars. 5.51 ERA. 32.2 IP. NEGATIVE 0.3 WAR

Those have been the big Terry Ryan "splashes" in free agency the past two years. For all this talk about the Twins never being able to afford an "ace" it should be noted that for 35 million+ per year, the Twins could easily sign a REAL ace like David Price etc and still have 10 million left over to sign a solid #2
Instead, what do we have? A couple number 3's and a guy whole might someday become a number 5 again some day.

 

I agree.

 

I was on board with signing Hughes to the original deal. I did not like the Nolasco deal from the start, and I said so, but he has done worse than I would have thought.

 

Santana? He was signed for too much considering his previous record. He may end up a number two guy or bust out to a number four or bullpen guy. It is difficult to tell, but is that the kind of pitcher we really want to blow $13 million a year on?

 

There is no Viola-Blyleven or Morris-Tapani vibe coming from these guys.

[DaveW]

 

I guess you don't define "Ace" as the best starting pitcher on any given staff. Nolasco and Blackburn fit that definition for brief periods.

Most people don't, especially when talking about a pitchers ability. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, you are just derailing the thread because of semantics. The original post in this thread was pretty clear on the meaning of "ace"

[DocBauer]

Not being a troll here, but hindsight remains 20/20. I was actually in favor of Hughes, Nolasco and Santana. (Though I wanted Kazmir over Nolasco) The Twins needed to make moves. Now, if they had known ahead of time Santana would have his suspension, Milone and May would do so well, and that Duffey would debut so well, they probably don't sign Santana. Perhaps you can unload Nolasco and take all that money and go buy your ACE.

 

But it's a little chicken or the egg isn't it? The team is better now, closer to being a real contender, even depth of talent so now is the time to maybe acquire some ACE. But you had to make previous moves/signings to better the team to get to this point.

 

And if Milone, May and Duffey didn't do so well, and you hadn't signed anyone........

[DaveW]

 

 But you had to make previous moves/signings to better the team to get to this point.

 

But the signings of Santana, Hughes and Nolasco haven't had any real effect on bringing the Twins to this point.

Timely hitting and the youngsters stepping up has.

[bird]

 

But the signings of Santana, Hughes and Nolasco haven't had any real effect on bringing the Twins to this point.

Timely hitting and the youngsters stepping up has.

 

Is this at all relevant to your premise though? If the Twins had signed Darvish, who was more readily described as an ace, would this have been a good signing because it was signing a big gun, or a bad signing because he has had much less impact than Hughes, Nolasco, or Santana.

 

By the way, how can you argue that these three haven't had ANY real effect on bringing the Twins to this point? That doesn't compute.

[Major League Ready]

 

Most people don't, especially when talking about a pitchers ability. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, you are just derailing the thread because of semantics. The original post in this thread was pretty clear on the meaning of "ace"

Dave,

 

Perhaps you can give us examples of pitchers of the same stature of price that have signed with teams outside the top 10 revenue markets.  Your original post suggested that the Twins could "easily" sign someone of this stature.  If this is true, there should many examples.

 

BTW ... I am with you on Kazmir.  That would have been a better signing than Santana IMO if for no other reason than the number of years. The one I don't understand is extending Hughes and signing Santana.

[DaveW]

Is this at all relevant to your premise though? If the Twins had signed Darvish, who was more readily described as an ace, would this have been a good signing because it was signing a big gun, or a bad signing because he has had much less impact than Hughes, Nolasco, or Santana.

 

By the way, how can you argue that these three haven't had ANY real effect on bringing the Twins to this point? That doesn't compute.

Santana and Nolasco (my main two beefs) have a combined 0.2 WAR this year. The twins have been winning in spite of them.

[DaveW]

Dave,

 

Perhaps you can give us examples of pitchers of the same stature of price that have signed with teams outside the top 10 revenue markets. Your original post suggested that the Twins could "easily" sign someone of this stature. If this is true, there should many examples.

 

BTW ... I am with you on Kazmir. That would have been a better signing than Santana IMO if for no other reason than the number of years. The one I don't understand is extending Hughes and signing Santana.

Seattle, Texas, San Diego, Arizona, St Louis have all signed those types and are pretty much similar markets to Minnesota when you look at payroll capabilities.

 

Those are just a couple examples.

[Mike Sixel]

In previous years, when I have asked for better players, people posted 90 loud teams never signed or traded for really good players at the deadline the next year.....like this year. Just because something hadn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. Interestingly, they are better partly because of a lot of free agents.....maybe they should have signed some more earlier. Their plan was for 80 percent of the rotation and half the fielders to be free agents......Why couldn't that have happened before¿ Why couldn't they break the mould, and sign great players?

[Wyorev]

I have been wondering about this for a few weeks now.

Is an "Ace" really that key? (And I've come to define an "Ace" as a top 30 pitcher in baseball, I used to be more in agreement with the dictionary...)

Look at the Nats. They have a bunch of them. The Tigers still have one So do the Mariners.

Having an ace seems to me to be less important than many believe.

Now, Toronto's acquiring of Price seems to be a catalyst for them, but I wonder if things would be that different for them if they had not made that trade.

[bird]

 

Santana and Nolasco (my main two beefs) have a combined 0.2 WAR this year. The twins have been winning in spite of them.

 

 

It appears you really meant to put out a thread to air a beef about Santana and Nolasco. Not sure why it's disguised as a discussion about the merits of signing an ace vs. three mid rotation guys. I feel mislead.

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Santana and Nolasco (my main two beefs) have a combined 0.2 WAR this year. The twins have been winning in spite of them.

That's because Santana has only made 14 starts this season because of his suspension, and there is no way Ryan or anyone else would have known he was going to be suspended. I don't like the Nolasco signing anymore than anyone else (mainly because he just doesn't seem to want to be in MN) but at the time of the signing he had a solid track record. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you really think the Twins could have signed a true "ace" 2 years ago that's your opinion but there is no way I'd have ever put money on it and by reading this thread neither does most of the people. 

[bird]

 

That's because Santana has only made 14 starts this season because of his suspension, and there is no way Ryan or anyone else would have known he was going to be suspended. I don't like the Nolasco signing anymore than anyone else (mainly because he just doesn't seem to want to be in MN) but at the time of the signing he had a solid track record. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you really think the Twins could have signed a true "ace" 2 years ago that's your opinion but there is no way I'd have ever put money on it and by reading this thread neither does most of the people. 

 

An opinion that it would have been "easy" to sign an ace two years ago lacks all credibility if it's not backed by a few examples, right? The "money talks" mantra is an empty phrase unless it's supported. 

 

Can anyone identify a starter from 2, 3, or 4 years ago who ranked among the Top 30 that season who then signed in the off-season with a team that had just lost 90 games? How about just a sub-.500 team? Buehler?

[DaveW]

Jon Lester?

[kab21]

 

I have been wondering about this for a few weeks now.

Is an "Ace" really that key? (And I've come to define an "Ace" as a top 30 pitcher in baseball, I used to be more in agreement with the dictionary...)

Look at the Nats. They have a bunch of them. The Tigers still have one So do the Mariners.

Having an ace seems to me to be less important than many believe.

Now, Toronto's acquiring of Price seems to be a catalyst for them, but I wonder if things would be that different for them if they had not made that trade.

This is a backwards way to look at this.  There are absolutely going to be bad teams that have an ace but it is very difficult to be a legitimate contender without an ace.

 

And ace as used in this thread definitely means a top 20-30 starter in baseball and there isn't an equal distribution among teams.  A bunch of crappy pitchers that were merely the best of the bad ones on their team do not qualify as aces as the term is used here.

[blairpaul715]

 

This post makes a fair point, and I think it has some validity, although a couple of qualifications. Hughes WAS AN ACE last year and at least in part it has been injuries keeping him (and others) out this year.  You can't blame Ryan for those injuries. As someone pointed out above, an Ace^TM could have gotten injured too.  In all honesty I would have preferred to have just signed Hughes for the original 3 year deal and then starting this year given Duffy, May, Rodgers, and maybe Berrios at the end more chances to start.

 Even tho for the most part i probably agree, if Hughes has a second good yr, he probably waits out the last yr to become a FA for bigger bucks..........and $13.2M is still not an outrageous price for him...........Also last offseason, we still didnt know May was going to be good, that Duffey was ever even going to be a major leaguer, or that Berrios was an almost for sure thing..........And I still dont believe in Rogers.

[blairpaul715]

 

Most people don't, especially when talking about a pitchers ability. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, you are just derailing the thread because of semantics. The original post in this thread was pretty clear on the meaning of "ace"

Just out of curiosity DaveW , would you sign Cueto this offseason for $20M plus a yr for 6 plus yrs??? Yes or No , and why or why not?

[Major League Ready]

 

Seattle, Texas, San Diego, Arizona, St Louis have all signed those types and are pretty much similar markets to Minnesota when you look at payroll capabilities.

Those are just a couple examples.

Perhaps “example” was unclear.  I was asking for evidence of your point that someone similar to David Price had been acquired in free agency by teams outside the top 10 in revenue.  Saying that it occurred is not an example.  So, let me be perfectly clear.  Give us specific examples of players of this caliber that were acquired by teams outside the top 10 revenue teams.  To make it parallel, the requirement should be during a run of 90 loss seasons but let’s see how many you can come up with before we actually ask for a truly parallel comparison.

 

BTW … the Giants, Cardinals, and Rangers are top 10 revenue teams.  The Diamondbacks and Mariners  just signed TV deals that put them well ahead of the Twins in terms of revenue.  If you have examples prior to their new found wealth, great.

 

BTW … I am not talking about teams retaining an ace.  For example, the Cardinals extending Wainwright.   The whole point here is attracting FA talent not retaining it.