Twins Want Hunter Back

[USAFChief]

I'll stop derailing threads about the use of WAR when others stop using it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'll stop derailing threads about the use of WAR when others stop using it.

 

I think it's fair to state that WAR doesn't capture everything he does for the team, I think continuing to argue that offense and defense and base running don't matter is silly. If you want, tell us how much he helped the team win this year, compared to other players that played RF, and offers some details for how you came up with how many wins he added.......but just saying WAR doesn't mean anything doesn't actually add to the conversation. Or, just keep typing that, w/o adding any details on how else you'd measure his value to the team. Up to you.

[howieramone2]

 

Are the Twins aware that you can bring Hunter back AND get his amazing leadership without signing him as a player?

Now they are.

[Shane Wahl]

I also mentioned OPS. And the decline. The decline. A whole month+ of terrible production is just going to be expanded as he *ages another year*.

 

Also, tired of bad logic going on here. Talking about how ridiculous it would be to re-sign him has *nothing* to do with how it was a smart move to pick him up for this season.

[jimmer]

 

I also mentioned OPS. And the decline. The decline. A whole month+ of terrible production is just going to be expanded as he *ages another year*.

 

Also, tired of bad logic going on here. Talking about how ridiculous it would be to re-sign him has *nothing* to do with how it was a smart move to pick him up for this season.

I think if we re-sign him it would be just as bad of a decision as re-signing Pelfrey.  Especially since the Pelfrey re-signing hindered the development of at least one starter (May), just like re-signing Hunter would hinder the development of young OFs (take your pick). He's been a below average hitting RF, a below average fielding RF, and he'll be 41 during next season.  Time for the young guys to get their shot.

[ashbury]

and apparently Danny Ortiz is now in the mix.  . 

I don't remember anyone but me bringing up Ortiz, so I'll respond. He's almost certainly not in anybody's mix.

1. I doubt Ryan has any plan to add him to the 40-man, and
2. I doubt Ortiz plans to stick around in an organization that isn't going to promote him.

I mentioned him as someone conveniently at hand who would likely deliver about as much on the field overall as Hunter can anymore.

 

We invest years developing these guys and then become allergic to bringing them up.

[jimmer]

 

Signing Hunter makes no sense IF Rosario is for real and doesn't regress, Hicks is the .265/.325/.400 guy he's been the second half of this year and not the .200/.235/.275 guy he was before, Buxton can actually hit above .200, Arcia is what he was 2 years ago and not what he has been this year, and Kepler is actually ready to jump from AA to the Show. That's a lot of ifs.  I can see why the Twins would consider keeping Hunter around as insurance for the first half and possible trade bait at the deadline. It wouldn't be my first choice, I would rather live or die with the young guys, but's its not a crazy idea either. Let's not assume that all or most of the young guys are going to perform. The baseball road is littered with one year wonders and prospects who never quite make it.     

I don't think it has to come down to just two choices: playing the young guys with no other options or signing a guy who will be 41 next year as a fall back option.  Certainly there are younger fall back positions that could be had. There are other FA options and trade options.  Additionally, if Hunter got the no trade clause for the current contract, do you think he'd relinquish that when negotiating for a new contract?

[Shane Wahl]

 

I don't remember anyone but me bringing up Ortiz, so I'll respond. He's almost certainly not in anybody's mix.

1. I doubt Ryan has any plan to add him to the 40-man, and
2. I doubt Ortiz plans to stick around in an organization that isn't going to promote him.

I mentioned him as someone conveniently at hand who would likely deliver about as much on the field overall as Hunter can anymore.

 

We invest years developing these guys and then become allergic to bringing them up.

 

A Danny Ortiz shout out! Haha. Yes, all true. I was going to make the same point myself. With the slight added value that Ortiz can actually play CF. It wouldn't be totally bizarre to have Ortiz as the placeholder around for Buxton and/or Kepler. He's a placeholder. Hunter. Is. Not. I am also weird about promoting 4th OF types instead of signing outside ones, or re-signing Shane Robinson in this case. I like guys who come up through the system.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with any of this--just play Rosario-Buxton-Hicks with Arcia and Kepler around or with the latter starting in AAA for a bit (with those three starting, the value of a Shane Robinson type is null and void).

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't think it has to come down to just two choices: playing the young guys with no other options or signing a guy who will be 41 next year as a fall back option.  Certainly there are younger fall back positions that could be had. There are other FA options and trade options.  Additionally, if Hunter got the no trade clause for the current contract, do you think he'd relinquish that when negotiating for a new contract?

 

 

I don't think it has to come down to just two choices: playing the young guys with no other options or signing a guy who will be 41 next year as a fall back option.  Certainly there are younger fall back positions that could be had. There are other FA options and trade options.  Additionally, if Hunter got the no trade clause for the current contract, do you think he'd relinquish that when negotiating for a new contract?

The bolded comment was my first thought but who?  You have to believe anyone good enough to be interesting is going to require a multi year deal.  Do we want to block Kepler when he could be ready before the AS break?  I guess that would be fine if the FA in question was willing to settle for a back-up role.  However, agents are not dumb.  That is going to come up in negotiations and I cant see a player good player signing under those conditions. 

 

Do you just keep Buxton here and roll with Hicks, Rosario, and Buxton?  He is a bit of a detriment right now but more importantly will rushing him derail his development.  There was a lot of criticism here for rushing Hicks.  Hicks was not a top 10 prospect but the risk is still resent.

 

Anyone here want to bet on Arcia? (a guy hitting 200 in AAA).  Not me.  I would break camp with him and give him one last shot but not as a starter.

[KGB]

 

If he added 4-6 wins by his leadership, that makes him worth approximately $35-45MM dollars on the open market......anyone think anyone would pay him that? Do people really think he's responsible for that many extra wins? That would make him one of the 5-10 most valuable players in all of the majors......And let's not derail this into another anti WAR thread, please. His leadership and mentoring might or might not have helped some players, but as pointed out above, does that mean it hurt the players that aren't as good as we thought, or does he only get the positive credit? I think that's a fair question.

 

It's about roster decisions. Does anyone think they'd cut him next year, if they signed him? Once he's here, he's very likely on the 25 man roster all year. Even if they start Buxton in the minors next year, what happens when he's ready to come up? They cut the 3/4 OF that isn't Hunter? Then what happens when Kepler is ready, and he will be ready? Will they keep both Hunter and Arcia on the roster, meaning there isn't room for a defensive substitution for whichever of them starts the game? What happens when/if he hits like he has most of the months, and they bench him, will his personality really handle that?

Agree that it's more about building the roster and depending on who is traded, Hunter may still be a good fit.  I hope the conversation is had with him about reduced playing time, but Shane Robinson is going to get 200 ab's, so I think when you have a roster full of young OF's, Hunter doesn't need to be tossed aside.

 

If his leadership is worth 1 win, then based on your numbers he would be worth $7.5 million next year.  And if he was worth 1 win for the team this year along with his performance, he was worth every penny they paid him this year.

[Platoon]

Signing Hunter was a bad idea in the first weeks of the season, a good idea when he had a hot May, a bad idea until ten days ago, and a good idea in the last fortnight? But looking forward to next year, it's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. But the biggest one might be that he will not be happy being eventually moved to a bench role, and once the Twins sign him he is not going anywhere in 2016. This is not a Kubel, Bartlett thing. Personally I would prefer Sugar Shane, he gives you a glad to be here FOURTH outfielder, and he gives you the flexibility to move him once the roster requires it, plus he's really a little better player than most acknowledge. But that ain't gonna happen.

[Mike Sixel]

I am not debating this year, and having Robinson on the roster means you can cut him or whatever......but having Hunter on the roster means he's on the roster.

 

Another FA? don't give them a no trade clause, sign them for 1 year. Bingo, you have roster flexibility if one of Arcia, Buxton, Rosario, Hicks, Kepler, random FA, Robinson doesn't work (wait, you'd need 2-3 of them not to work). That's the point on the 4th OF next year......he might play regularly for a month or two while Buxon is down, but you want him on the bench full time after that. You should, imo, plan for that player to be on the bench after that, so you should sign a guy based on that expectation. Heck, you might want him cut if Arcia is your 3rd OF next year, and you bring up Buxton.......

[tobi0040]

 

I am not debating this year, and having Robinson on the roster means you can cut him or whatever......but having Hunter on the roster means he's on the roster.

 

Another FA? don't give them a no trade clause, sign them for 1 year. Bingo, you have roster flexibility if one of Arcia, Buxton, Rosario, Hicks, Kepler, random FA, Robinson doesn't work (wait, you'd need 2-3 of them not to work). That's the point on the 4th OF next year......he might play regularly for a month or two while Buxon is down, but you want him on the bench full time after that. You should, imo, plan for that player to be on the bench after that, so you should sign a guy based on that expectation. Heck, you might want him cut if Arcia is your 3rd OF next year, and you bring up Buxton.......

 

 

With Buxton, Rosario, and Hicks on the roster.  The 4th OF should be 230 pounds or more and be able to hit the ball over the fence.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

1. I doubt Ortiz plans to stick around in an organization that isn't going to promote him.

He did re-sign here as a minor league free agent last winter. I often expect such players to look for greener pastures, but they often re-sign for a few years even without a promotion (Deibinson Romero and Deolis Guerra come to mind).

[Linus]

I wouldn't bring Hunter back but I also don't think it is the slam dunk, most stupid idea ever.

 

First off, Kepler and Buxton will likely start the year in Rochester.  It wouldn't be that surprising if one of Rosario / Hicks regresses considerably.  Either of these two scenarios leave you needing an outfielder unless you are willing to live with them struggling.  This isn't what teams that are ready to win do, however.

 

I realize that, in the event that we do need to bring in another outfielder, it doesn't have to be Hunter but I also think people are underestimating how difficult it would be to find somebody that will give you 20+ homers. 

[Loosey]

I wonder if the Twins real concern is if they don't resign him he will take his smoke machine and disco ball and go home?  Who would be dance party coordinator?

[DaveW]

Agree that it's more about building the roster and depending on who is traded, Hunter may still be a good fit. I hope the conversation is had with him about reduced playing time, but Shane Robinson is going to get 200 ab's, so I think when you have a roster full of young OF's, Hunter doesn't need to be tossed aside.

 

If his leadership is worth 1 win, then based on your numbers he would be worth $7.5 million next year. And if he was worth 1 win for the team this year along with his performance, he was worth every penny they paid him this year.

Um what?

 

His leadership may have led to one win, but his .150 batting average for 2+ months probably contributed to at least one or two losses.

 

He came nowhere close to being "worth" the money this year. He had a few nice weeksand wasn't a total disaster but he was worth 10 mil

[Major League Ready]

 

I am not debating this year, and having Robinson on the roster means you can cut him or whatever......but having Hunter on the roster means he's on the roster.

 

Another FA? don't give them a no trade clause, sign them for 1 year. Bingo, you have roster flexibility if one of Arcia, Buxton, Rosario, Hicks, Kepler, random FA, Robinson doesn't work (wait, you'd need 2-3 of them not to work). That's the point on the 4th OF next year......he might play regularly for a month or two while Buxon is down, but you want him on the bench full time after that. You should, imo, plan for that player to be on the bench after that, so you should sign a guy based on that expectation. Heck, you might want him cut if Arcia is your 3rd OF next year, and you bring up Buxton.......

Sounds like a good plan.  There seems to be OFers available every year on 1 yr deals.  Having said this, I still would not completely discount the value of his leadership.  With the preface that WAR has flaws, if his leadership contributed to a couple wins, his current war is .8 so he might contribute 3 wins.  This is a pretty soft theory but if his leadership contribution makes him a 3 WAR player, that's pretty hard to get on a 1 yr deal.  If he really does impact Hicks and Buxton long-term, what is that worth?

[Major League Ready]

 

Um what?

His leadership may have led to one win, but his .150 batting average for 2+ months probably contributed to at least one or two losses.

He came nowhere close to being "worth" the money this year. He had a few nice weeksand wasn't a total disaster but he was worth 10 mil

He is at .8 (Fangraphs) currently so by season end he is probably .9.  You can't take his WAR and then subtract for his bad stretch.  That is already calculated into the net number.  If his leadership contributed 1-2 wins which is not a stretch, he is a 2-3 WAR player.  By today's FA standards, that's a bargain.

[jimmer]

 

He is at .8 (Fangraphs) currently so by season end he is probably .9.  You can't take his WAR and then subtract for his bad stretch.  That is already calculated into the net number.  If his leadership contributed 1-2 wins which is not a stretch, he is a 2-3 WAR player.  By today's FA standards, that's a bargain.

We don't know that.  He dropped all the way down to 0.1 before this month, he could easily drop back down.  Even so, between 0-1 is scrub level.

 

And one would have to be able to show for sure how his leadership contributed to wins as opposed to just enjoying the narrative that was laid out and has been held onto.  How much did Dozier's leadership contribute?  Do we add to his WAR too?  What about Perkins or any of the other leaders on this team?  How about Molitor's?

[TheLeviathan]

I really don't understand why we want to use WAR in this case.  It's just totally unnecessary to demonstrate why it'd be a bad move.

[Willihammer]

I love Hunter, he's my favorite player ever. But sometimes you have to take your winnings and leave the table.

[DaveW]

How can someone say that his "leadership" has "won" the Twins 2 games? That is just baseless, I'm sure.

 

If Hunter was such an amazing all time great leader that added wins alone by his leadership, then why has he never lead a team to a world series appearance?

 

Sano adds wins to this team, Hunter is basically a replacement level player who has a smoke machine and dances sometimes.

 

 

[sane]

 

How can someone say that his "leadership" has "won" the Twins 2 games? That is just baseless, I'm sure.

 

If Hunter was such an amazing all time great leader that added wins alone by his leadership, then why has he never lead a team to a world series appearance?

Agree "2 games" is someone's imagination.

However, World Series appearances (or lack of) don't depend on one guy. Ernie Banks was great, but you can't make chicken salad out of chicken bleep!

[Boom Boom]

A stat needs to exist that calculates WAR + the number of games a player's leadership can be assumed to add. Call it FWAR or something.

 

BTW, I think Hunter's leadership added ten wins. Look how bad the Tigers have been without him.

[DaveW]

Agree "2 games" is someone's imagination.

However, World Series appearances (or lack of) don't depend on one guy. Ernie Banks was great, but you can't make chicken salad out of chicken bleep!

I know that was sorta my point

[sane]

 

I know that was sorta my point

And I agreed.

I also believe that "leadership" exists, although it can't be measured.

Who were the two most surprising overachievers as  position players on the Twins?

I say Hicks and Rosario, who just happen to be outfielders.

Who is the leader of the outfielders?....Hunter.

How well did Hicks2013, Rosario2013, Rosario2014 and Hicks2014 do without Hunter?

How many games is that worth? I don't have any idea.

 

[Halsey Hall]

For certain Hunter's leadership added to the win column, no question. 

[Platoon]

And I agreed.

I also believe that "leadership" exists, although it can't be measured.

Who were the two most surprising overachievers as  position players on the Twins?

I say Hicks and Rosario, who just happen to be outfielders.

Who is the leader of the outfielders?....Hunter.

How well did Hicks2013, Rosario2013, Rosario2014 and Hicks2014 do without Hunter?

How many games is that worth? I don't have any idea.

I am not sure this is a great argument? Someone just might come back and mention Arcia, Buxton, and Shafer? I would never do that, but some other poster might! Mentoring is crap. If TH was interesting in mentoring, and advancing the careers of his younger OF compatriots, he would not have wanted to play RF instead of left, and he would not be arguing with Molly when he was being benched last week. He would be encouraging his youthful protégés to make the best of this playoff run and their ML opportunity! Not grumbling about his personal playing time. Mentoring is crap!

[Major League Ready]

 

For certain Hunter's leadership added to the win column, no question. 

Can we measure it?  Not really.  At least not by anything I would call a good scientific method.  However, to completely dismiss it is an overly simplistic view.  Players, coaches, and FO personnel seem to be quite convinced the influence of some players in the win column goes beyond their individual performance.

 

I was actually moderately against signing him this year but I have to agree with the earlier post that points to the play of Hicks and Rosario who happen to be OFers and the play of the overachievement of the team in general.  Perkins and Dozier were here the last 4 years, Hunter and Molitor were not.