Front Page: Hayes: Twins To Sign Rich Hill & Homer Bailey

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If you're talking about Bailey, his K% jumped 6% last year. That's got me interested. I never liked him when he couldn't miss bats, but now that he can he has my attention.

Bailey's K% jumped last year, but still not even up to league average (21.4%, versus MLB non-pitcher rate of 22.4%).

[jud6312]

MLB Trade Rumors has an article up about Edwin Jackson planning to pitch again in 2020 ... I see more depth coming to Target Field!

[Vanimal46]

Somehow I’m more irritated that the Twins got both Bailey and Hill than if they had signed only one of them.

I’m past the denial and anger stage of the offseason. Now I’m onto humor, where it’s now funny to think anything was going to change after a 101 win season.

 

I also feel bad for the writers here who have to dig through obscure stats to show Bailey is “just as good” as Zack Wheeler and Bumgarner.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Fangraphs.

I'm not going to make any prediction that he will once again be the 36th best starting pitcher or better. I can't speculate on the future. I'm just saying smarter people and systems than me said he was #36 last year. And between his pitch values, and numbers re: K/BB/HR allowed it's not hard to follow why. At $7m for a one year deal, that's really great.

In terms of fWAR, Martín Pérez posted a 1.9 last year. At $4 mil for a one-year deal, was that "really great"? How much did it move the needle on the Twins 2019 season?

 

I think that's the issue with Bailey. I don't think anyone disputes that he could provide decent value to the Twins on this contract -- but value doesn't necessarily equate to meaningful impact.

[USAFChief]

 

 

 

 

Fangraphs.

 

At $7m for a one year deal, that's really great.

If the goal is to win the fWAR/dollar spent pennant, it might work out.

 

I'm more interested in winning the WS.

 

BTW, How many WS has Billy Beane won?

[jud6312]

 

If the goal is to win the fWAR/dollar spent pennant, it might work out.

I'm more interested in winning the WS.

BTW, How many WS has Billy Beane won?

 

Yeah, but has Brad Pitt ever played a Steinbrenner in a movie?

[Danchat]

Yuck. The FO has played right into the hands of the doubters. They’ve had chance after chance to make impact moves, yet time and again they’re settled for cheap 1 year deals. I can’t defend this barring some moves within the next two months... but I just can’t see that happening now.

[USAFChief]

Yeah, but has Brad Pitt ever played a Steinbrenner in a movie?

to be fair, acting is incredibly difficult.

[jud6312]

Giving Homer Bailey $7 million guaranteed to make Randy Dobnak look good by comparison is an interesting take on "impact" arm.

 

[Rigby]

 

There have been books written on how good front offices need to find value where the market isn't seeing it. One was about Billy Beane, the guy who traded for Bailey last summer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Same Billy Beane that didn't re-sign him this year?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There have been books written on how good front offices need to find value where the market isn't seeing it. One was about Billy Beane, the guy who traded for Bailey last summer. 

Of course, the A's are dealing with a payroll capacity that's maybe ~70% of the Twins. There's a argument that the Twins are unnecessarily limiting themselves by playing exclusively in the "value" transaction waters, when they have the resources to take better risks than Oakland.

 

FWIW, the A's may have also gotten better value out of Bailey -- a fungible prospect and league minimum salary in exchange for his pennant race services. I think this contract might have been better received if the Twins had actually scored Bailey at the deadline too, instead of leaving the postseason rotation as thin as we did.

[ChrisKnutson]

If Donaldson isn’t signed this team is in trouble.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Same Billy Beane that didn't re-sign him this year?

To be fair, Oakland is under more payroll constraints than the Twins. Maybe they would have welcomed him back at this price, if they had the Twins budget. Of course, maybe they would have done something bolder to address the top of the rotation too...

[Strato Guy]

The announcement of these two signings have spurred a tremendous amount of posts in a short time. One might say that the signings have made an "impact" on us. But not in the way we had hoped. 

[baul0010]

Maybe we all just looked at the word "impact" incorrectly.  I was thinking an impact pitcher would be someone of Berrios caliber or better.  Maybe the front office only meant the new pitcher will have an impact.  Like the new pitcher will impact Lewis Thorpe.  Who now gets to start the year in the minors.

[twins_89]

Coming into the off-season my optimism level was sky high, I truly believed the Twins would make moves that clearly upgraded the team. Now as the calendar turns over into 2020 and Spring training is on the horizon, I look at an off-season where the only additions are limited upside guys on 1-year deals. I fear this is going to be an off-season that will be looked back on with massive regret.

[SwainZag]

 

Somehow I’m more irritated that the Twins got both Bailey and Hill than if they had signed only one of them.

 

But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

[labcrazy]

The "window" has been slammed shut. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's a pretty cheap bet. After last season I think we saw the Twins prefer the splitter to the two seamer, which Bailey himself shifted more heavily towards last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the club saw a like-minded approach in Bailey and thought last year's results may be more indicative of his numbers going forward than whatever stagnant non-sense was occurring back in Cincinnati.

It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

 

And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

 

I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

[nicksaviking]

 

let's hope it wasnt a short sample size mirage. Let's hope Wes Johnson's miracle work is permanent, like we all saw with Martin Perez and his cutter.

 

Well Perez wasn't good in 2019, but he was significantly better than in 2018. If Bailey's new approach holds it will be a good deal for the 5th starter. If he improves at the same rate as Perez did, he'd be a really good pitcher.

[SwainZag]

 

The "window" has been slammed shut. 

 

No, it hasn't.  

 

It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

 

And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

 

I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

 

At Bailey's age there is little reason to give him more than 1 year.  If he has a pretty great year and puts up 3+ WAR, it's looking like a damn good signing for a 34 year old.....and you go from there.  An option would have been nice, but nothing wrong with a 1 year deal here.

[drivlikejehu]

 

But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

 

The downside to signing 2 guys is that it pretty much closes the door on an off-season trade for a starting pitcher. The only remaining (non prospect) upgrade possibility is someone getting hurt/being really bad and the Twins making a deadline deal (which fans have reason to be skeptical about). After all, the Twins' failure to get Stroman last deadline is a big part of the problem they now face.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

I think he's referring more to optics -- two non-impact signings (or at least delay potential impact?), both on the same day.

 

That said, while I like Hill, I'm not totally sold on that move either. Is he really a good bet, or is this the FO trying to avoid the "high cost" of trade deadline moves? Which both casts doubt on Hill's worth right now, and the future likelihood of an "impact" Twins trade. And of course, when we finally get to add Hill next summer, we won't have any 2020 data on him -- we'll pretty much have to throw him out there to see what he's got, in the middle of a pennant race, perhaps foregoing other trade deadline options in the process.

 

It's the kind of move I could see liking better if it wasn't paired with a Bailey signing.

[KGB]

 

But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

It doesn't seem like the Hill contract is a low risk contract.  He has $9.5 million in incentives which can be met by pitching 75 innings.  So that would be $12.5 million for 75 innings.

 

He better be very good in the first 70 innings or you probably have to cut him.  Which sounds like a good players contract, not a great team contract.

[nicksaviking]

 

It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

 

And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

 

I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

 

I'd have a hard time seeing Bailey be so good he'd be worth a QO, but there just seems like a lot of hand wringing for what looks to be a 5th starter. Hill on the other hand is a top of the rotation arm when healthy, if he's not healthy, well it was well worth the $3M to find out from my perspective.

 

But yes, this is all predicated on the Twins still swinging a trade for a higher ceiling, hopefully longer-term arm, which I am still just as hopeful for. They still only have three starters for opening day, so I don't think they're done. Ownership and the front office will still be well aware that these moves will not scrub any egg from their face, face they'll surely still want to save coming off of last season's fan building momentum.

[KirbyDome89]

 

That part is a bit frustrating, but the silver lining is that they will have the early part of the season to see if the likes of Thorpe, Dobnak, Smeltzer or Graterol can be part of that long term solution. 

The time to "see what you have," in regards to young players was when this club was losing 90+ games per season. There's no scenario where running out Dobnak, Smeltzer, and Graterol for 2-3 months is a good idea. The rotation isn't talented enough to carry that trio. Those early season games matter just as much as the ones in September. Ask Cleveland.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

After all, the Twins' failure to get Stroman last deadline is a big part of the problem they now face.

Yup.

 

Were LA and Boston interested in Hill, at this price?

 

Otherwise, it feels like maybe we're betting more on Hill because we don't want to pay the price to get guys like Stroman -- or even Bailey? -- at the deadline.

[nicksaviking]

 

No, it hasn't.  

 

 

At Bailey's age there is little reason to give him more than 1 year.  If he has a pretty great year and puts up 3+ WAR, it's looking like a damn good signing for a 34 year old.....and you go from there.  An option would have been nice, but nothing wrong with a 1 year deal here.

 

Also, if Bailey believes his new approach will bring him better results, he might just prefer to bet on himself. The Twins have been giving out quite a few option years to their free agents the last couple of years and both Bailey and Hill seemed like prime candidates to get one this year, if not from the Twins than from another club. So I might suspect they were the one's who didn't want to be tethered to a 2nd year.

[labcrazy]

 

No, it hasn't.  

 

LOL...ok

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

I'd have a hard time seeing Bailey be so good he'd be worth a QO, but there just seems like a lot of hand wringing for what looks to be a 5th starter. Hill on the other hand is a top of the rotation arm when healthy, if he's not healthy, well it was well worth the $3M to find out from my perspective.

 

But yes, this is all predicated on the Twins still swinging a trade for a higher ceiling, hopefully longer-term arm, which I am still just as hopeful for. They still only have three starters for opening day, so I don't think they're done. Ownership and the front office will still be well aware that these moves will not scrub any egg from their face, face they'll surely still want to save coming off of last season's fan building momentum.

 

Though I was optimistic also, at this point I think it's clear this is not going to happen, at least during the off-season. Between Pineda and Hill being slated to join the rotation during the year, and the relatively low need for a 5th starter early in the season, the Twins are going to go with young guys.