Marcum signing just got "cuirouser" and the Twins have some 'splainin' to do

[PseudoSABR]

What exactly is the gamble here?

The gamble might be that there are obvious red flags in Marcum's medicals--to the point where it's not worth taking the gamble at all.

 

It's all guess work about what kind of gamble it would be without seeing the medical records. Drawing any conclusions about the competence of the teams who passed on Marcum is specious.

 

It'd be nice if we could actually evaluate the relative medical risk of signing guys like Marcum, Harden, and Pelfry; but none of us are in any position to do so. To come down so definitively on one side seems like a bunch of bitter hand-wringing to me.

[mcrow]

Why does rebuilding= you shouldn't sign better players when you can, especially when they are cheap and you can afford them?. So what if they have already signed 3 "vets", if Marcum is a better option you move one of them to the BP. Which of these younger guys are we waiting to find out about? Gibson and Hendriks in reality and Gibson will be limited at that, who would be blocked? May, Meyer? They're not coming before September at the earliest anyway.

 

I want to see Gibson and Hendriks both get significant time as a starter. If Marcum was there along with the guys they already have we probably see a lot less of Gibson and Hendriks if Marcum stays healthy. Gibson likely to get ~140 innings or so that could be a 2/3 of a season, Hendriks gets the rest or gets fill in duty if a starter goes down. Cole De Vries is still around as well, wouldn't mind seeing him some either.

 

We're just not going to agree on this, you'd sign a scrapheap player that was once a good player regardless of the situation where as I wouldn't. You just seem to see these types of players as being some sort savior or something. Realistically he's not likely to stay healthy and even if he did it's not like we're signing Verlander or something. He was a good starter when healthy, nothing more. His average WAR for a season is around 2.5 which barely makes him a top 30 starter. Diamond was a 2.2 last year. So you're adding a Scott Diamond with no upside to the roster, not signing a staff ace.

 

Like I said, if they would have signed him I wouldn't have been mad because the price is good but I just don't think it makes much sense and I'm not sure it's the right idea for where the club is at right now. I'm not sure Marcum in the rotation really makes that much difference to the W/L record at season's end.

[MWLFan]

Yawn...hard to get worked up over any of these guys, Marcum, Chick Corriea, Franchise Frankie, Scotty Baker et al. Would I like a staff of a couple of aces and some decent 3 4 5 guys, but the Twins have had that just a few times since I started going to games at the Met. Perry, Kaat, Blyleven, Boswell staffs of the late 60's and the Morris, Erickson, Tapani, David West..never mind that last one..of 91. The Viola, Blyleven redux and the Santana, Radke and insert pitcher here were pretty good but Les Straker was a poor mans Scott Diamond and Brad was a non factor when Frankie showed up. So 40 years and two and half good staffs, not real great percentage. My expectations are too low probably. When do the kernals start playing again?

[Kwak]

I think if you're the Twins you have to either be all in and think you can contend or realize it's a rebuilding year. Seems to me that they don't know which way they think they're going yet which is part of the issue. If the team is rebuilding a guy like Marcum doesn't really make much sense. If you think you could compete them maybe the possible reward is worth it. IMO, the Twins are still a rebuilding team and they'd be better served seeing what some of the younger guys can do given they already picked up 3 vets for the rotation already. If they had not already signed Correia and/or Pelfrey then maybe it makes more sense to give Marcum a chance.

 

So many statements need rebuttal.

1) All-in or rebuilding. Every team is rebuilding every year--it's an on-going process.

2) Just because the Twins FO believes that there is a low probability of qualifying for the playoffs doesn't mean that they don't make investments for immediate returns.

3) Funds not invested this year are not saved for reinvestment in the Twins for later years--they are put to use elsewhere.

4) "Seeing what the young guys can do". Who are you speaking about? Ryan just stated that he tought Dozier was rshed to the majors do you believe he will change philosophy of lengthy, step-wise progression through minor leagues now? And for May/Meyer? I definately don't think he would change for those two in2013.

5) Ryan has also stated a preference for "lots of arms" as the philosophy to fix the Twins pitching woes--so why not include Marcum?

 

The above lead me to one of the following conclusions:

1) the Twins fouled-up

2) the Twins are guilty of speaking out-of-both-sides-of their-mouth

3) the Twins reached their self-imposed budget limit {this requires that 2) above is also valid}

4) the Twins are certain that Marcum is still injured and can no longer perform at earlier levels

5) I need to wear a tin-foil hat due to the giant MLB conspiracy between teams with respect to player salary and a pre-determined destination for said player. Ergo, Marcum was allocated to a team other than the Twins making him "out-of-bounds" for the Twins

[jokin]

Marcum was at 7.7 mil. and has missed time. From comments made early in the free agency period on this board 5 million would not have been out of line of what people had posted. After the signings started you would have been surprised, but your comment says before. Your own post says why teams would have shied away from him. Your are too stubborn in your beliefs to even pay attention to it. "Nothing alarming" is not a clean bill of health. Too bad you just don't get that. Marcum is a great pitcher, but the arm scares people off.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued anything close to your latest strawman, "Mr Clean Bill".

 

The side critical to the Twins FO decision-making here does get that, the "evidence" that your side has presented demonstrates that your types are the ones with your heads in the sand on this. The question of- how deleterious the injury to Marcum might be?- is the whole point of pursuing him- relative to the Twins fondness/aversion complex for Risk-Reward Roulette.

 

The evidence from last year up to signing day for inking Marcum was that:

 

1) Marcum was pitching very well at the end of the season

2) Correia was not pitching very well at the end of the season

3) Pelfrey was not pitching

4) Harden was not pitching well- for the last 5 years

5) Marcum claims his MRIs shows he has no major structural damage

6) Marcum claims he has been on a new arm strengthening regimen since his injury

7) Marcum claims the regimen has worked, his numbers post-injury confirm that claim

8) Marcum claims he isn't feeling any residual effects from the 2012 elbow tightness

9) Marcum passes physical examination to confirm the Mets offer

10) Marcum claims that 15-20 teams contacted him, but no multi-year offers made

10) Marcum receives $4M offer w/ $4M more in incentive clauses from Mets

 

The first conclusion here is given the risk, that the "market" for Marcum as a SP was one year, exact amount and incentives TBD.

 

The next conclusion was that Marcum was deemed healthy enough for the Mets to risk up to $8M

 

The next conclusion is that the Twins were only content in risking dollars amounting to Marcum's base salary- to a larger question mark for likely 2013 performance, Pelfrey- w/o the incentives.

 

The Twins just prior to coming to this conclusion went to Defcon panic-mode & Tripled down on an inevitably Marquis-like deal- showing to all that they hadn't learned their lesson on Risk Management for Starting Pitching 101 just last semester.

 

The last conclusion is that the Twins have mis-assessed the risk-reward options available this off-season w/ their $14M outlay.

[mcrow]

So many statements need rebuttal.

1) All-in or rebuilding. Every team is rebuilding every year--it's an on-going process.

Everyone is building every year but not everyone is rebuilding, there's a big difference.

2) Just because the Twins FO believes that there is a low probability of qualifying for the playoffs doesn't mean that they don't make investments for immediate returns.

What is the upside of signing a guy that is likely to spend time on the DL and/or won't be here next year? Are they contending for a playoff spot this year and just need one more arm to make it? I think not.

3) Funds not invested this year are not saved for reinvestment in the Twins for later years--they are put to use elsewhere.

Where did I say anything about the money in this thread for Marcum? I said the money wasn't the issue, it's the injury risk and perhaps not the right philosophy.

4) "Seeing what the young guys can do". Who are you speaking about? Ryan just stated that he tought Dozier was rshed to the majors do you believe he will change philosophy of lengthy, step-wise progression through minor leagues now? And for May/Meyer? I definately don't think he would change for those two in2013.

As I said, we need to see Gibson and Hendriks and perhaps De Vries and they are clearly not on the slow train to the majors.

5) Ryan has also stated a preference for "lots of arms" as the philosophy to fix the Twins pitching woes--so why not include Marcum?

You already have two possible starters coming off of TJ so why toss in Marcum on top of that? There are times to gamble, like when you have a chance to be in the playoffs. There are times to gamble when rebuilding as well but the gambles are different. You sign injury prone vets for a non-contending team who isn't likely to affect wins and loss totals for the season much when it's unlikely he'll be here next year. The type of gambles you take at this stage is signing a guy that can help the team for years to come even if you over pay some.

 

Wow! Sign Marcum. Now we win 3 more games this year!

 

The above lead me to one of the following conclusions:

1) the Twins fouled-up

2) the Twins are guilty of speaking out-of-both-sides-of their-mouth

3) the Twins reached their self-imposed budget limit {this requires that 2) above is also valid}

4) the Twins are certain that Marcum is still injured and can no longer perform at earlier levels

5) I need to wear a tin-foil hat due to the giant MLB conspiracy between teams with respect to player salary and a pre-determined destination for said player. Ergo, Marcum was allocated to a team other than the Twins making him "out-of-bounds" for the Twins

 

Well I'm glad we just missed out on the next coming of Nolan Ryan...lol.

[jokin]

 

What is the upside of signing a guy that is likely to spend time on the DL and/or won't be here next year?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm glad we just missed out on the next coming of Nolan Ryan...lol.

 

It's more credible that the very same outcome you envision is going to occur to both Harden and Pelfrey.

 

I don't think anyone threw out anything close to the Second Coming of Nolan Ryan Strawman for signing Marcum, nice try, though.

[old nurse]

I have never said the Twins should not have signed Marcum. I can understand why they might not. Then again your own post points out what the issue between the Twins and Marcum might be. Your own post says 15-20 teams contacted Marcum. We know the Brewers were not one of them. A few teams have fairly decent staffs and probably didn't contact him. The Yankees are cutting salary. It leaves a great chance that that the Twins were one of them contacting Marcum. So what was the response from Marcum?

[mcrow]

It's more credible that the very same outcome you envision is going to occur to both Harden and Pelfrey.

 

I don't think anyone threw out anything close to the Second Coming of Nolan Ryan Strawman for signing Marcum, nice try, though.

Like I said, I don't care for the Pelfrey signing but that one is done already. Marcum compounds the problem. Harden isn't a bad signing because it's minor league deal so if he looks good you keep him if not then don't and he might be useful in the BP.

 

My Nolan Ryan comment wasn't saying one said anything like that. I'm highlighting a point which is that people here seem to think that Marcum, even if healthy would really make much difference to the team this year. IMO, he probably doesn't win many more games for the Twins over what they already have on the roster. Or at least not enough to justify signing him knowing he'll be gone next year one way or the other.

 

I would have been OK with signing him for $4m/1 but don't see it really as big a difference as some here seem to think it would be. There just doesn't seem to be much value in brininging him in for a year at this point particularly if you're not sure about his health.

 

Yes, Pelfrey wasn't the greatest signing but again we can't go back change Twins history now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Wow! Sign Marcum. Now we win 3 more games this year!

 

Do that two or three times, get lucky with a couple of the kids, and you're suddenly a fringe contender for the playoffs.

 

But hey, nobody wants to be in that position.

 

That is easily the worst and least thought-out argument I've seen perpetuated on these forums over the past several weeks. Why go and get better players at all? What's the point? All they do is help you win. I mean, come on. Winning is overblown anyway.

[mcrow]

Do that two or three times, get lucky with a couple of the kids, and you're suddenly a fringe contender for the playoffs.

 

But hey, nobody wants to be in that position.

 

The Twins were 22 game out of a playoff spot last year. We need 4-5 more wins per pitcher in the rotation to be in contention so I'd say it's very unlikely they're that much better. I think they'll win more games this year but I still think 3 games is not going to be what put then in contention. Teams typically need between 87-90 wins to make the playoffs even with 2 WC.

 

Right now I'd say the best the twins could do is 80 wins and that's assuming Morneau is playing well, Diamond doesn't regress, Pelfrey is 100%, Correia isn't a total waste of space, Worley has a career year, and there are no major injuries and the Middle Infield and CF are not total disasters.

 

So even if you toss in a few more wins from Marcum and everything goes well for everyone on the team they come up 7-12 wins short.

 

I still think they might win 70-75 games this year but much more than that is pushing it, IMO. It is possible that everything comes together and they make a run but I wouldn't bet on that.

[twinsnorth49]

So hey, don't even bother trying, better to keep trotting out Correia and Devries and tell your fans it's the best they can expect, in fact it might even be good...kind of....maybe....hopefully.

[FrodaddyG]

Right now I'd say the best the twins could do is 80 wins and that's assuming Morneau is playing well, Diamond doesn't regress, Pelfrey is 100%, Correia isn't a total waste of space, Worley has a career year, and there are no major injuries and the Middle Infield and CF are not total disasters.

You know what makes that win total slightly more achievable? Spending money on better players, so that you don't need every single thing to break right to have an outside chance of being "not the worst team in the AL, or at least if Houston hadn't switched leagues".

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins were 22 game out of a playoff spot last year. We need 4-5 more wins per pitcher in the rotation to be in contention so I'd say it's very unlikely they're that much better. I think they'll win more games this year but I still think 3 games is not going to be what put then in contention. Teams typically need between 87-90 wins to make the playoffs even with 2 WC.

 

Right now I'd say the best the twins could do is 80 wins and that's assuming Morneau is playing well, Diamond doesn't regress, Pelfrey is 100%, Correia isn't a total waste of space, Worley has a career year, and there are no major injuries and the Middle Infield and CF are not total disasters.

 

So even if you toss in a few more wins from Marcum and everything goes well for everyone on the team they come up 7-12 wins short.

 

I still think they might win 70-75 games this year but much more than that is pushing it, IMO. It is possible that everything comes together and they make a run but I wouldn't bet on that.

 

I also believe they're more of a 72-ish win team this season.

 

Most of us also thought the same thing in 2008. The point is that if you get better players going into the season, you're improving your chances of being pleasantly surprised and becoming a contender.

 

The Twins sacrifice nothing except money by pursuing one year contracts to players who improve the roster. What if the Twins went and got Marcum and Saunders instead of Pelfrey and Correia? That's probably 3-4 wins right there (on top of the 3-ish wins Correia and Pelfrey might provide over Deduno & Co). Add in a middle infielder that isn't hopeless with the bat and you're looking at a couple more wins there. Get lucky with Parmelee and Hicks and your offense improves by another win or two.

 

It all adds up. If you have the money to spend and free agents are available on one or two year deals and it doesn't constrain your gameplan with the young kids, what is the downside to trying to eek out a few more wins in case something good happens during the course of the season? What happens if Morneau posts a .950 OPS season? What happens if Gibson pitches 120 innings of 3.00 ERA ball? If you have complementary players that don't suck helping those guys on days they're not performing/playing, you have a chance at this thing instead of hoping that every possible good outcome happens at once, lightning strikes three times, Jesus comes to earth and plays shortstop, and you still only manage to field an 82 win team.

[snepp]

The only downside right now is that you risk pushing Correia out of the rotation prematurely if/when Gibson/Hendriks/Pelfrey are all in the rotation together.

 

 

Downside? Sounds like an upside.

[mcrow]

I also believe they're more of a 72-ish win team this season.

 

Most of us also thought the same thing in 2008. The point is that if you get better players going into the season, you're improving your chances of being pleasantly surprised and becoming a contender.

 

The Twins sacrifice nothing except money by pursuing one year contracts to players who improve the roster. What if the Twins went and got Marcum and Saunders instead of Pelfrey and Correia? That's probably 3-4 wins right there (on top of the 3-ish wins Correia and Pelfrey might provide over Deduno & Co). Add in a middle infielder that isn't hopeless with the bat and you're looking at a couple more wins there. Get lucky with Parmelee and Hicks and your offense improves by another win or two.

 

It all adds up. If you have the money to spend and free agents are available on one or two year deals and it doesn't constrain your gameplan with the young kids, what is the downside to trying to eek out a few more wins in case something good happens during the course of the season?

 

I would have been behind signing Saunders and Marcum over Pelfrey and Correia without a doubt. That's proabably $12M VS $10M but Saunders is probably better than both Pelfrey and Correia and then you take a chance at Marcum. I really would have liked them to still sign Saunders anyway (I've changed my mind on that) but I still wouldn't be as upset about not getting Marcum.

 

I could some up all of these moves by just saying none of them reall do much for me but some of them are done already.

[mcrow]

You know what makes that win total slightly more achievable? Spending money on better players, so that you don't need every single thing to break right to have an outside chance of being "not the worst team in the AL, or at least if Houston hadn't switched leagues".

 

I right there with ya brother.

[mcrow]

So hey, don't even bother trying, better to keep trotting out Correia and Devries and tell your fans it's the best they can expect, in fact it might even be good...kind of....maybe....hopefully.

 

Is Marcum really "better" though? Nobody can say they know that for sure with a straight face given his history. If there is an "if" qualifier that legit in front of why he can make the team better I don't see how anyone can really mad they didn't sign the guy. It's a roll of the dice with no skill factor involved and the vast majority of teams were not willing to take that gamble.

 

I do think there is a problem with hop TR is representing where the team is at because he keeps sayin or hinting that he thinks they'll comepete which really feeds false hope for this season. IMO, you just go into the season pitching it as a rebuilding year and if you do better than that everyone is happy. You promise too much and don't deliver people get mad.

 

TR words say one thing and actions say another which is frustrating.

[S.]

Is Marcum really "better" though? Nobody can say they know that for sure with a straight face given his history.

Are you really asking if Marcum is a better pitcher than Correia and Devries and then telling us that no one could possibly know that?

 

Edit: or I misread it and you meant "better" as in "is he healthy", which makes a lot more sense. Still, your arguments are awful.

[mcrow]

Are you really asking if Marcum is a better pitcher than Correia and Devries and then telling us that no one could possibly know that?

 

Talent isn't the question. More talent doesn't matter if you can't pitch. Better means overall impact on the team. He has the talent to be a #2 starter on most teams, but he might not be better than Correia or De Vries if he can't pitch or if he's pitching injured.

[edavis0308]

My '83 AMC Eagle stopped running. But instead of just buying a new Kia on sale for $15,000 and have it be a decent deal on a reliable vehicle (which I can afford), I'm going to jump at my buddy's '91 Escort that he is selling, and I am going to pay him $1,000 over book value just to make sure I have a vehicle to drive (even though it has 170,000 miles and might break down in a month, to which I will be in the same situation I was just in).

[Mike Sixel]

What is more likely, Marcum is healthy and good, or correia is healthy and good? Given their previous choices, I do not know the right course on Marcum and Saunders, frankly.

[S.]

OK. And Correia and De Vries might not be better than a 14 year old little leaguer if they can't pitch or they get injured. Harden's arm might fall off high fiving Butera during Spring training. The point is that there would have been no harm in adding an addition pitcher to our roster on a 1 year deal, who would be the best pitcher on our team if healthy, especially considering our payroll flexibility.

[mcrow]

That's the point. The most likely outcome here is that at some point in the season the Twins rotation will be in the same condition and they'll just be out $4m. If there was a decent chance that he plays the whole season I'd pay the guy $8M and be happy with taking that chance but not in this case where it's very likely he won't ptich the whole season.

[jokin]

Talent isn't the question. More talent doesn't matter if you can't pitch. Better means overall impact on the team. He has the talent to be a #2 starter on most teams, but he might not be better than Correia or De Vries if he can't pitch or if he's pitching injured.

 

The difference is we have evidence from the close of last season that he was eminently better than both of your alternatives, in real time.

 

I'd argue that Correia and DeVries have demonstrated that they frequently "can't pitch" when fully healthy.

 

And again, most importantly, there was more than ample money available to take an "all of the above" approach and see how it shakes out. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

[jokin]

That's the point. The most likely outcome here is that at some point in the season the Twins rotation will be in the same condition and they'll just be out $4m. If there was a decent chance that he plays the whole season I'd pay the guy $8M and be happy with taking that chance but not in this case where it's very likely he won't ptich the whole season.

 

Again, it's even MORE likely that Harden and Pelfrey won't pitch the whole season and Marcum in place of one or both puts you out about the same or little more than the same $4M+ Harden, and it's not like they didn't have the payroll flexibility to take on the ENTIRE risk of all three.

[mcrow]

The difference is we have evidence from the close of last season that he was eminently better than both of your alternatives, in real time.

 

I'd argue that Correia and DeVries have demonstrated that they frequently "can't pitch" when fully healthy.

 

And again, most importantly, there was more than ample money available to take an "all of the above" approach and see how it shakes out. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

 

Well, you might be right to a point with Correia and DeVries. And like I said, I'm not really against signing Marcum all together but I understand why they wouldn't and don't disagree with it either. If they would have signed him some of the same people bellly-aching about not signing him would have complained about them signing him. Why? Because it's not clearly a good or bad move.

[S.]

So you'd rather the Pohlad's pocket a little bit more money than have the Twins put a better product on the field unless they're going to win the World Series?

 

Maybe I missed it somewhere in here, but I take it you were opposed to us signing Harden and Pelfrey as well? What exactly are you even suggesting? That because our team is bad, we shouldn't spend anything because the end result will still not be us winning a Pennant?

[Guest USAFChief]

Usual suspects, prior to Marcum signing with Mets: "Marcum is still out there and would be a good get, if the price is right. The offseason isn't over yet, let's just see how this plays out, yada yada yada." Usual suspects, after Marcum signs with Mets: "Too risky. Didn't want him. Nobody else wanted him either. Need to see what Devries, Deduno and Walters have, yada yada yada."

[mcrow]

Again, it's even MORE likely that Harden and Pelfrey won't pitch the whole season and Marcum in place of one or both puts you out about the same or little more than the same $4M+ Harden, and it's not like they didn't have the payroll flexibility to take on the ENTIRE risk of all three.

 

Actually, I think that Pelfrey has more chance to pitch a whole season than Marcum does and Pelfrey is already signed so it's not like we could change that.