Article: Grading Last Year's Free Agent Pitching Market

[ThePuck]

And the twelve previously awful starts stop counting somehow?

 

This is how it works. Correia is a success because of his April...so we can look at his season ERA so far and because of that ridiculously nice April, it looks (relatively) good. In other words, only slightly below league average for the season instead of way below league average since May.

 

Pelfrey has been a success because of what he's done the last month.

 

The parameters slide back and forth to fit the argument.

[drjim]

And what exactly has that done for the Twins? We are not in contention and from everything I've read he is not expected to bring back anything of value on the trade market. As far as I can tell he has not helped the Twins in any way. That has been my problem from the beginning. He had no upside.

 

They had to sign someone to fill the spot in the rotation. Without including the best three (who I think weren't coming) might as well if signed the next best guy right? Isn't that the majority of complaints here, that Ryan did a poor job signing free agents last offseason?

 

I know you would argue they couldn't know how he would perform or they get no credit for how he performed, but I would suggest they deserve some credit for identifying and signing and plugging him into the rotation despite the many objectors (myself included). Results do matter.

[TheLeviathan]

No, but given he's recovering from TJ, you might get someone willing to send something over for him... Like others, it won't be for much, but if you can get a potentially useful piece, I think you do it.

 

If that happens....sure. But it isn't a success yet by any stretch.

[drjim]

The parameters slide back and forth to fit the argument.

 

Oh come on, no one would ever do such a thing on this board.

[Oxtung]

He made the comments with the only thing to gain is by defining his role with the team. Make Zach Greinke money. Why did Grienke demand to be traded out of KC with a list of teams that he did not want, and could not be, to be traded to? Past actions would indicate being on a competitive team is what he wants. That is not inside information. That has been published. It is not a stretch or a twist.

 

He had nothing to gain with his comment. In fact he had very much to lose with that comment. He had already signed with the Dodgers as this was his explanation for signing with them. So he wasn't getting more money.

 

I fail to see how any remarks he makes about his contract will in anyway impact his position in the clubhouse. That will be determined by how he interacts both with the other players and with the coaches and other staff of the Dodgers.

 

A trade is by no means the same as signing in free agency. No money was on the line when he was traded. So sure, when money is not a factor, I believe that Greinke wants to go to a winner.

 

If winning was all it was about why go to the Dodgers? They hadn't gone to the playoffs in three seasons. They only had one season of 90+ wins in the last eight years. That is hardly a franchise that screams, "Come here and you will win a championship!!"

[old nurse]

He had nothing to gain with his comment. In fact he had very much to lose with that comment. He had already signed with the Dodgers as this was his explanation for signing with them. So he wasn't getting more money.

 

I fail to see how any remarks he makes about his contract will in anyway impact his position in the clubhouse. That will be determined by how he interacts both with the other players and with the coaches and other staff of the Dodgers.

 

A trade is by no means the same as signing in free agency. No money was on the line when he was traded. So sure, when money is not a factor, I believe that Greinke wants to go to a winner.

 

If winning was all it was about why go to the Dodgers? They hadn't gone to the playoffs in three seasons. They only had one season of 90+ wins in the last eight years. That is hardly a franchise that screams, "Come here and you will win a championship!!"

 

Contending, not winning. A team that has assembled 5 position players in their prime who were all stars would cause one to think if they are not injured they should have a pretty good team. There was also some dude named Kershaw to be the star pitcher.

Nice disregard in how the past actions in where he would select to be traded to would indicate what he thinks. If you want to believe that Grienke would go to a different team if they had offered $1 million more than the Dodgers that is fine. I see no past action on his part that would indicate that. If you want to believe he had something to lose making that comment, fine.

[Oxtung]

They had to sign someone to fill the spot in the rotation. Without including the best three (who I think weren't coming) might as well if signed the next best guy right? Isn't that the majority of complaints here, that Ryan did a poor job signing free agents last offseason?

 

I know you would argue they couldn't know how he would perform or they get no credit for how he performed, but I would suggest they deserve some credit for identifying and signing and plugging him into the rotation despite the many objectors (myself included). Results do matter.

 

Whether the Twins coaches deserve credit for how Correia and Pelfrey have pitched is a separate argument than whether Ryan made a good decision with signing him in the first place. I have no knowledge of the situation to know if Correia's first month was because of something he did or because the Twins worked wonders and as such will not attempt to place credit or blame on any individual.

 

What does Ryan deserve credit for exactly? The starting pitching staff is still the worst in baseball. The Twins are not competitive. Supposedly Correia and Pelfrey are worth very little on the trade market. As far as I can tell, other than just finding bodies who can make it out to the mound every fifth day, nothing was accomplished last offseason. Shouldn't he be trying to improve our team with every decision?

[Oxtung]

Contending, not winning.

Nice disregard in how the past actions in where he would select to be traded to would indicate what he thinks. If you want to believe that Grienke would go to a different team if they had offered $1 million more than the Dodgers that is fine. I see no past action on his part that would indicate that. If you want to believe he had something to lose making that comment, fine.

 

Who is disregarding? I said, if there are no monetary considerations, his past actions make it clear that he would prefer going to a potential winner. That says nothing about his actions when money is on the line though. You're arguing apples and oranges.

 

The only things we know are that he signed with the team that paid him the most. He publicly stated he signed with them because they paid him the most. There is nothing inconsistent in his actions. There is no reason to believe that is a lie.

[Thegrin]

And the twelve previously awful starts stop counting somehow?

 

What happened in April and May is called history. We now can anticipate a good result when Pelfrey is pitching.

[TheLeviathan]

what happened in april and may is called history. We now can anticipate a good result when pelfrey is pitching.

 

byto

[drjim]

Whether the Twins coaches deserve credit for how Correia and Pelfrey have pitched is a separate argument than whether Ryan made a good decision with signing him in the first place. I have no knowledge of the situation to know if Correia's first month was because of something he did or because the Twins worked wonders and as such will not attempt to place credit or blame on any individual.

 

What does Ryan deserve credit for exactly? The starting pitching staff is still the worst in baseball. The Twins are not competitive. Supposedly Correia and Pelfrey are worth very little on the trade market. As far as I can tell, other than just finding bodies who can make it out to the mound every fifth day, nothing was accomplished last offseason. Shouldn't he be trying to improve our team with every decision?

 

I am quite comfortable saying the Twins are better this year because they signed Correia than if they had signed no one or if he had signed any of the majority of pitchers that people on this board advocated for.

 

For the rest of your question/statement I would agree the Twins are not all that good this year, but I think by the end of the year the rotation will have shown (and the team) will have shown improvement. It is true they are not competitive, but considering the baseline that was virtually impossible coming into the season no matter what Ryan did so not sure that is the most fair standard gor measuring success this season (which isn't to declare it a successful season thus far by any means).

[Oxtung]

I am quite comfortable saying the Twins are better this year because they signed Correia than if they had signed no one or if he had signed any of the majority of pitchers that people on this board advocated for.

 

For the rest of your question/statement I would agree the Twins are not all that good this year, but I think by the end of the year the rotation will have shown (and the team) will have shown improvement. It is true they are not competitive, but considering the baseline that was virtually impossible coming into the season no matter what Ryan did so not sure that is the most fair standard gor measuring success this season (which isn't to declare it a successful season thus far by any means).

 

Because it is hard to improve we shouldn't try. Since we shouldn't try it doesn't matter what pitchers we sign. It doesn't matter what pitchers we sign because we were going to be bad anyways. That seems to be the logic you're following here.

 

Perhaps the fundamental difference between our points of view comes down to this: I think the Twins should have tried their hardest to improve the Twins for both 2013 and beyond whereas you believe 2013 was a lost cause and so it doesn't matter and we are just waiting for beyond?

[drjim]

I'll start with your second question first. I wouldn't call injuries "flukey" because they happen for very specific reasons, but I don't think we are able to predict when an injury will occur because we don't know enough about the human body, either in general and in regards to a specific player. However, I am no doctor and if you have information to contradict this I would be happy to read any links you can provide.

 

To your first question, I think you're missing my point. I am not arguing either should or shouldn't be held accountable. I am saying that, even in Brock's own analysis and your own a few posts earlier, it is the fore knowledge that is important in assigning culpability.

 

Here is a study by Baseball Prospectus on pitcher injuries:

Baseball Prospectus | Baseball Therapy: What Really Predicts Pitcher Injuries?

 

I think it is true that no one will no the exact time and nature of an injury, but surely a competent GM should know which specific pitchers is more at risk for certain types of injuries. That risk should be at the time (and is) priced into a contract (ie why Marcum signed for what seemed like a small amount). That is why there is more culpability for a GM to take on that risk when it fails, then when there is a true flukey injury like getting hit by a bus or taking a line drive to the head.

[drjim]

Because it is hard to improve we shouldn't try. Since we shouldn't try it doesn't matter what pitchers we sign. It doesn't matter what pitchers we sign because we were going to be bad anyways. That seems to be the logic you're following here.

 

Perhaps the fundamental difference between our points of view comes down to this: I think the Twins should have tried their hardest to improve the Twins for both 2013 and beyond whereas you believe 2013 was a lost cause and so it doesn't matter and we are just waiting for beyond?

 

I don't know how you came to that conclusion of the first paragraph or the last sentence. I think our main difference is that I think the signing of Correia represents real tangible evidence that Terry Ryan actually did make moves to improve the team for this year, and that at least this move was successful.

 

However, with the way in-house options progressed (or didn't), there probably wasn't any series of moves Ryan could have made that would have resulted in the Twins competing this year. That is the hole the franchise was in going into the season. That said, moves Ryan made have in my opinion set up the franchise to compete in the future, possibly as early as next season.

[Oxtung]

Here is a study by Baseball Prospectus on pitcher injuries:

Baseball Prospectus | Baseball Therapy: What Really Predicts Pitcher Injuries?

 

I think it is true that no one will no the exact time and nature of an injury, but surely a competent GM should know which specific pitchers is more at risk for certain types of injuries. That risk should be at the time (and is) priced into a contract (ie why Marcum signed for what seemed like a small amount). That is why there is more culpability for a GM to take on that risk when it fails, then when there is a true flukey injury like getting hit by a bus or taking a line drive to the head.

 

So the GM that knew ahead of time there was an injury risk is more culpable where as the GM of the fluke injury is less. Doesn't that mean that it is the fore knowledge that is important?

 

I don't know how you came to that conclusion of the first paragraph or the last sentence. I think our main difference is that I think the signing of Correia represents real tangible evidence that Terry Ryan actually did make moves to improve the team for this year, and that at least this move was successful.

 

However, with the way in-house options progressed (or didn't), there probably wasn't any series of moves Ryan could have made that would have resulted in the Twins competing this year. That is the hole the franchise was in going into the season. That said, moves Ryan made have in my opinion set up the franchise to compete in the future, possibly as early as next season.

 

I came to that conclusion because that seems to be what you were arguing. Here is one example:

 

It is true they are not competitive, but considering the baseline that was virtually impossible coming into the season no matter what Ryan did so not sure that is the most fair standard [f]or measuring success this season.

 

I will accept that I misinterpreted your comments. I am just trying to understand your view point and for the life of me I cannot. I honestly see absolutely no reason, other than as a warm bodies that can walk out to the mound every 5th day, to consider this off season as anything other than a failure. There was nothing that was improved this off season and that was almost a given when we entered spring training with Pelfrey and Correia as our "pretty darn good pitcher'" added in FA.

 

To be clear my problem is with the free agent acquisitions, I am happy with the trades to acquire high upside talent.

[PseudoSABR]

[Failure of the offseason!!]

Dude, you're totally dismissing that the Twins could have tied future and current funds into horrible signings. Of which there were many--many that we advocated them signing (not because of internet message group think, but because of earnest statistical analysis (which is, also, inevitably incomplete and flawed)). You're so angry about a zero, when you could have had a negative two (or whatever). I don't view the offseason so much as failure, as a wash. It's a wash. A big fat Meh. Evaluation must be weighed against what was really plausible--not against what was ideal or possibly lucky.

[Oxtung]

Dude, you're totally dismissing that the Twins could have tied future and current funds into horrible signings. Of which there were many--many that we advocated them signing (not because of internet message group think, but because of earnest statistical analysis (which is, also, inevitably incomplete and flawed)). You're so angry about a zero, when you could have had a negative two (or whatever). I don't view the offseason so much as failure, as a wash. It's a wash. A big fat Meh. Evaluation must be weighed against what was really plausible--not against what was ideal or possibly lucky.

 

Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team. That they were willing to make an effort, to take a risk trying make 2013 better than 2012. Instead their actions show they punted on the 2013 season while simultaneously declaring to season ticket holders they were going to do everything they could to make this team competitive. That their goal was to play meaningful games in September. That two faced attitude is despicable. The implication that the public would not be able to discern those lies is insulting. I can accept failure, we can learn from it but complacency will not improve the Twins.

 

You state that the off season was a wash which means that you believe something positive did occur. I would be interested in hear what that positive was.

[old nurse]

Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team.

 

Really? How about giving them credit for knowing who not to sign? Give them a little credit for having a scouting department. Considering the many negative comments in regards to those they did sign I find this comment a bit disingenuous.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't view the offseason so much as failure, as a wash. It's a wash. A big fat Meh.

 

A "wash" of an offseason that, if its results are repeated in 2014, will likely end up in TR's resignation or dismissal before he gets another offseason attempt to fix the starting staff, right?

 

Whether we call it a "wash" or a "failure" I think we can all agree on that point.

[drjim]

A "wash" of an offseason that, if its results are repeated in 2014, will likely end up in TR's resignation or dismissal before he gets another offseason attempt to fix the starting staff, right?

 

Whether we call it a "wash" or a "failure" I think we can all agree on that point.

 

I agree with this. There absolutely needs to be movement next season.

[drjim]

Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team. That they were willing to make an effort, to take a risk trying make 2013 better than 2012. Instead their actions show they punted on the 2013 season while simultaneously declaring to season ticket holders they were going to do everything they could to make this team competitive. That their goal was to play meaningful games in September. That two faced attitude is despicable. The implication that the public would not be able to discern those lies is insulting. I can accept failure, we can learn from it but complacency will not improve the Twins.

 

You state that the off season was a wash which means that you believe something positive did occur. I would be interested in hear what that positive was.

 

I think this is about the worst strategy a team in a down cycle can have. Chasing a few more wins with questionable contracts to mollify fans is a sure way to continue a cycle of mediocrity.

 

The best thing the Twins did was avoid bad contracts for the next couple of years as the team is ready to ascend. It's not so much the money, the team can afford it, it is the roster spots underperforming the contracts and the loss of roster flexibility.

[Guest USAFChief]

I don't view the offseason so much as failure, as a wash. It's a wash. A big fat Meh. Evaluation must be weighed against what was really plausible--not against what was ideal or possibly lucky.

We have a GM for whom it's not "really plausible" to expect improvement on a team that has lost nearly 200 games over the past two seasons?

 

We should be happy that he didn't somehow make that situation worse?

[Alex]

I agree with this. There absolutely needs to be movement next season.

 

Good to know, but what makes next season different from this one, except that it's another season worth? I'm mean if you were OK with this offseason why would more movement be necessary for next?

 

I don't see the discussion being that much different and it's likely the FA pitching market won't be as robust, or at least any better and with the new revenue actually available FA prices may increase again. The Twins will have significantly fewer trade chips this offseason as well.

 

If your argument is that the Twins will be better, overall, there are reasons that's in doubt. The lineup could have as many losses as gains next season with players leaving and/or continuing to age and the only hitter I reasonably expect to add significantly to the lineup next season would be Arcia.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative her but I am curious what the difference is in accountability between seasons.

[drjim]

Good to know, but what makes next season different from this one, except that it's another season worth? I'm mean if you were OK with this offseason why would more movement be necessary for next?

 

I don't see the discussion being that much different and it's likely the FA pitching market won't be as robust, or at least any better and with the new revenue actually available FA prices may increase again. The Twins will have significantly fewer trade chips this offseason as well.

 

If your argument is that the Twins will be better, overall, there are reasons that's in doubt. The lineup could have as many losses as gains next season with players leaving and/or continuing to age and the only hitter I reasonably expect to add significantly to the lineup next season would be Arcia.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative her but I am curious what the difference is in accountability between seasons.

 

All this is certainly possible. If you want my thoughts specifically on this I covered it pretty thoroughly earlier in the thread.

 

Regarding free agency, I think it will lack the top end guys but has better options in the second tier. Dovetails nicely with the Twins needs.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team.

 

Really? I get trying to improve the team, but when you failure to do so handicaps the ability to do so in the future, just what does that get us?

[Alex]

All this is certainly possible. If you want my thoughts specifically on this I covered it pretty thoroughly earlier in the thread.

 

Regarding free agency, I think it will lack the top end guys but has better options in the second tier. Dovetails nicely with the Twins needs.

 

Ok. I went back and looked at it. It has a big reliance on prospects who, at best, just moved to AA this year, which -especially after Hicks- seems like it should be cautious about. I hope you're right about it because there's holes to fill to get it back to even 2012 levels, IMO, much less competitive levels.

 

My point is, even I hope you're right about the approach to FA changing, but if not, I still don't see how these major question marks alter the accountability landscape.

[Guest USAFChief]

Really? I get trying to improve the team, but when you failure to do so handicaps the ability to do so in the future, just what does that get us?

"Handicaps the ability to do so in the future" is a popular rationale.

 

I question whether it's really true. We don't know they'll spend in the future, even at levels that pretty much everyone here agrees they could be comfortably spending at.

 

What we do know is the team doesn't use present "savings" to operate at a loss in the future.

 

If future payroll is tied up in unproductive players, you can free those roster spots any time you wish. They've done it before (Blackburn, Nick) and can do it again.

 

All we really know is not spending now virtually guarantees that the current product isn't what it could be. We have no idea how it will impact the future.

[kab21]

If anyone knew Gibson wouldn't be starting the year in the majors, it was Ryan. That was something he should have been aware of, so he could have made a plan for this. The argument was often made that additional signings would block Gibson. Of course, we have at least two spots that could open even after he has been called up.

 

Most of us, thought that Diamond would be considerably worse this season, though arguably not as bad as he was. His early numbers were too good to be true but his end of the season numbers should have been a warning.

 

Worley is certainly a disappointment, and those of us who can only view numbers certainly hoped for better, but I would hope Ryan would have been able to make a better decision with more information than that. Of course, maybe he's been hurt all season.

 

No matter how we cut it, results or prediction, there wasn't a ton of hope for this starting staff, so IMO, those backing TR here don't have that much to stand on unless, of course, not a single GM in the league improved his rotation through FA this season?

 

It was pretty clear that Gibson was starting in the minors. The part that nobody predicted was that he would be inconsistent and get lit up so much in AAA and then absolutely suck once called up.

 

Pretty much everyone expected Diamond to regress from last year but he should have been a consistent 4ish ERA member of the rotation.

 

Combined with Worley the Twins had 3 guys that should have provided an uninspiring but solid rotation. Instead those three have been dreadfully awful. It would be interested to go back and see who thought the Twins had an improved rotation and see if they are are also leading the 'Ryan screwed up' charge. I wouldn't consider myself a Ryan supporter but playing hindsight is pretty questionable.

 

I also think people's expectations are completely out of line with reality. There are 20-30 GM's that are interested in adding low cost solid starters. Being critical of a GM when he didn't sign one out of a whopping three options is just silly. It's even sillier when the guy that he did sign has basically performed just as well as that trio. of course it would be great to have been perfect but that's impossible.

[PseudoSABR]

We have a GM for whom it's not "really plausible" to expect improvement on a team that has lost nearly 200 games over the past two seasons?

 

We should be happy that he didn't somehow make that situation worse?

I was specifically talking about FA pitching. Again, that Worley and Diamond fell flat on their face, and Willingham's injury/ineffectiveness have more to do with our failure than offseason moves. Up until last month, the Twins did look improved, and in my opinion they are far more watchable than last year, even if it doesn't show up in the standings. In any case, there were no free agent moves that would have turned this club into a competing one, save spending 200-400 million on contracts (which isn't plausible in my mind).

 

Yes, TR didn't do much to improve the big league club, but he certainly improved the young pitching depth in the offseason, and didn't straddle us with any stupid contracts.

[howieramone1406390264]

Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team..

This is not an uncommon sentiment of the anti-Ryan group. They feel signing a top tier starting pitcher during free agency is the only way. The pro-Ryan group realizes there are only about 5 per year and very unlikely this happens. IMHO this is insurmountable.