Brock Beauchamp

Good god, man. That's an ERA of 7.22 in a season where the median AL ERA was 3.82.

Basically, if Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana are mediocre in the aggregate, the Twins pick up, what, 50-60 runs in differential over 2014? That brings them close to .500 as a team, I think.

Locking this thread. Please continue the conversation in the signing thread: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16244-article-report-twins-and-ervin-santana-agree-to-four-year-deal/

Locking this thread. Please continue the conversation in the signing thread: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16244-article-report-twins-and-ervin-santana-agree-to-four-year-deal/

It sounds like an innnings-based option, which makes it largely irrelevant. If a guy is good enough to reach a decent innings threshold, then he's probably good enough to earn a paycheck.

Oh yeah, I'm fine with one being in the bullpen if there's no room in the rotation, I simply think both should be in Minnesota.

No, if they pick up another pitcher, period. Both May and Meyer should start the season in Minnesota. The kids won't learn how to pitch to MLB hitters if you never let them pitch to MLB hitters. Meyer and May dominated AAA to varying degrees and they're both turning 25. There's little left to learn in the minors. If you're going to control a guy into his 30s either way, service time edges toward irrelevancy.

If the Twins sign another pitcher, I'll be very disappointed if Meyer doesn't start the season in Minnesota, whether it's in the bullpen or the rotation. If they have concerns about his health after the end of 2014, I'm okay with giving him in a month in the minors but no more than that. The guy needs to face MLB hitting.

The (potential) Santana signing doesn't bother me in 2015. It has the potential to bother me in 2016 and beyond. The 2014 rotation was awful. Santana will (hopefully) shore up that rotation in 2015... My main concerns revolve around having both Santana and Nolasco signed for three years and trying to squeeze in May, Meyer, Berrios, etc. while also retaining Hughes. In the short-term, I like the idea of having another quality pitcher. In the mid-term, I'm not so sure.

I don't like the deal but I'm certainly not going to kick and scream if the Twins somehow magically decide that a $100m payroll will not starve the Pohlad children.

On a slightly-related note, MLBAM (Advanced Media) is becoming a real powerhouse in digital media and is going to make MLB a ton of money over the coming decade. HBO is using MLBAM streaming tech for their new service that releases early next year. CBS uses it for a variety of things. ESPN uses it a ton. MLBAM's revenue has gone from $300m per year in 2006 to $620m in 2012. I think it's going to keep doubling every few years for the foreseeable future.

Nope, the team loses their "second-highest selection". http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/explaining-qualifying-offers.html

I believe so... I think it goes directly to the second round pick. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Frontloading would do the opposite of compounding salary inflation. For example, you offer two contracts. 1. 4 years, $60m. $15m per year. 2. 4 years, $60m. $20m, $20m, $10m, $10m. In years three and four, the front-loaded contract would free up more money to spend on new players as salaries inflate. Or maybe you're arguing that front-loading would lead to higher overall dollar contracts... I can't agree with that, as I see no reason it would play out that way.

Ugh. Don't even get me started on that kind of thinking. I get that response so often to new ideas... My counter is always "We've always done it that way is not a valid reason. Now give me a real reason with evidence." I'm hoping Molitor has enough weight of opinion to convince some of the "less eager" members of the organization to start critiquing why certain things are done and not take it as a given because it has always been done that way. Easily my biggest beef with Gardy. He seemed completely resistant to change.

It is a question I have long asked and never received a logical answer. You'd think athletes would love front-loaded contracts because: 1. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow 2. An invested dollar today is worth a lot more than a dollar tomorrow I'm not countering Levi's point because the reality is that everyone appears to frown on front-loaded contracts... But that doesn't mean it's smart.

It's really easy to say "release the guy". In practice, it's a far more difficult decision. Is it easy to release a guy like Pelfrey or Blackburn? Yeah, I think so. They're owed ~$5m, which isn't much money in today's game. But releasing a guy like Nolasco? A guy owed almost $40m over the next three years? No, that's not something one just does on a whim. Ricky Nolasco is going to get every opportunity to succeed in the rotation. Then he'll be moved to the bullpen. Then he'll go on rehab. Then he'll get another shot on the MLB team. Teams don't just throw away $40m unless they have so much money that it simply doesn't matter and even then it's a hard decision. There's a reason why we don't see teams completely give up on struggling veterans who are owed tens of millions of dollars. This "problem" is not unique to the Twins, which limits the amount of criticism they should receive for holding on to expensive players who aren't producing. I find it mildly humorous that people will criticize things like WAR for being an out-of-touch stat that doesn't apply to what's happening on the field but will turn around and ignore the realities of throwing away $40m and just how hard that is to do for a myriad of reasons. The player might rebound because he performed in the somewhat recent past. It's a lot of money. It reduces future payroll flexibility (have to add another player while paying someone to not play). It's admitting a colossal mistake on the front office's part. There are no "take-backs" on a player release. There are reasons why so few teams employ this type of move and why it's so rare.

Good move for the Cubs because of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. It's pretty much a no-brainer for Chicago to pursue a deal of this type because of their MiLB/MLB team weaknesses and payroll capacity. They can afford three Jon Lesters and still only consume 1/3rd of their payroll ceiling.

Parker, you crack me up. That last line is pure gold.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Orson-Welles-Slow-Clap-Reaction-Gif.gif

Not to mention the MiLB season is a full month shorter than the MLB season. That's worth an extra 25-35 innings a season.

I'd prefer two years. I think Masterson could be had on a two year deal.... Say, 2 years, $18-20m.

I'd be a lot higher on Santana if his yearly stats didn't yo-yo so much. If you get a 120 ERA+ out of him in 2015, you can almost bank on getting a 90 ERA+ in 2016. He's basically Francisco Liriano without knee-buckling "this guy is completely unhittable" stuff (though he's obviously a better "pitcher" whereas Liriano just hurls it somewhere toward the approximate location of the plate).

Not to mention that Masterson will demand fewer years. That's my main sticking point with Santana. After a string of one-year deals, he seems to want something more long-term. If Nolasco wasn't already on the roster, I'd be all for that signing... But I hate the idea of locking up two mediocre guys in their 30s through 2017.

It's a risk, without a doubt... But between May, Gibson, Meyer, Berrios, and Milone as backup, I think it's a gamble worth taking unless the front office is willing to pony up for someone of Hughes' calibre or better. It's a rare occasion where I take the stance "go big or go home" but I think that's the attitude the Twins should have at this point.