ashbury

I hope they don't sign Podsednik in particular. Not just because of the weak offense he brings, but the rash of misspellings in fan postings all season will make my head explode like FrodaddyG's. Oh, and B+ for an offseason grade, for staying the course for the long haul but not shoring up things for 2013 any better.

Or is it that the metrics are trying to measure something that, at best, is such a small overall effect that it's hard to distinguish from statistical noise? I don't keep up with the latest, but around a decade ago the attempts to find something in Catcher's ERA turned up nothing of systematic value. I realize that CERA suffers from various defects, for instance if Butera is paired up with Pavano it means that you can't get reasonable comparative numbers versus Mauer that year; but still the researchers gave what I thought was a pretty good go at it, over a long historical period. It is astounding to me that someone more recently could determine a 1-2 win (10-20 run) variation just from pitch framing, yet CERA was such a dud before that. A good metric ought to tie to something tangible in terms of on the field results - if it is Runs then we're essentially back to CERA, so what would you suggest?

Good call. They split the difference between the numbers Seth quoted. [Edit: on Butera, I mean. Duensing is still pending.] Edit^2: and now ditto for Duensing the next day, not that anybody is still reading here.]

They could be lying. They could be telling the truth. Lack of activity at the high end in off-season 2012-13 does not give much information either way about off-season '14-15. I choose to view it as an application of Occam's Razor to keep truth-telling as my assumption. (Of course a different application of Occam would be to note their past history in the FA market - but the conditions in the past aren't necessarily duplicated anymore and again I take them at their word for this year.)

I didn't think this year's crop was all that strong either. Maybe that's a trend - teams more willing to lock up their own players to competitive contracts - arguably even a healthy trend for the game itself. Doesn't bode well for a team just entering a period of renewed competitiveness, that wants to make a key signing or two to help push them over the top, though. Imagine if in October 2015 we're looking back and saying "man, I wish we had Joe Saunders and his 4.50 ERA for only $10M, we'd have won the division." Like I was saying, "perfect information" goes both directions, even if I think the negative outcomes outweigh the positive ones for the average move taken now. A few weeks ago, when the question was whether to go to 5 years for a certain guy, I took a look at the established starters in the AL 5 years previous, and almost without exception, some new team *had* taken a flyer on each guy, and by year 5 there was some significant degree of regret. Of course the question needs to include whether significant benefit was obtained in the early years; also, 5 years is a lot different than just 3.

I enjoyed re-reading your analysis. It does point up the tremendous flexibility the Twins should have in 2015 and for a while after that. What is missing from the analysis, I think, is the "value of information". We know (or believe) certain things today. In the off-season a year from now, we will know some things we don't know now - for example a few players we are sorry we didn't sign, and also a few that already look bad (with 2 years to go if you had signed them to a 3-year contract), as well as a year's hindsight on the players you did sign. Two off-seasons from now, even greater amounts of information of this type will be available. Two flavors of regret, and two of gladness, will have definite and estimate-able financial measures. We have to keep in mind also that this isn't the last train that will leave the station. Next off-season, a new crop of free agents will be available, and again the year before season 2015. Say there is about $50M of flexibility in that year's budget, as you surmise. Do you pull the trigger now and commit part of that, or do you wait until another year and sign some pitchers, and repeat the process a year later? Factor into that, that revenues for every team are due to go up. This will result in a bidding-up of salaries in future off-seasons. So a $11M contract for a Joe Saunders in 2015 might indeed look like a bargain, if he is still delivering results like the past few years. You have to weigh that against the risk of his not delivering much in the way of results. So, it's complex and there are counter-weighing effects. But I still think that there's a lot to be said for taking on *no* particular risk for 2015, at this time, and focus really hard on 1- and 2-year contracts *this* offseason to help bridge to that date. The risk that you take on, measured in terms of steps you no longer might be able to take in 2015, outweighs the benefit of making 2013 a better season. I think the calculation changes dramatically next off-season, and you can take on risk in future years with greater hope that it won't bring you regret and narrowed options in 2015. And then in the off-season following that, I'm all for loading up with some really prime free-agent talent that requires you to add significant risk to 2017 and a little beyond, in exchange for a real chance of serious contention (for meaningful October games, not just September) in 2015. And that's how I've viewing every move Terry Ryan has made this off-season. So far, his focus on 2015 has been laser-like; I'm just not satisfied with the 2013 stopgap measures he's come up with.

I tend to pigeonhole a pitcher's success, at least while he has it, to some particular quality. When Liriano did well it was because had the big arm, when Baker was on it was because his command was really good that day, Harden had a devastating changeup in his early days. With Saunders, I have him somehow sorted into the "right makeup" bin - he just doesn't seem to get rattled. I doubt if there is some metric for that, and maybe I just saw him on national TV at the right time (just as I saw Oswalt have a playoffs meltdown and perhaps unfairly have him labeled the opposite way). Makeup alone won't win games - you need a certain amount of stuff - but conversely a dogged mentality perhaps will last longer than a 92MPH fastball of someone's youth. With his track record of several years of average-to-above results, I think he's a great choice for the amount of money the Twins have on hand to spend.

I fear that the only thing the Rich Harden of 2013 has in common with the Rich Harden of 2004 is, well, the name itself. The track record is that if he's in the rotation, he'll be in and out of it. I am very optimistic that the braintrust can figure out a useful role for him and get productive innings without disrupting anyone else. I just don't see it as being in the rotation, except maybe later on in the year.

Two points: a) an additional free-agent pitcher will be booting out someone likely to be at 5+ ERA, and what difference does the final tally of $$ spent matter, given that the Twins don't seem to carry over a surplus to a future season? I don't expect the front office to operate a season at a loss, most especially a rebuilding year like 2013, but I see no upside to them holding back $10M or $20M this year if there is talent that can be acquired for the price that would be an upgrade over what they have now, or even further depth.

Please include me in your minority caucus as well. I guess that's the point of Bonnes's post - if Saunders is holding out for a 3-year commitment, are you the GM to say Yes first? And like you, I continue to draw the line at 2 years, given my own interpretation that the window of competitiveness truly opens in 2015 at earliest. In that light, a 2-year deal for a guy with a good track record is even preferable to 1-year, to cover the bridge years. But for a pitcher well into his 30s, a third year starts to increase the risk factor by a lot. The way the Twins apparently do their accounting, strictly year by year, I think I'd go 2/$16M in preference to 3/$21M. Is that enough to get him?

It wasn't my point to debate whether Butera ought to be on the Twins' (or anyone's) roster. But given that he is, and has a certain amount of service time, he will be paid something, and he can go to arbitration. The question is why nickel and dime the few guys who have this amount of leverage but still will come in under $1M? Isn't it better to be known as a franchise players will want to come to?

If this math worked, some astute GMs would be bidding up the value of Lohse's services, bigtime.

Hah! That should be "now". This forum thread should be worth a lot, a few years from now, due to the error.

I realize that the numbers you present are not the amounts submitted by the respective sides, but ... I can understand why someone like Drew Butera might feel compelled to fight for an extra $100,000 or so he is not being offered by the team, but I can't quite understand why the team would fight for that same amount. If the Twins were to have gone ahead and given Drew what he wanted, will Kevin Correia notice and resolve that next time he negotiates for a two-year contract with the soft-touch Twins he'll remember to hold out for $10,100,000? Or mightn't the big-money guys notice and nod in appreciation that the bit-players are treated like they matter?

You need thick skin to post to this forum. I don't have it - I'm such a softy that when Seth spoke up, I deleted my minor contribution of snark, and I haven't found anything I felt to comment upon in the meantime. I usually get over it.

Hah, even with the heads-up, when I went back to look at the image I didn't notice the typo at first. Some proofreader I'd make. It reminds me of a spot-the-mistake quiz I saw in some book as a kid: PARIS IN THE THE SPRING Supposedly a majority of people would not notice the mistake if presented to them without particular warning there might be something wrong. The human eye works in funny ways.

It's possible they ended up changing plans; a few lowball 1- or 2-year offers to pitchers got them laughed out of the room, and they had the opportunity to trade both Span and Revere for younger prospects than they had intended originally.

> would you sign off on a 1 year/$10M deal, knowing it's going to cost the Twins their 2nd round pick. I, as armchair GM, am gearing for contention starting 2015 and beyond, and have two principles surrounding that: a) don't do things that jeopardize 2015 and beyond, try for short term fixes to improve 2013-14. I'm against 3+ year deals, in *this* offseason, because of principle a), since you take on risk in future years with the hope that the first year or two deliver pretty certain value. The above proposal to sign Lohse is intriguing because it seems hard to get quality starters without committing to 3+ years, but also violates principle a) due to the draft pick, and I don't think I'd do it. Second rounders and sandwich picks are hardly slam dunk major-league contributors down the road, but they aren't junk either.

Back when I lived in Minnesota I usually got to only 2 or 3 games a season, at most. By the strangest chance, I happened to attend Kirby's final game. And I was guest of someone with really good seats, probably the best seats I ever sat in at a major league game, a few rows up from the third-base dugout. I will never forget the grin Knoblauch flashed his own bench after leading off the game with a HBP. A story came out later that he had a side bet with one of his teammates that he could lean into a pitch and get the free base. Dennis Martinez didn't bother to brush back the second batter, Matt Lawton. But then against Puckett, a pitch got away from him; that was the story, stuck to by both teams, by all parties. I will always hold a different opinion, that some seriously-inside baseball was going on there, with unintended but disastrous results.

My impression (has anyone collected the status so far to verify?) is that the pitchers better than what the Twins have picked up have been demanding and getting 3 or more years. The guess would be that the guys not yet signed (Marcum, Saunders) still are holding out for 3. I believe TR sees a huge difference in the risk factor when you go to 3 years (to say nothing of the 4+ required to land a true front-liner). If you accept risk in year 3, it is because of some expected benefit in year 1. Despite public pronouncements, it looks like 2013 is written off, leading to very little possible benefit to balance the risk, and so the front office is unwilling to take on any significant 2015 risk to help in 2013; and so far the 2-year contract offers aren't panning out. I really thought going into the off-season that it should be possible to gear up for 2015 via trades like we have seen, plus sign some good stop-gaps to keep 2013-14 competitive. Either TR has been too cautious, or this model for sustaining competitiveness year-in/year-out is not supportable.

Something that stats can't do much for is to answer whether Josh ending the season on the DL could have some carryover to the new season. He hurt his shoulder, and if this becomes a new chronic condition, it could affect his power.

Just to be a little contrary: The Twins finished 1988 at 91-71, after getting off to a horrible 4-10 start while Brunansky was on the roster - so that makes them 87-61 with Herr. No one was going to catch the A's that year, but a 95-win pace doesn't speak of a team torn apart by the trade. Yes, I'm all over the map on Tommy Herr.

Yes, he came in under inauspicious circumstances and managed to make matters worse. I just refreshed my memory and his OPS+ of 89 after the trade is a fair shorthand for a well-below par season from a player counted on for much more; to add insult to injury, Bruno put in a typical good season for the Cardinals; and then Herr added further insult to the insult to the injury by bouncing back to have a nice season for Philly in 1989. It's a very hazily defined concept of what "worst" player is, as Cody acknowledged - but for negative value delivered compared to what was needed, Herr holds a special place above many many less-talented players who were in less-pivotal roles. Do I really think Tommy Herr is the worst Twins player ever? No. I just like having his name in the discussion, since he brought so much angst to the fans.

Also weighing into the mixture is that the manager himself is trying to get a promotion and wants to demonstrate he can "manage a game'. So yes, intentional walks do occur, and "somewhere in between" sounds right. It's even debatable how much the concept of batting-order protection really shows up in a hitter's production at the MLB level, so that's a different reason to look twice at a forecast of Sano's production in 2013 based on that as input.

To me, an important distinction is whether mechanisms exist for the officials on the field to do something about it or not. Umpires are hardly unaware of spitballs and corked bats and the like, and when they choose not to enforce those rules it is questionable for others to go about trying to correct this choice after the fact. On the other hand, umpires should not be tasked with trying to determine whether a player has an illegal substance in his body or not. I don't think it's fair to suggest someone of hypocrisy if they choose to view these differently. "Between the white lines" versus not, matters to me.