Oxtung

Thanks Nick!!

I'm not arguing that it was or was not poor journalism and certainly elite, like most adjectives, is subjective, but unless you think all the pitchers in the FA class are "elite" Terry Ryan was not calling the whole class "thin". Personally I think the statement makes sense logically. There is really only 1 elite pitcher in the market anymore. I would call that "thin".

We have no idea what Ryan actually said in that interview. The only word in quotation was "thin", which was made in reference to elite pitching. To make any assertion about JR's beliefs requires several turns at the Jump To Conclusions mat. Thanks for carrying that torch RP!!

The Twins starting pitching staff for next season is full of questions. There are doubts for every pitcher. Even Diamond, whom many see as locking down a spot next season, has significant red flags. A rotation with this many question marks is not going to contend for a division title. In my opinion there are two ways the Twins can handle this. First, the Twins could opt to embrace chaos by signing several pitchers to low priced deals or MiLB FA contracts or rule 5 draftees. They could then patch a rotation together by rotating pitchers in and out of the lineup based on with the hot hand. In this scenario many pitchers would need to be obtained to ensure a reasonable likelihood of success. In this scenario Baker seems like a great signing. He has the potential to be a good pitcher and if he flames out or never pitches you have plenty of available depth to replace him with. Second, the Twins could sign two or more free agent pitchers that are likely in and of themselves to bring a consistently high level of pitching to the staff. These pitchers would then anchor the top of the rotation while one or two spots are left for several pitchers to compete for. One of the last spots in the rotation would be another good place for Baker. His success would be helpful but if he failed you still have others to replace him. I would not be in favor of signing Baker with the intention of handing him a rotation spot. There are too many questions in Baker's ability next season to reserve a spot in his name. On a separate note. I don't understand peoples fascination with incentive laden deals. An incentive laden deal for Baker would not free up any more money the Twins could then use to sign other players. The team isn't going to think, "Oh he has a $2m base salary so that is all I need to budget for him." No, they're going to come up with a figure they think he is likely to make and budget that instead. So, just picking numbers out of the air here, in the end if he signs for $5m or an incentive deal with a base of $2m it doesn't matter. The Twins are going to budget $5m either way.

I will leave this last post and then let this go since it is beginning to smell like rotting horse flesh. I have two problems with posts in this thread. First, replacing Butera with any other catcher will make no statistical difference to the Twins. He only got 100ABs this year and won't be slated to get more next season. Given such a low number of ABs replacing Butera does nothing to increase the Twins winning %. Yet somehow there has been 70 posts in this thread and this is only one of many threads on this topic. I can't think of another demand on this board that is so loudly shouted and yet would produce so little. Second, there seems to be some posters on this board that have a double standard when it comes to Butera. These poster decry things like "put the best 25 men on the field" and use it as justification for removing Drew from the roster. I have no particular problem with this per se but these same posters will also post how we need to get Player X more AB's or more Prospect Y to the majors so we can "See what they can do" or "give them a chance". Typically this involves decreasing the ABs or playing time of our best players in one fashion or another. These two lines of thought are logically inconsistent and they seem to both be centered around Butera more often than not. So there. I've said my piece and will leave this thread to progress as it will. Go forth ye posters and draft such beautiful and persuasive prose that you'll vanquish your nemesis in a single posting and the fair maidens will tremble as thou name whispers past their crimson lips.

When a well respected information source, such as yourself and Gleeman, incorrectly paraphrases an article it leads others to think that is what truely happened. This then leads to unwarranted criticism or outright derision towards TR. There are reasons to think that TR won't go out and sign any exciting FA pitchers this year but it isn't because he thinks the market is thin. It's a subtle point, but it's hard to say what is being described as "thin" - whether its the elite free-agent pitchers or the whole market. I think we tried to make the point both in this podcast and others that we want had trouble characterizing what Ryan said because "thin" is the only word in quotes, and the subsequent quotes that were released never used that word. So I don't think we were critical of Ryan for that characterization. We were just puzzled by it. I still am, because I don't really understand the context. I don't think it's hard to say at all what Souhan is describing. "Elite free-agent pitchers" is the subject of the sentence so "'thin' market" is then describing "Elite free-agent pitchers". Here is a transcript of the portion of your podcast pertaining to this quote. At roughly 18 min.: AG: Terry Ryan had made a comment that the free agent starting pitching market was thin and that kind of shocked both of us. JB: Right. AG: It's not [thin]. JB: Right. AG: Our idea was to show that it's not. JB: We should be careful. We're not exactly sure what Terry Ryan said because the only thing that was said was the word "thin" was in double quotes in the middle of a larger point. Towards the end of the podcast Gleeman came back with this (roughly 68 min): AG: We started off saying we were going to talk about [the FA pitching market] because Ryan indicated that it was a thin market and we've named literally 30 guys. /end So I think it's clear you were unsure about the quote but I think it's equally clear Aaron thought TR was talking about the starting FA pitching market as a whole and the last comment really reinforces that to your public. This then leads to more antipathy and mistrust of the front office and is incorrectly cited by those who wish to cast aspersion upon Ryan.

I agree with many of the points brought up by the previous posters. Another problem I have with the article is his attempt to compare across seasons based on record. He states, "Should the second wild-card leading Cardinals continue at their current pace, however, they will finish with just 85 victories – three fewer than the previous low for a wild card, the 2006 Dodgers, and six less than the average wild-card winner." Overall record tells you nothing about the absolute strength of a team but rather their relative strength compared to their opponents. So this years Cardinals team, while not the strongest of teams in 2012, could be just as strong or stronger than any of the teams he thinks is playoff worthy from previous years. You can't compare teams across seasons with any accuracy much less down to a few games.

I had a whole post typed up being very polite but it didn't post and I lost it. So I'm sorry that this might be a bit blunt. John, not sure if you'll read this or not, but your premise this podcast, and even a bit last podcast, has been that TR thinks the FA pitching market as a whole is thin. That isn't what Souhan's article says though. According to Souhan Ryan thinks the elite FA pitching market is thin which I don't think anybody would argue with. Here is the direct quote: When a well respected information source, such as yourself and Gleeman, incorrectly paraphrases an article it leads others to think that is what truely happened. This then leads to unwarranted criticism or outright derision towards TR. There are reasons to think that TR won't go out and sign any exciting FA pitchers this year but it isn't because he thinks the market is thin.

Herrmann needs to be the 3rd catcher because every at bat counts and we need the top 25 players on the field but you want to take AB's from Doumit, Mauer, Willingham and give them to Herrmann? If Butera's 100AB's are so important then so are the 50-100 AB's you're trying to assign to Herrmann. You can't have it both ways. So that just bring us back to the 8 extra trips to first base that you get with Herrmann instead of Butera and thus my point that this is a silly point to be stuck on. A: I was not aware that Clete Thomas and Erik Komatsu had no plate appearances this year! Everything you have written up to this point has been in a future tense, "Herrmann would get...." or "Herrmann could ... ". Obviously in said future world there is no Thomas or Komatsu. So now you're taking ABs away from a legitimate OF prospect. None of which has happened. So at this point yes, you are taking away presumptive ABs from healthy starters. If Mauer or Doumit were to get hurt a roster move could certainly be made and if Butera were to get significant playing time then it becomes an issue. Until that time however you're still at ~100 ABs. To what end? We already have Mastroianni who is almost perfect in the 4th OF spot. Again, neither of these has happened yet so they are moot points. You think that 8-12 extra hits over the course of the season equates to 1-2 more wins? I would be interested what the WAR guys have to say about that. I personally doubt it would come out to even 1 win from a probability perspective. Right now the Twins 3rd catcher is only going to get ~100ABs next season again. When you're talking about 100 ABs it doesn't matter if that catcher is Butera or Herrmann. The amount of opportunities combined with the small difference between their hitting acumen is such that they will have little to no effect on next seasons outcome. If the number of ABs meaningfully changes then this becomes a valid discussion.

Herrmann needs to be the 3rd catcher because every at bat counts and we need the top 25 players on the field but you want to take AB's from Doumit, Mauer, Willingham and give them to Herrmann? If Butera's 100AB's are so important then so are the 50-100 AB's you're trying to assign to Herrmann. You can't have it both ways. So that just bring us back to the 8 extra trips to first base that you get with Herrmann instead of Butera and thus my point that this is a silly point to be stuck on.

Remember that if Carroll gets 401 PA's next season he has a PLAYER option for 2014 when he will be 40 years old. Would you still rather have Carroll? Yes. If I'm the Twins I'm not thinking about $2 million for Carroll in 2014, I'm trying to put my best players out there. I really don't want Carroll there either, but I'd rather give him 401 PAs next year than give Florimon 401 PAs, option or not. BTW, I think Carroll's going to eclipse 401 PAs next season regardless. Fair enough. I guess I agree that Carroll is going to end up with the 401 PAs next season. There are too many holes to be fixed in 1 offseason and I think the Twins should target the rotation as priority #1. The player option on Carroll is just something that I think many people forget about and something that we should all keep in mind. It's essentially like signing Carroll to a 2 year deal this offseason if the Twins don't find more depth up the middle.

Remember that if Carroll gets 401 PA's next season he has a PLAYER option for 2014 when he will be 40 years old. Would you still rather have Carroll?

Glen Perkins gave up 22 runs this season. Jeff Gray 34. Roughly 2 runs a MONTH. The whole conversation about Jeff Gray seems silly. Right....because runs and hits are the same thing.... Because the margin of difference between winning and losing in major league baseball is paper thin. Small advantages, or disadvantages, may not be apparent when you view individual games, but add up over the course of 162 games and turn 90 wins into 60 wins. Every roster spot matters, right down to the last man in the bullpen and the last man on the bench. Not as much as front line players, obviously, but they matter. "He's just fine if everyone else does their job," "he won't play much, he doesn't count," and "he'll only pitch innings that don't matter" are three sides of the same poorly reasoned line of thought. Are you really trying to say that Herrmann's potential 8 extra trips to first base, and at this point I'm being generous because I think his slash line would drop jumping from AA to MLB on top of the fact that he'd only be playing a few times a month, is the difference between 90 and 60 wins? How many games do you think the Twins win because of those extra 8 base runners? Of course you also have to think about how many games they lose because of the drop off in defense. In the end I can't see this being anything more than a wash.

Glen Perkins gave up 22 runs this season. Jeff Gray 34. Roughly 2 runs a MONTH. The whole conversation about Jeff Gray seems silly. Right....because runs and hits are the same thing....

How do you resolve these two opposite sounding statements Shane? If starting pitching is all that matters why the hatred for Buteras 100ABs?

Herrmann would have reached base 8 more times this season than Butera. 8 times in 5+ months. Roughly 1 time a MONTH. That's even assuming he could maintain the same OBP after the jump to MLB! This whole conversation seems silly when Butera is only getting 100 AB's.

In reverse order: TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda. Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact. Winning percentages between football and baseball are apples and oranges. A great baseball team might win 60% of their games (~100 wins) but win 60% (10-6) of your games in football and you aren't even guaranteed to go to the playoffs. Great teams in football win 80%-90% of their games. Huh ?!? This is a partly true, but in the end, still a specious argument, is the discussion even about "great teams"? Even by your criteria, Gardenhire has never had a "great team" (closest was .593 in 06), he's 0/11, while Childress had one, making him 1/5. These are just some of many playoff teams and/or division champs over the years thanks to the ridiculous priority placed on geographical division alignments in the "League of Parity", the NFL: 78 Vikings 8-7-1 80 Vikings 9-7 04 Vikings 8-8 04 Rams 8-8 10 Seahawks 7-9 (division winners!) 04 Seahawks 9-7 99 Seahawks 9-7 99 Dolphins 9-7 95 Dolphins 9-7 (These are just a few of the countless 9-7 playoff/div. champ teams) 09 Jets 9-7 09 Ravens 9-7 91 Jets 8-8 90 Saints 8-8 85 Browns 8-8 82 Browns 4-5 82 Lions 4-5 11 Cincy 9-7 11 Broncos 8-8 08 Chargers 8-8 06 Giants 8-8 There are mediocre teams that make the playoffs in MLB as well- who would dispute that the inbalanced schedule has skewed Gardy's record significantly better than it should be?, his dreadful performance against the Eastern Division is well documented. He made his career mark feasting on the dregs of the AL and just about every inter-division series against the clearly inferior NL. This has clearly been more than "good enough" for the ownership, which fought a pitched battle to commit club suicide- leave the state or contract itself out of existence- from 2001 to 2007. It's also "good enough" for the fans, just happy to still have a team in town with a laconic, unflashy, but seemingly successful, manager. Childress, though on the surface similar in delivery to Gardenhire, by dint of his aloof and secretive ways and anal personality, was never able to endear himself in Minnesota. In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time. Wow did you miss the point of my post. Let me try this again without #'s since that seems to have diverted you from the point. Football and baseball are very different sports. A .525 winning percentage in football is not the same as a .525 winning percentage in football from a success stand point. So like I said in my last post...apples and oranges.

This is true if you also think that a team playing with a 24 man roster (often 23 because of the "day-to-days" ) against teams with 25 men, does not matter much Right, because other teams don't have poor hitting players and don't have anyone who's day to day. I just counted, 27 teams have listed a player as day to day in the last 3 days. 20 of them had a player listed as day to day today (the 14th).

In reverse order: TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda. Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.[/Quote] Winning percentages between football and baseball are apples and oranges. A great baseball team might win 60% of their games (~100 wins) but win 60% (10-6) of your games in football and you aren't even guaranteed to go to the playoffs. Great teams in football win 80%-90% of their games.

I have yet to see any compelling reason why the Twins should promote faster in general. The only reasons given so far seem to be: one, an individual predilection to pushing players or two, slow promotion stunts growth but there was no evidence accompanying this claim so really this seems to circle back to point one, predilection. The way baseball is setup right now there doesn't seem to be much advantage to pushing most players quickly to the majors. You're going to get 6 years of control whether that is 23-29 or 25-31 years old.

Strange....none of you have mentioned the $6M elephant in the corner of the room.

The problem with the Red Sox is the same now as it was during the Mauer kerfuffle; Boston needs pitching too. That was what they got in return in the Dodgers deal. I have a hard time believing they would turn around and trade that pitching away for a $14M Morneau on a 1 year contract. I also have a hard time seeing MN move Morneau for anything other than pitching. I guess perhaps a SS. Anybody have a read on the RS SS situation?

How Liriano has pitched has no bearing on whether or not the trade was a good decision. That's like saying the Twins should have traded Justin Morneau after 2009 because he got hurt in 2010. The only thing that matters when evaluating a trade is what was known about the player leading up to the trade.

I'm not claiming Ryan's opinion has changed. I am claiming that the circumstances have changed. Right now there is a combination of factors TR has never had to face in his career as GM. He has quite a bit of money available (or could with a trade), he has virtually no contracts for his pitching staff, he has a staff that has been terrible, and he has little help coming from the minors in the next 3 years or so. Given these circumstances there is at least some reason to think he might sign a decent FA pitcher. At a minimum there is enough uncertainty to forgo drawing any firm conclusions on what Ryan will or will not do.

Of course Ryan never actually said that.... The Twin's also have never been in the position their in now. Money to spend, no long term contracts in the pitching staff, terrible rotation. Now maybe Ryan signs some decent starters and maybe he doesn't but you can't criticize him for things he didn't actually say and hasn't actually done.