TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by TheLeviathan
-
Man, I want to believe you guys but never underestimate the stupidity of the average person. Or how gullible they are. I think all of us rational people see this man imploding even more than we could've predicted and yet....I just can't write him off. Brexit should continue to be a lesson for us - don't minimize what he's tapped into.
-
You're still talking about a calculation based on a variety of valuations that are predictive. Yes, it does a better job de-emphasizing those stats, but doesn't eliminate them. If you're asking me to compare two pitchers over the course of five years to see who has performed the best, I'm not going to use WAR. I'm going to use ERA+. Just like i won't use WAR for hitters either, I'll use wrc+. It's just a simple, plain fact that Santiago has outperformed Nolasco by a sizable margin for at least 5 seasons. And it's hard to take any argument seriously that doesn't accept that.- 382 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- alex meyer
- ricky nolasco
- (and 2 more)
-
Using WAR to compare Santiago and Nolasco is intentionally stacking the deck. WAR relies on FIP or xFIP and those stats consistently tell us Nolasco should be better than he is, but he is consistently worse. And has been over a very large sample. Santiago is the exact opposite. The career ERA+ is 107 to 89. That tells a much better story about what the two pitchers have actually done, rather than what best predicts what they should do. And there is a plenty large enough sample size to confirm the difference.
- 382 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- alex meyer
- ricky nolasco
- (and 2 more)
-
Yes, because your summary involves the creation of some person who shares the last name of Alex Meyer who appears to be good at baseball. I'm going to pretend your pretend person's name is Ajax Meyer. Sounds cooler.
-
I did reference the link and quoted Bernadino's phrasing. And, even in the best case for your argument, if we are actually picking up his money regardless of where he goes, he's still a worse pitcher for the same price.
-
Maybe, but again your contention is built on an assumption about 2017. Evaluate the deal for what it is right now. Nolasco and Meyer for a better starter and no extra money. That's a win.
-
So, you concede he is better, but not better enough? They dealt Nolasco and Meyer and got a better starter with no extra financial commitments. Again, prior to the deadline, such a notion would've been absurd. And yet we did.
-
Rosenthal and Bernadino's phrasing definitely don't match up. But even if Rosenthal is right, and their money obligations are equal, there is a MUCH better chance based on the last five years that Santiago is a more valuable player. Because, you know, he hasn't totally sucked as a pitcher.
-
They're paying the same amount in payroll, but they are doing so with a better, younger starter in the fold and at the cost of a player who they have given up on. If you had told me, pre-deadline, that the Twins could trade Nolasco and Meyer and get a better, younger starter in return with no payroll increase - I'd have said you were a crazy person. Yet here we are.
-
That's certainly not the way it's phrased. The phrase is always that we "send cash" to offset things. I'd welcome some link in detail explaining how the Twins are paying this, but the phrasing clearly indicates that the Twins are basically sending money to the Angels. Not picking up his pay checks as you guys seem to be implying.
-
My understanding is they are, according to Bernadino, "sending along" 4M. I don't think they are directly paying Ricky Nolasco, unless you have some other source?
-
So...now you're going to argue the Pohlads wouldn't be involved in cutting a check for 15-20M for a buyout? C'mon. Hell, I'm shocked they paid as much as they did.
-
He is demonstrably, clearly better. He is a career 107 ERA+ compared to Nolasco's 89. And before you cite predictive stats, Santiago has beat those predictive stats every year. Nolasco has under-performed them. So, yes. He's a better pitcher. Only the Angels are paying 8M. If they flip him in three months to the Yankees for a bag of hammers, the Yankees will pay him 12M, unless the Angels pass that cash along with him. So, again, you're making an assumption. Here are the non-assumptions: By every measure on the field Santiago has been a better pitcher for the last 5 years. Santiago will have a lower salary next year. Short of Nolasco learning to hit 40 homeruns or some other wild assumption, he'll be a less valuable player based on those two things: he's a worse pitcher making more money. Saying nothing about age, Santiago being a lefty, or anything else.
-
Again, do you know of any alien races that worship Ricky Nolasco as a god? Or should we continue to posit things totally unrealistic as alternatives for fun? Otherwise I find that exercise totally pointless. The Pohlads were never going to do that, so why continue to fantasize otherwise?
-
To the Angels he is 8M. To any other team that were to acquire him, he's a 12M dollar pitcher unless the Angels include that cash. And even if both are making 8M, one is a better pitcher. So, if the pricetag is the same, the superior pitcher has more value. So, the point still stands regardless.
-
Minny-Toronto-Pitt?
-
I don't think the Angels wanted to deal Santiago. I think they were desperate for upside and gave up a clearly better starter for a clearly inferior one. At the 2017 deadline Ricky Nolasco will have a salary of 12M and on the hook for another season at 13M. Santiago will be 9M and a pending FA. What we paid to LAA in this deal is utterly irrelevant to that comparison. Santiago will have a lower salary number and likely be a better pitcher.
-
I'm calling into question your justifications. Not forcing you into a binary choice. I don't even care what you call your grade. If you give them a Z with good reasons, I care less than you giving a D with bad reasons. I'm wondering if we're being realistic in how we assess these. Look, could he have dealt those guys? Maybe, but can you cite even one time in which a rebuilding team traded 80-90% of the guys that should be dealt? Of late, a team even making three separate deals is relatively rare. Hell, the Yankees are generally lauded for this deadline and they still have plenty of similar deadweight that should have been dealt on their roster, are we applying the same standards? I don't want to build Anthony a gold statue. I don't even want to give him a grade, I jsut want to be fair in how we look at this.
-
To the team we are trading Santiago to - he makes less money than Nolasco. So no, that's not correct. He's a better pitcher with a lower salary. I don't think he's going to have magical value. He'll just, almost certainly, have better than negative value. And Meyer has given us plenty of reasons to dismiss him. I don't blame you for having hope, but it's totally baseless hope at this point. The kid can't even stay on the field much less perform.
-
I didn't say much better. I said he's better. And he is better. Santiago has next to zero chance of having as equally crappy value as Nolasco has. Mostly because he's a better pitcher making less money. If we're going to judge this trade on "They should've done a buyout" we might as well start suggesting they blackmail Nolasco into retiring. Or that aliens will come and declare Nolasco their new king and whisk him to another planet. They are pretty much equally on the table as a buyout.
-
What qualifies as amazing? Do people think rebuilding teams are regularly unloading all their pieces? If you're holding them to the standard that "A = trading anyone and everyone I deem should be gone" you've basically created a grade no one has ever achieved. Making it an utterly useless designation Your B is basically the best you can hand out. Or am I missing some other justification people are using to knock this deadline?
-
If we could have dealt Abad to get rid of Nolasco, would you have said no? I'd hope not. Of course Light and Meyer are about the same guy. The difference is that one of them only cost us a minor league invite to a guy we recouped value on. The other guy bought us out of a bad player and gave us a semi-competent one in return. Basically, we used our Pat Light to much more value than Boston used their Pat Light.
-
I think people are trying too hard to judge this based on assumptions. Right now all we can do is judge it based on what we know it did: We're rid of Nolasco, we have more flexibility, and we have a better starter out of it. The only negative is the odds you put on Meyer being anything remotely close to a good piece. Since I don't see that happening (sadly), I'd say the positives we know right now far outweigh the negatives.
- 382 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- alex meyer
- ricky nolasco
- (and 2 more)
-
This has been the kind of week that was necessary to knock Trump down. But there is a lot of time left and the guy's base isn't going anywhere. Until the Republicans really back off their support in meaningful ways, I wouldn't count him out. And even then I'm not sure I would.
-
I'm sad this wasn't about Hawk Harrelson.
