TheLeviathan

I don't know, I have a pretty strong dislike for Kahn and I've never had to share a room with him. I can't imagine being Love in that dynamic. But you're right he's one helluva hypocrite in this thing.

2010's team was pretty good too. I went in to that playoffs pretty high on that team so Game 1 was a soul-crusher. But I'd rank this game ahead of it, but I would nominate Game 2 of that same series. Koskie's ball stays in the park and we may win that sucker. Extra inning dramatics only made it worse. We had a chance to put a 2-0 stranglehold on that series too.

Well, he's not getting much help to turn the tide. That's for sure.

So you don't see the value in relying on precedent, general tactics of a known GM, or analysis of the market....but hope is just fine? Because that's what you've got - hope. And, not just plain old hope, it was "let's add three quality arms without dinging our average offensive output so we can compete even though historically there may be no precedent of any team, in any situation, ever doing so" level of hope. Sorry, but I'll take precedent and actual analysis over that basis any day of the week. You should be familiar with it, you did it two years ago yourself. I'm not sure if all of you guys writing articles were intentionally being positive or what it was, but there was a real dearth of sobering reality from anyone but a few posters. Here's what I'll say looking back, you took an aggressive approach to your take and sometimes that makes you look like a genius and sometimes you get the opposite. You called Baker's deal "undeniably" great for him (implying undeniably a poor tactic for the Twins. The context comes right after that one) and then demanded evidence from anyone disagreeing with your point. Evidence you refused to reciprocate btw. But you're right, there was less direct evidence of it than my memory recalls. So I take those terms back with apologies. It would be better phrased that you were aggressive in labeling Baker as a mistake that the Twins rightly avoided. Personally, I think if they had taken that "mistake", we might have avoided this one.

I'm not a Ryan basher, that's not the direction it's heading. Ryan builds strong organizations, is patient, and has (as you correctly put it) long-term vision. But all of those factors are also incredibly strong indicators that a one-offseason approach to fixing this team were absolutely foolish. Going into this offseason with that expectation was blind trust because it relied on JR to do something he's never done before and is unlikely to ever do in his tenure. It's not his wheelhouse. As for the rest, we both know no matter what is posted we'll keep our own opinion on the tone. The threads aren't hard to find, basically any centered on Feldman, Baker, or your thoughts about them. You were aggressive in your early condemnation of the Cubs signings (arguably three articles with that point) and made it a point to call out a number of posters who shared pessimism about the upcoming season. It doesn't make me happy that we are bound to stink again next year, but it also doesn't change that the side of the fence you chose on both of those arguments was wrong.

Follow the train. Brock said 2013 could be a better team. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that isn't the case, the offense included.

Fair enough. I think this offseason should be more about getting the most reward for the buck. If that comes with a lot of risk, so be it. That was my stance, the trouble with Correia is that he's safely awful and we guaranteed a staggering amount of money for that.

Depends how realistic you wanted to be. I don't deny I put a lot of eggs in the Baker basket. McCarthy too. Was hoping we'd land one or both of them. After that I felt our odds of landing a serious talent were extremely slim.

Landing one may still happen, the problem is after that one you want the best bang for your buck. 5M won't take you far unless you're willing to take on some serious risk. Baker, much like McCarthy and others, has those risks. They will appear to be "overpaid" but you're paying for the reward, not the risk. I will note, that you cited the issue in 2011 as blind trust of the organization and then posted a blog article this year called "In Terry we trust" in the midst of your soap boxing about why anyone with the opposite opinion of you on the signings of Feldman and Baker was misguided and that this offseason they could fix an awful pitching staff in one swing. No offense, but I can't possibly find a better example of blind trust than that. It's not like this organization has a strong history of major offseason upgrades. That's blind trust Nick, it's not any different. It's proof that 5M can be spent in much, much worse ways. Again I'll venture the same bet I did earlier - 5M is going to be spent this offseason by many teams in many worse ways than a flyer on Scott Baker. To have been so down on that move at the time was blind to the potential of this kind of move. Ultimately we won't know how good any of these investments are until the end of this season. But contrary to your arguments, it was perfectly reasonable to think that 5.5M to Baker was not a reach. The offseason is absolutely bearing that out.

We already know the answer - they wanted a team option and he didn't. That appeared to be the crux of the issue. I don't disagree that it would have been nice to have, but saying "see ya" because 5.5M was "Excessive"? Um, no. It's not a matter of being a lock, Baker was a damn good AL pitcher in the past. But contracts being the same (5M) I'll take "slated to be ready, but a rough recent injury history with significant talent" over "durably not very good" any day of the week. We have durable and not very good, that's not what we should have been after.

Even still you're talking about our likely 7th and 8th hitters in the lineup. As Puck rightly points out, there is a lot of questions about the table setting as well.

Cute, care to bring any of your sage advice on statistics to the table?

No doubt. But then we are back to 2013 and 2014 being more about 2015 than any actual attempt to contend or get better. 2013 doesn't look better than 2012, one could argue it looks worse.

Absolutely. That stump was well earned.

I'll take 5.5M on the chance of Baker's talent over 2 years and 10M for a no-talent. Baker wasn't an overpay based on market prices this year. He'll look like a bargain by the end of this. You could argue he wasn't a good fit because the team needs durability - fine. But because he was paid too much? Um, no.

Exactly. We can talk about the pitching being moderately better, but has anyone looked at the potential lineup and the players at high risk for regressions? It ain't pretty.

Hope has this problem - if it's not grounded in some sense of reality - it's often wrong. You got on your high horse to call a realistic position wrong based on hope. You know what I had hope in? Baker at 5.5M finding the Scotty B. that was highly underrated by this fanbase. This schtick doesn't work, people did the same thing to you prior to 2011. The issue wasn't that you were a soulless pessimist - it's that you overlooked reality. I'm not going to hammer you with it, but the positions are essentially flipped Nick. In my eyes, you looked past your own better judgement out of blind optimism rather than real analysis. It happens to all fans, but next time don't be so quick to bash pessimism simply because it isn't what we want to hear. I know I learned that prior to 2011 when you were absolutely right.

Petty sounds funny considering how aggressively you wanted to shame my take on things before. I made three simple points: 1) Baker at 5.5M was not an overpayment. 2) The Cubs were not wildly overspending 3) The Twins were not going to fix the 2013 rotation in one offseason All three of those things were 100% correct. You, and others, decided to call Baker's contract "Excessive" and a variety of other adjectives to justify the Twins not matching. You called out the Cubs for signing meh talents for more money than you thought they deserved. And you kept saying..."wait and see" about the offseason. Well, now we've waited and now we see. Baker looks like a god damn bargain at 5.5 million even if his arm was half attached compared to Kevin "I'm pitch to contact personified, barely a 4th starter in the NL, and making TRIPLE what Marquis was paid last year for basically being his clone" Correia. The same guy you posted was signed to a deal that was "not that bad". This after arguing Baker was overpaid. How anyone can feel that 5.5M for Baker is excessive overpayment and 2 years 10M for Correia is "not that bad" is insane. Those positions cannot be rectified sanely. Second, this offseason we have made two very nice deals that have restocked our 2015 rotation well and added one nice arm for 2013. We're out of trade chips unless we want to completely destroy the offense in the process. We now have roughly 20-25M to spend in FA and promptly kicked 20-25% of it on a horsecrap pitcher who should make us recall the days of Blackburn not Santana. Exactly what you and others complained the fatal problem with signing Baker was for 5.5. Now we not only anchored 5M to this year's budget, but next years as well for a key that, at best, provides more veteran presence then the guys we already had. Leaving us with exactly one choice: Spending the rest of the budget on one arm. Which, I don't know about you, but my confidence is pretty shaken on that happening considering this contract. And third, in the context of free agency, what the Cubs did was read the market early and sign players to deals better than they would have likely got a month later. FA contracts are always higher than we like to stomach, but if you get in exceptionally early and exceptionally late with the right factors, you can sometimes dodge the ugliest bullets. Last night we took one ugly friggin bullet. No matter how much you want to paint it as "not that bad" It's ugly. Baker for less total dollars with much more upside is a no-brainer. Your aggressive approach to shaming me for that position earlier gives me every right to remind you of what it looks like now.

This deal doesn't magically get better if they sign Sanchez. No amount of makeup fixes this pig. They dumped 5 mil this year on a backend NL starter with no upside and tremendous downside. They even managed to foolishly commit another 5 mil to next years payroll for this garbage. It is a bad contract to a bad player, no subsequent moves will fix that. Funny to hear the tune change here. Pretty much everything I said in the wake of the Baker deal has proven to be spot on. This article should taste like an awful lot of crow for many around here. The myths of this offseason turning this team into a contender are coming to fruition in exactly the wayreasonable minds would expect. Good trades though - that's our JR!

You can keep twisting your own words around to make it sound better, but you called 5.5M excessive. You then came on this thread and said 2 years and 10M (guaranteed, not an option year! Which HURTS trade value, not helps it!) is "not that bad". Those opinions together are stupid. There is no twisting this into "not that bad" in any world, but certainly not when you called a 1 year 5.5M deal "excessive". All the hand wringing and laughing about that looks mighty stupid now. Just to recap a third time for you, they just paid a player who is bad at baseball as much money as the Cubs did for one meh guy and one guy who, if healthy, is pretty darn good. If you asked anyone before the offseason which of those two scenarios you would rather be in (bad player vs. two players) they'd have said the two players with meh ability and upside/health concerns 100 out of 100 times. It's a no brainer. You, Nick, and many others shouted across this forum what silly moves those were by the Cubs. They look pretty damn sharp to me as we sit and look at a 10M dollar turd today.

This context shows what? You gave just as much billing to plugging that Baker was payed "excessively" (is this somehow different than overpaying?) as you did the option year. How that paragraph proves you didn't argue Baker was overpaid is baffling. I'll repeat it: The Twins just guaranteed Kevin Correia as much money as the Cubs did for Feldman and Baker combined. After much laughing at the Cubs early on. I know who should be laughing now.

Someone said "5.5 guaranteed is excessive" I can post more if you can't remember what you said. Many on this board were borderline laughing at the Cubs for overspending on Feldman and Baker. We guaranteed Correia almost as much money as they did for both of those players. Or as one high and mighty poster said here....25% of our available FA money for this year plus a guaranteed chunk for next year.

So you defended the take that Baker was overpaid at 5.5M for one year and now defend 2yrs and 10M to Marquis Part II as not too bad?

Heh. Baker is lookin mighty juicy again.

I'm eagerly awaiting the Rubio-Shved pairing on the floor. That is going to be a nasty combination for anyone to defend. Spread the floor with Love and AK, Pek waits at the hoop for dump-offs and those two drive the lane. Let's hope Shved starts getting more minutes as we go.