TheLeviathan

So we've had two starting pitchers sign already - have any of the people who have posted suggested contracts been aware of this? Scott Feldman got 6M and you think Liriano gets 2? Bedard 4? Marcum 8? Is this topic trolling or are people just not paying attention to who has already been signed?

Here's the problem with your argument.....locking Revere into a contract doesn't add or reduce your surplus. It only adds a guaranteed monetary figure to a player with a strong chance of fluctuating production. The Twins will have your surplus either way, you just want to add unnecessary dollar signs to it.

If there is an empty outfield spot it will be a corner outfield spot and part of the emphasis moving Span was that Revere, if he's going to play, belongs in CF. His skill set loses considerable value when you have to have him play there. With Hicks looking like a really good bet for our future CF, that's not something to plan on. The downside is that if you extend Revere there is a good chance he starts to underperform his contract. What Revere does well is very predicated on skills that are hard to project long-term: high BABIP, high contact rate, speed. If any of those things slip he's not a very good player. Span, on the other hand, hits the ball with far more authority and worked counts/walked. Those skills aren't as tenuous as Revere's and thus made him a better long-term investment. Given how badly Revere regressed towards the end of the season it's better to shop him with team control. That has value as well and then the team you decide to move him to has more control over their long term obligations to him.

.....what? The guards are doing a poor job picking up blitzes but his issues stepping up in the pocket are his "scared bunny" approach more than the line. Watch the greats in the league do it. Watch even the second tier of guys do it. Then watch Ponder. The difference is more than obvious.

Sorry Dave but I think Percy is already gone. We'll bleed it out with a franchise tag, but I think Percy is all but gone as soon as he can be. The team's defense isn't good enough to support a game manager even to a 9-10 win season. They are better off letting this experiment fail badly and force their hand to do the right thing.

That wasn't the comment - go back to page 2 and re-read it. It was specifically stated that the data was inaccurate in small samples. That is an improper understanding of the data. That elementary misunderstanding was further exacerbated by claims of "garbage in and garbage out" later. If you want to claim the data is "inaccurate" you need to claim that the data does not actually represent what happened. To further my example - inaccurate data would be to count a one-armed man as a two-armed man. If that's the claim about the data, it hasn't been supported here. The mistake is fundamental - it was pointed out immediately by snepp and has since be reiterated by old nurse and several others. It is a simple, very elementary mistake that indicates a complete lack of knowledge of statistical terms.

The concept of bad data in is not the issue. Chief claimed wrongly that the data was "inaccurate" in small samples. The problem in small samples is not accuracy, but in the ability to draw conclusions from it. In other words, the data is not inaccurate - it is inconclusive. If someone landed on this planet for the first time and met one person in the middle of the desert who had their arm amputated, they might decide that the entire human race has one arm from that experience. Their conclusion was inaccurate because they based it off of a sample size too small to draw larger conclusions. If that same alien waited 20 more people, 100 more, or 500 more - with an increasing degree of accuracy they could make a correct conclusion. This is a fundamental, elementary statistical concept. That anyone could mistake inconclusive = inaccurate should tell them they should find another topic to debate in. At least until they're done with Stats for Dummies, much less 101.

So chief predicates all his nonsense on the idea that small sample = innaccurate rather than inconclusive and we waste time with him? Seems anyone with that flimsy of a grip on the subject oughta be just dismissed immediately no?

I would call their run blocking ability very good. This is one of the few times in his career that I can remember Peterson getting 6-7 yards before contact on a consistent basis. They are really blocking well, especially when you consider our ability to complete anything over 10 yards is seemingly impossible. That's a lot of yardage against 8-9 man defensive fronts. t I wouldn't oppose it but let's face it - we're stuck with Ponder at least one more year and then we'll be addressing it in the draft again. Our cart is hitched to Ponder for at least that long. The upside of that is that the draft this year is shallow in QBs and likely very good in two years. The downside is we continue to waste the career of maybe the best running back of all time. Certainly the best of this generation.

The Twins should be shopping him hard and if they can add a Myers type prospect or better - do it. If you are worried about who plays LF - go out and sign a Scott Hairston, Ryan Ludwick, or Cody Ross to try and capture some magic again. I'd much rather have another bullet in our AA chamber than an aging outfielder. Hopefully Ryan feels the same.

Ryan's definition of "prolonged" may be a tad different than others. If you shave his last rebuild in half it's still 3-4 years. In the midst of these ridiculous offseason predictions floating around here I've always felt it's better to build around your best nucleus of talent. Mauer is an elite hitter, but he, by himself, is not a nucleus. The group that was around him has fallen apart for a variety of reasons. Clutching to some faint hope of that isn't in the organization's best long-term interests. Ryan is sharp and I think the moves so far this year indicate his conclusion about the direction to take this team. Three years isn't a terribly long rebuild, especially since many of the Twins future nucleus could be seen for extended looks as soon as a year and a half into his tenure.

Terrible isn't what I see. I see avergae or slightly below. Ponder makes them look worse.

I don't know what he'll be, I like the tone of the move. They aren't going to take a lesser talent just because it is more major league ready - they took a guy that projects to be here in about 2015. What I find funny is how far of a cry this is from Span for Shields. We had some rather adamant posters around here about Span's value.

Again, if you want to play the cherry-picking game it works for virtually anyone. Kobs did a nice job pointing that out. You're basically denying the lionshare of the evidence to focus on a few things to tell people their reactions are too strong. I look at the body of work and think their reactions are pretty vindicated. That doesn't make you wrong, but it sure as hell means your line of criticism is. The reason Liriano is worth a gamble isn't his brief moments of brilliance. It's the steaming pile of garbage we have for current options. That's the only reason the suggestion is palatable. "Useless" is relative. He is useful, potentially, to us because we can afford to give him time to be terrible and hope to get lucky. But he has, in fact, been pretty terrible. (Just because we kept running him out doesn't make him a good pitcher. See: Nick Blackburn) We've been hearing the same mantra on him for 4 years - at some point you are what you are. Arguing with the bulk of results is really quite ridiculous. If someone charged in here trying to argue Nick Punto was an all-star because of his track record on partly cloudy Saturdays you'd rightfully run them out. What you're doing is not that much different - you're shunning the much larger results to concentrate on a few that you want to lord over people you don't agree with. The only reason your argument makes any sense has little to anything to do with Liriano and everything to do with our dearth of other options. And, even then, it starts to look a whole lot less reasonable when you admit he's like to get 6+ million to get him. Baker's looking mighty nice these days at 5 isn't he?

Alex Myers the name James Shields gives himself when he wears his high heels? Otherwise, reality strikes again. In a good way I might add - a solid prospect that slots to be coming to the majors about the same time as our best young talent? Sounds like the right kind of trade to me. Now to see if it pans out.

Um 15m probably isnt going to get you those three arms.

You put yourself there. You implied that everyone was intentionally forgetting his successes to hate on him. You can look at the full picture and still be emotionally fed up and exhausted with the guy. That's why you're in that corner, not because myself or anyone else magically put you there but because you put yourself there with flimsy criticism of a perfectly valid position. I'm emotionally fed up and exhausted with him, but I'm not opposed to gambling on him. (So, in other words, I don't disagree with you) But my emotional exhaustion and frustration with him is perfectly valid even if I remember his good stretches. And it's perfectly valid for others to not want him back. You called it out like people are being unfair to him and it was pointed out to you that plenty of stats validate that opinion. You then went on a cherry-pick to back up your invalid insinuation. At this point, in my eyes, you can make a fair case to gamble on him. But you can also make a fair case to leave that bridge burnt. So implying people are leaving out information or ignoring details to be in the latter position is just nonsense.

I'm sorry, should I quote you? That's exactly what you're doing and you got called out for it quite effectively by another poster. It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss Liriano - he's been one of hte worst starters in the AL for 3 out of 4 years. No one is "forgetting" about his brief stints of brilliance, it's just not important when by and large he's not just bad, he's terrible. So for you to waltz in and accuse others of "forgetting" his brilliance to criticize their feelings about him is pretty damn stupid. You can lob insults at me about it if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make it less true. Strikeouts are great - they are usually a great indicator of a pitcher's ability to control a game. Unfortunately, they are not nearly as important as the results put on the board and Liriano's have been consistently awful for most of the last four years. If anyone is "forgetting" anything, it's on your end. People have every right to be generally negative about this guy - his performance has earned it. That doesn't need to stop you from suggesting he's a turd worth buying for the right price, but your tact to do so was woefully pathetic.

People keep tossing around 12M. Right now Andy Pettite is signing a 1 year 12M deal. If you think you're getting a starting pitcher with injury problems for less than 4M - check what Ryan Madson got today. Time to adjust your expectations people.

Exactly, well said. Anyone who wants to focus on his "brilliance" is doing nothing more than cherry-picking. Obviously this team has worse options to gamble on if the price is right, but can we please, please stop this cave-man analysis of Liriano being an ace? He's a guy who has flashed talent amid a sea of putridity the last four years. That's what he is...quit polishing the turd, you don't have to. Even turds can find innings with this team's pitching, let's save the polish for someone who actually earned it.

Whether you call them "major" "semi-major" "sorta-kinda" or whatever kind of question marks your analysis fails to take into account the fact that Baker got 1 year and 5M. Edwin Jackson - he of serious consistency issues - may cost double that a year and several times that in guaranteed money overall. If you're waiting for this particular free agent class to yield you a guy without question marks at a reasonable price, I also have heard about an apocalypse coming that you want to stock up for at the low, low markup price of 700%. Instead, it's far more reasonable to look at things through the prism of how much money did they invest for what kind of risk. By the end of this offseason 5M in guaranteed money may look very reasonable for that set of risks. I'd bet it will with the money floating around.

Which FA pitchers don't have blemishes? You seem to imply there are some.

That's fine - but then you have to realize the issue with this deal is not that he was overpaid, but that he wasn't what you want. That isn't what others are saying. What this indicates, without question, is that the one guy you want is going to take a LOT of money to sign. So deals like this make sense for a to make if it doesn't want to hamstring itself long-term. Also, this team needs quantity and quality, so there is something to be said for taking low-risk moves that could pay off. These guys might both be "bums" or they could end up being solid bargains with attractive trade value for a team continuing to rebuild a bad farm.

Frankly, I don't see why the Twins are all that much different than the Cubs in how they should approach things. If you're waiting around to sign players better than Diamond join the rest of the league in that battle. I can appreciate what you want the team to do, just can't get on board with something I find highly unlikely to happen.

Well at least all that bravado early about not allowing any belittling to happen has gone out the window. We have the brilliant rationality of your average offseason speculation for putting that to the test!