JP3700

I feel that Hicks was put in a position to fail from the start. Not only did he skip AAA, but he was thrust right into the leadoff spot. Hitting leadoff may not seem like much, but to a young kid who likely isn't even ready for the big leagues, it's additional pressure. His slash line in the leadoff spot was .047/.109/.047 (.156 OPS) with a 43% K rate. I'm sure a lot of that had to do with adjusting to the league along with facing the likes of Verlander(as some pointed out), but I don't think the additional pressure of leading off helped. When moved down in the lineup his OPS hovered around .700 and his K rate dropped under 25%. I think Hicks will be an above average player for years to come with some good years in his prime. His K% will always keep his batting average down, but his skill set of speed, defense, power and plate discipline will make him quite valuable. .240/.320/.400 with 20+ SB and plus defense(especially at a corner) is about what I'd expect from him. I think the perfect comp to Hicks is Chris Young. They have an almost identical skill set. They also both struggle against RH pitching and mash LH pitching.

Recently I was watching a show on MLB network called Top 10 Right Now. It's a show where they rank players position by position using what they call the "Shredder". The Shredder uses a multitude of statistical factors with no human bias. Brian Kenny, Bill James and one of the MLB network analysts also supply their own lists. The one I happened to catch was Top 10 First Basemen. I was curious where they would have Joe Mauer ranked. I was a little surprised when the Shredder, Brian Kenny and Bill James all had Mauer at a consensus #5. After all, there are a lot of great hitters at first base and Mauer isn't your prototypical power hitting first basemen. So I decided to dig deeper. Using the last two years, here are the top 10 first baseman using wRC+. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [/TD][TD]wRC+ (2012-2013) Miguel Cabrera 178 Joey Votto 165 Edwin Encarnacion 148 Chris Davis 146 Joe Mauer 142 Paul Goldschmidt 141 Prince Fielder 139 Freddie Freeman 133 Brandon Belt 129 Albert Pujols 124 [/TABLE] *I left out Allen Craig since he projects to be a right fielder this year. He would have ranked eighth. Surprise, surprise! Mauer ranked fifth among projected first basemen. What's even more impressive is that he achieved this while making 145 starts behind the plate. We won't know until the next couple of years pass whether or not the move to first base will help Mauer's offensive production, but I'd think the consensus thought is that it can't hurt. After really breaking it down and looking at the numbers, it seems to me that Mauer at #5 is right about where he should be. One could probably make an argument for #4. Where would you have him ranked?

Thanks for this post. The clean bill of health is what got me most excited. I also like his confidence. Sano and Arcia's "swag" could bring a good balance to Mauer and Buxton's calm, humble ways.

What's disingenuous is completely changing what I said in an attempt to somehow support your point. This is what I said: I'm pretty sure this is more disingenuous: Considering it is pure speculation stated as fact.

I think you're thinking of it from a fan's point of view. I'm thinking of it from a business point of view. Because at the end of the day, the team is a business. Inflation is obviously the biggest factor. I believe the assumed inflation rate for baseball salaries is 5% a year. That's a significant amount of money when you're talking yearly salaries in the eight figure range. As for your scenarios: 1) When you sign an aging player, it is understood that you are getting his best season(s) early in the contract. Back-loading the contract allows you more flexibility to invest elsewhere those season(s). Maximizing your investment. 2) This may be the only scenario where it could make some sense, but it's also nearly impossible to perfectly align player development with free agency since you never know exactly what you have with prospects. That's why teams who aren't ready to compete generally stay away from free agency or stick to short term deals. Only in a perfect scenario where a team has a lot of young proven talent and an excess of revenue would this make some sense. Which is likely the Cardinals' reasoning for front-loading Peralta's deal. 3) You can still eat a certain amount of salary on the remaining contract. Either way you are paying the contract. Once again, inflation also factors in to all three of these scenarios. Back-loading contracts maximizes value and mitigates risk for the team/business.

I'm definitely guilty of this. A while ago, I had read that responding to full posts were filling up pages, making them harder to read. I also noticed that several other posters would break down posts to make them shorter, easier to understand and respond to. I was never attempting to remove context from the posts I replied to. My thought was that since their post was already up, I could shorten my responses while making it easier to understand what I was specifically replying to. If posting this way is considered bad form, I apologize to you and anyone else that this bothers. I'll refrain from doing it from now on.

The simple explanation is that teams think individually and they all understand that back-loading a contract is much more beneficial for the reasons stated. There isn't some collusion between teams. Back-loading is just the better business move. They don't have to join together to realize it. I can't think of any situation in which it would be a brilliant move for the team. That's likely the reason that it rarely happens. Mine, along with dozens of credible writers. Some of whom are involved with the game and some with the business aspect of it. I'd rather take that position over speculation.

This was your post, was it not? So the fact that I could even think of two contracts off the top of my head makes the post completely inaccurate. No? You dismissed his post as something that doesn't happen, when it does. Just thought it would be fair to point that out. Other than your thoughts and opinions, do you have anything else that supports the notion that players drive back-loaded deals? Cause I can do a simple google search and find dozens of articles on why it favors the team and not the player. Every discussion I've heard regarding "highest paid player" involves the total value or the AAV of the contract. It would seem logical that teams, players and agents are intelligent enough to use total value and AAV when discussing contracts. So when a team goes: "Sabathia is only making $14M this year". The agent says: "Yeah, but his AAV is $24M". or vica versa Agent: "Sabathia is making $34M this year" Team: "Yeah, but his AAV is $24M"

Completely inaccurate. Off the top of my head, Jhonny Peralta's recently signed contract was front loaded. The biggest contract ever signed was front-loaded as well. Alex Rodriguez's contract with the Yankees. It's not a player driven thing, it's a team driven thing. There are three reasons why teams would rather back-load a contract. Inflation Maximizing value of the player's peak years There's a chance the team doesn't pay the entirety of the contract since you can usually trade a bad contract. (e.g., Vernon Wells) Players prefer a front-loaded contract. Who wouldn't want their money sooner rather than later? That's why players who sign large multi-year contracts generally receive signing bonuses.

To be fair, so was this quote.

No, I just don't look at a singular metric. I look at the three most used and accurate metrics to get the best measure of how good the player's defense is. Error totals have nothing to do with it, they're already factored in to the metrics I look at.

You should still look at it every player individually. Drew peaked at a later age and has a unique skill set for a SS. As I mentioned in an earlier post, his defense isn't tied to his athleticism. He's never been and never will be a great athlete. He relies on positioning and anticipation. Similar to Hardy and Peralta. On offense he's not the usual slap hitting/no walk shortstop who, once again, rely on athleticism. He draws walks and hits for power. Skill sets that generally age better. I'm not saying that he won't decline. It's very likely he will. But I also don't expect him to fall off of a cliff in two years. A realistic decline would be: 2014: 3 WAR 2015: 2.5 WAR 2016: 2 WAR So, he's going from an above average player to a league average player. League average players still have value. Especially at $10M, which is about the going rate for league average players. We're paying Nolasco $12M a year for the next four years. He's going into his age 31 season, coming off of a year where he was a league average pitcher.

Shortstops defensive ability generally decline at age 27 because they rely on their athleticism, which generally starts to decline as you reach closer to 30. Drew was actually rated as a very poor defender up until his age 27 season. He's been rated as a good defender ever since because he now relies on positioning and anticipation. He's also a consistent defender, who doesn't make many errors. "He makes every routine play". That's why he's been rated as a good defender from his age 27 season on.

He'll actually be 33 in 2016.

Florimon was worth 2.0 WAR going into the all-star break last season. He was hitting close to league average for a shortstop and was providing great defense. The last 2 1/2 months he was worth 0.1 WAR. The defense was still there, but his offense fell off. Posting a sub .600 OPS and striking out over 30% of the time. Considering Florimon's track record, somewhere between his final results and post all-star break is likely the real Pedro. So the comparison should be: Drew and his track record of being a 3+ win player or Florimon, who can range from replacement level to 2 wins.

How is WAR heavily biased to aid shortstops? WAR just factors in positional adjustment. Stephen Drew shouldn't be compared to first basemen. The fact that he hit 25% better than the league average shortstop should be properly weighted. His declining offense just put up a 109 wRC+, so you're probably right. It's worth closer to $15 million. I actually do care about the $10 million. This year, the next, the year after and so on. I'm not in the spend just to spend camp. I just feel Drew is worth the investment.

Well, WAR is the best single metric/stat to use when evaluating a player and his total contributions to a team that season. Is it flawed? Sure. But so is every other statistic that's been used to evaluate him, whether by me or anyone else. WAR at least gives me an idea of the total value he brings, weighting all those stats and factors. Considering he's been consistently at the 3+ win level for years, gives me a pretty good idea of the value he brings. Of course it's a concern. That's what the physical is for. I'd trust that the Twins medical staff would be able to identify any possible lingering issues that may present itself (add snark here). The season he just had just tells me that it's likely that he has recovered. If the physical says otherwise, void the contract and move on. So he's worth 2/30, but not 3/33?

And despite all that he was still a 3.1 win player last year. Which is in line with his previous three full seasons where on average he was a 3.2 win player. He was also on his way to a 3+ win season in 2011 when he got hurt. His bad or good reputation is all hearsay. Neither you or I know who he is or what he brings to the team in that regard, so I'd think it's fair to leave that out. The health concerns are based on one injury that he seems to have recovered from. Considering how good he was in 2013 and that he showed no lingering effects from it. No signing is a no-brainer. You have to weigh everything and put a proper valuation on the player. I have him being well worth $33M over the next three years, so anything at or below that price is something I'd jump at. I'm not sure how you can disagree considering you mentioned you'd sign him for 2/30.

Everyone is going to have their stance on topics. Some more passionate than others. Frequent posters on Twins Daily often get caught in pages of discussion regarding topics that they stand behind. There are positives and negatives about every player. I personally feel that the positives outweigh the negatives regarding Drew, when you really look at everything. I agree that I wouldn't give him 4yrs, $50M. Going into the offseason, I assumed Drew wasn't even on the radar due to his projected contract. The reason why he's become attractive is the reports that his price tag has come down. It sounds like 3yrs, $33M may be his ceiling at this point and I'm sure you'd agree that would be fair as well considering you'd give him 2/30. I think many thought twice about Garza at 5yrs, $75M, but many believe 4/52 is a fair deal, if not a steal. Drew's situation could play out the same way, and I'd like the Twins to be the team that jumps in on it.

Considering that this is a thread about the Twins and free agents, who's players should we be comparing him to? If you'd like to call a couple of fluke injuries a trend, that's your prerogative. I'd rather take a look at the surrounding years of good health. Plenty of players come back from missing full seasons, to be just fine. Especially when they have the track record to support it. Perhaps because in his last four full seasons he's been worth 12.9 WAR. Including last season where he was worth 3.1 WAR. Despite all the injuries, the glaring splits and that horrible decline phase he's going through. WAR is also park adjusted, since he can apparently only hit at Fenway.

Drew's Career vs. lefties: .235/.291/.390 (.681 OPS) Florimon's Career: .219/.278/.323 (.601 OPS) Escobar's Career: .228/.280/.307 (.587 OPS) So, if Drew is a platoon player, then the other two options should never even be playing. He actually played in 151 games four years ago. The three years before that: 135, 152 and 150. The only reason it's even three years is that his ankle injury happened halfway through the season, causing him to miss half of each season. He also just missed hitting 130 games this past season due to getting hit in the head by a pitch. J.J. Hardy also had a horrific ankle injury from a play at the plate. He was also tagged with the word injury prone due to that ankle injury along with wrist and oblique issues. Two years later he's the model of consistency at the SS position. I'd rather look at the 6+ years of good health, than assume someone is injury prone due to a couple of flukey injuries. If you're going to use a one year sample, at least mention that he hit like Robinson Cano against right handed pitching (.284/.377/.498). You know, the pitchers that throw 70-75% of the time. And by the way, that slash line against lefties is still significantly better than .180/.229/.230. Which is what he'd be replacing.

He was actually 21st in wRC+ out of 24 shortstops. Players who hit that poorly, don't often get 400 ABs. The only other three shortstops below him were (Alcides) Escobar, Hechavarria and Kozma. Escobar was just coming off of a year where he was close to being a league average hitter, Hechavarria was a rookie on a team that had no other options and Kozma has since been replaced after the Cardinals realized his offense wouldn't cut it, no matter how good his defense is.

It had been reported that teams (not just the Twins) didn't want to go past 2-3 years on Garza. It seems that the Brewers were willing to add that fourth year and likely used some fear of loss on Garza and his agent. A take it or leave it type of proposal. During Garza's four year peak (2008-2011) here were his numbers. [TABLE=width: 500] 790.1 IP 3.72 ERA 3.92 FIP 4.01 xFIP 11.3 WAR [/TABLE] Adding in age and regression, I think 10 WAR over the next four years is a fair projection for a healthy Garza. Using $6M a win that has him at a $60M valuation. Then you factor in health and injury concern. Garza has missed chunks of the past two years with elbow and lat issues. Here are his numbers in the past two seasons (2012-2013). [TABLE=width: 500] 259 IP 3.86 ERA 3.99 FIP 3.67 xFIP 2.6 WAR [/TABLE] The good news is that Garza has been the same pitcher during those past two seasons. The bad news is that he's been injured close to 35% of the time. Four years is a long time and with Garza's recent injury history, it wouldn't be surprising if he missed (on average) 25% of each season or the equivalent of a full season over the four years. That would bring him down to 7.5 WAR over the four years, for a valuation of $45M. They seemed to have met in the middle at $52M. All in all this doesn't look like a steal or an overpay, just a fair deal.

The problem with Tolbert and Nishioka is that they were bad baseball players. Florimon is much closer to a bad baseball player than Drew. Two things. 1. Slotting Drew in the lineup takes quite a bit of pressure off of Arcia and Hicks to produce. 2. While I agree that free agency isn't always the best avenue to use, it should be used when it is the best option. In this case it is. Signing Drew is filling one gaping need through free agency, similar to pitching.

If that's how you define reliability, then Drew better fits your definition. I appreciate the chart, but I'm not following the stability thing. Several of those guys were acquired through trade and free agency (including Drew). Drew/Dozier sounds a lot better for 2014-2016 than Florimon/Dozier? All I really noticed in that chart is that all the shortstops on the championship teams had the ability to hit. Although I believe Lugo had a down year that year.