Otto von Ballpark

I think the Doumit comparison for Pinto might not be far off the mark -- but the proper comparison would be Doumit at age 25 and cheap, just coming into his prime hitting years (111 OPS+ from ages 26-30 before hitting FA). Even with negative fielding, baserunning... basically negative everything other than hitting, Doumit was a 2.2 bWAR player per 500 PA those years -- just about exactly what Suzuki has provided this year.

Huh, I swore that Suzuki started 2 of 3 against the White Sox last weekend, with Pinto not getting a single start behind the plate that series. I guess I look forward to Pinto starting 2 of 3 against the Diamondbacks this week. Should be starting tonight, so he can then start the day game on Wednesday behind the dish.

Uh, Schafer and Plouffe are the same age. Schafer actually has almost a full year more MLB service time. It might be great that Plouffe is being a "mentor" vet, but we should probably get better/younger "prospects" than Schafer for him to mentor.

Suzuki, a reliable 3 WAR player? He hasn't hit that mark since 2009. Even this year, with a career high BABIP, career low K%, and no playing time lost to injuries, he will not reach that level by either B-Ref or Fangraph's accounting. In fact, the only time he reached those levels (2008-2009), he caught ~135 games each season, which he is unlikely to repeat. Meanwhile, you don't see the need for even marginal playing time investment in Pinto, who you suggest could be a "solid 2 WAR player". Suzuki was an all-star and team leader with a 2.2 fWAR / 2.5 rWAR this year. If Pinto's upside is to be a younger, cheaper equivalent to that, that's a fantastic option as a backup, replacement, or even time-sharing catcher, or a very interesting trade chip to other teams in need of a catcher, and certainly worth some extra looks at the position in the final months of a lost season, if only to make him more familiar with our pitchers in the event he is needed as a starter, and to keep Suzuki fresher. What exactly is the upside to playing Suzuki now over Pinto? I know a few late season games won't make a huge difference either way, but it's a little frustrating to watch a team and a manager operate like this -- you'd think after 2011-2013, they would have learned something about the importance of catching depth. I see a manager, slightly unhealthily, falling in love with his first "full-time" catcher since 2010, and also a manager desperately trying to avoid yet another September swoon, although I would like to remind him that Pinto has had very little to do with those, and could very well play a part in our hopeful full season return to relevance in 2015-2016.

Arguably, he's doing something wrong with Suzuki, regardless of Pinto. Here's a catcher, who by many accounts was overworked in his early career, was reduced to backup status (and quality) for multiple seasons, finally looked rejuvenated at the plate this year to get a 2-year contract extension... and we've done nothing to reduce his workload in August and September of a lost season. Heck, even if you don't think Pinto is a future starter or trade chip, right now he's the most likely 2015-2016 backup or long-term replacement starter in case of Suzuki ineffectiveness or injury, so it probably behooves the team to get him some game reps with our pitching staff (not to mention MLB game reps, period) in what is, effectively, a fall version of spring training for the non-contending Twins. I get that Gardy is finally excited to have a "full-time" catcher again, for the first time since 2010, but pushing starting catchers and ignoring the need to have/develop capable backups is kinda one of the reasons we (and Suzuki) got into their 2011-2013 catching funk in the first place.

17 games since rosters expanded, Suzuki has started 12 (71%), although 2 of his non-starts were doubleheader games. He started 98 games at catcher in our previous 136 games (72%). He only needs 5 more starts in the last 9 games to get his bonus. Pinto has started 4 games at catcher in the 15 games since his recall (27%). He started 18 in 61 earlier this year before his demotion (30%).

This kind of analysis ignores his pre-Twins career, though. Pelfrey had multiple healthy ~80 ERA+ seasons with the Mets, so his 79 in 2013 isn't clearly explained by injury alone. I think his current contract and roster spot is less about his pitching talent, and more a result of the Twins desperation, relative cheapness, and perhaps also Pelfrey being a "good guy" who shares Air Force and Oklahoma connections with the Twins manager. That said, might as well give him a look as a reliever before dumping him. I don't think his roster spot is super-critical yet, and he's probably not tradeable at this point.

Did they find anything they wouldn't find in many other active pitchers? Just curious.

Circus Boy, what is your store in Huron? I know the Slumberland owners there.

My two-and-a-half year old got her first MLB baseball from the game the other night, tossed into the stands by Miguel Cabrera, I think. He doesn't exactly have a sterling off-the-field record either, although he's probably a boy scout by Vikings standards. When she's older... do I tell her it was from him? Do I add any kind of disclaimer? I like to give fan-friendly players some props, and Cabrera definitely seems fan-friendly...

Not only that, but the revelations about Puckett were much more immediate. My admittedly young memory doesn't recall much of any off-the-field stuff about him prior to the post-retirement controversies. Peterson, on the other hand, had the whole "7 kids with 5 different women" thing which was known at least as early as last year. Not to mention the 100 MPH speeding ticket 5 years ago, which is admittedly tame by NFL standards but again suggests very poor judgement. I don't think anybody should have been looking up to him as a person even before the latest allegations.

They could always add cash later if they had to trade such a player, without front-loading. Pretty sure the Twins won't pursue an elite FA, but I am even more sure they wouldn't bother with any financial gimmicks in the process (and that probably includes an opt-out too -- the Twins seem to like to deal in certainties -- unfortunately pursuing the best players on an open market naturally involves a fair amount of uncertainty). Otherwise, I like your suggestion of aggressively pursuing some upside guys on short deal (even if we were willing to pursue an elite FA, their quantity is so limited there is no guarantee would could nab one).

These two pitchers are both a year away from FA. You're not going to get much of a discount on them on an extension, and you're still going to have to give up some talent to get them for 2015. And the talent overpay (or any talent loss, really) is by far worse for the present day Twins than a simple cash overpay.

I don't know if it's hindsight -- Buehrle was probably one of the safer bets to be solid over the life of a 4 year deal. Maybe his performance wouldn't be worth $14.5 mil per season, but a guaranteed solid starter on the 2012-2015 Twins was probably worth that much, easily.

Also, signing Buehrle for 4/58 would have been a pretty nice move for the 2012 Twins, instead of the Jason Marquis experience (and as a side benefit, we may not have felt as compelled to buy a ticket for the Ricky Nolasco experience either). A very good example of where it pays to overpay. Shields should be notably more expensive, but I have a feeling he could be a similar worthwhile target.

If you want to talk likely, standing pat is probably more likely than either of these options. And is this hypothetical player of yours any good? You brought up Cliff Lee as an example from a year or two ago, but all indications are the Phillies were never interested in simply dumping his salary, they wanted a significant return. (Same for Hamels.) Buehrle from a few years ago is a possible example, but that trade was so big, it's hard to say it was a straight dump of Buehrle specifically, even if it was clearly a salary dump trade overall. The guys you are referencing would most likely be Edwin Jackson, Ubaldo Jimenez, or Ricky Nolasco types. I don't think anyone wants another one of those on the Twins unless they came very, very cheaply (other team picking up most of the tab). If you want better pitchers than that, you are going to have to pay in talent, and the Twins don't have enough talent to do that right now. I think the better option would be to pony up the dough for a Buehrle circa 2012 FA starter. Shields is obviously a very different pitcher, but his age and record share some similarities to Buehrle circa 2012. We wouldn't get him for 4/58 like the Marlins did Buehrle, but we could possibly blow away other offers for him without breaking the $100 million mark.

That's probably likely, but I wouldn't mind signing a top starter, start May or more likely Meyer in AAA or the pen, and put Nolasco on notice. If someone starts knocking on the door, push out Nolasco, or Gibson if he stalls out (or even Hughes if it's 2016 and you can't extend him). Otherwise, we still have too much failure potential in 2015 Plan A for my tastes, without any terribly interesting/promising reinforcements until at least September 2015 at the earliest (Berrios), or even 2016-2017.

Interesting comp. Harang had fine control all through the minors, though -- just 2.4 BB/9, compared to May's career minor league 4.4 BB/9. And sure enough, after a rough first half-season in MLB (5.2 BB/9), he's been a 2.7 BB/9 pitcher ever since. In that light, May's current 4.9 BB/9 in MLB is actually pretty close to what you would expect, based on his minor league numbers. Maybe he can get it down around 4, but it's almost certainly not going to drop like Harang's. Which could make it more difficult for May to "eat innings".

Why would a contending team need to dump the one-year salary of a healthy 115 ERA+ pitcher?

I think the word "average" here doesn't mean they were average among all players, just that they were closer to average among free agent starting pitchers (the context of this thread) than elite. They both had pedestrian FIP, BB/9, and K/9 numbers, were both coming from significant pitcher's parks, and in the case of Zito, he was already 3 seasons removed from an elite ERA too. Those were bad deals on the day they were signed, unless the teams simply had money to burn (which may have been the case). The lesson learned? If you are going to spend elite money on a player, actually aim to get a thoroughly elite player, and don't get too sidetracked by age or a few million dollars. Better to get a 32 year old Cliff Lee than a 28 year old Zito, I say. Heck, if you are going to sign any significant FA (Nolasco/E. Jackson level), you may be better off passing on average-ish players too, unless perhaps you have a specific need, money to burn, or are desperate (Twins and Nolasco probably qualify here). Instead put the money towards an elite level talent. Elite level guys cost more, of course, but they generally have a lot further to fall before they become useless or net negatives. Of course, not a lot of truly elite level guys reach FA. Kershaw, King Felix, Sale, etc., all extended before FA. Lee and Sabathia were pretty special in that regard. This year, Scherzer and Lester may not quite be "elite" among all pitchers depending on your criteria but they are probably pretty darn close to elite among the available FA SP pool.

I am fully aware the opt out is only one-way (player opt-out). But it's still not a bad deal for the team, necessarily. Zito-like implosion is bad for the team, either with or without the opt-out. The question is, which is more likely: 1) The player is good all 6-7 years of the contract 2) The player is good for the first 3-4 years, and not so good for the last few years I think clearly #2 is more likely, and that's the downside scenario you could escape with a player opt-out, while only sacrificing the less-likely upside scenario in #1. (And as I mentioned above, you should also net a comp pick if the player opts out, which is unlikely at the conclusion of the full 6 or 7 year deal).

Great comp. It turned out Span wasn't as good as his first 2 years, but he is still a pretty solid MLB player -- mostly because he provides acceptable offense and strong defense up the middle. We should probably afford Santana the opportunity to do the same -- either give him CF or SS full-time to try establishing some defensive bonafides. And we should be prepared to weather some more pedestrian offensive performances too (not just fan expectations, but also team planning -- let's not consider the top of our order rock-solid, even if we like Santana-Dozier-Mauer at the moment).

That, to me, is crazy. Latos is a FA after 2015. Even if you can extend him, you're going to be paying near-FA prices for the guy anyway (think Homer Bailey). On top of that, you'd want to give up our closest, perhaps best SP prospect? And what's more, Latos isn't even a clear ace who would provide a great benefit in that first year. He's much closer to Garza-level (especially since he's missed some time this year), who wasn't exactly unobtainable on the FA market.

More likely, if that's what he's after, he gets both -- a 6 year deal with an opt-out after 3 years. And as I alluded to in my post above, that wouldn't be a bad deal for a team. You lose the benefits that accrue if he's good through all 6 years, but you also lose the (more likely) downside that comes with being good for the first 3 years and not so good for the last 3. (Plus you can probably still net a compensation pick when he opts out.) And honestly, this whole discussion seems pointless, because I am virtually 100% sure the Twins will not seriously pursue Scherzer or Lester (and probably not even Shields). The jump from Nolasco/Hughes to one of Scherzer, Lester, or Shields is much larger than the jump from Correia/Pelfrey to Nolasco/Hughes was, in terms of FA strategy/approach/mindset. Would love to be proven wrong, though!

For 7-year deals, the modern ones are Brown, Hampton, Zito, and Sabathia: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/16295472/ Interesting that one of the criticisms of Scherzer, Lester, and Shields ("wrong side of 30") -- three of these pitchers were only 28 when they signed their 7-year deals, and two of them turned into pumpkins pretty much immediately. (Those two were also lefthanders with fairly pedestrian/mediocre peripherals.) Brown, by far the oldest of this group (34), turned out to be a fair deal overall, even with some injuries and ineffectiveness later on. Maybe it is better to target quality rather than focus so much on age? Sabathia, the other 28 year old lefty in this group, was actually quite good for the first 4 years of his deal. He even opted out after 3 years, and the Yankees would have been better off letting him walk, or at least taking a much firmer stance in re-signing him at that point. Maybe the Twins could include an opt-out? I know that limits some of the upside in theory, but it could be a way to escape the last few years of the deal if so desired. I don't know the stats on 6 year deals... Greinke has been great for 2 so far. First 5 year deal that comes to mind is Cliff Lee, another oldie (32 at time of signing) but was an easy ace for 3 years, basically paying for the deal right there (and he was still solid when healthy this year). He's another example like Brown where quality was emphasized more than age.