cmathewson

Are these claims binary? No? I didn't think so. To qualify as being comparable to JUP, he needs to be "somewhat comparable", not "exactly comparable."

A scientist makes a prediction based on a theory. He then tests the prediction in the lab. The test works as predicted (within a margin of error). Therefore, the theory has some validity. A GM makes a decision based on a theory and some facts. He then tests the decision on the field in the form of giving the player an opportunity. The prediction holds, as the player was successful. Therefore, the decision was right. A scientist makes a prediction based on a theory. He then tests the prediction in the lab. Unfortunately, the test fails to show what he expects. This invalidates the theory. A GM signs a player based on a theory and some facts. He then tests the theory on the field in the form of giving the player an opportunity. Unfortunately, the test fails as the player fails to perform as well as the GM's theory predicted. Therefore, the decision was wrong. This is the kind of reasoning we use in everyday life. I fail to see that it is invalid or it's "just not how the world works." I do web marketing. We build experiences and test them in multivariate settings. The one that works the best gets adopted. We then continue to test that experience and iteratively improve it. The whole premise is that you can't really know all that much about how an experience will work in advance until you test it. When you test it, you can say, "I guess option B was best." This is a lot like what GMs do. They have limited data. Humans are not robots. So they take their best shot. If it doesn't work out, they say, "Well, I guess I was wrong." If everybody knew the right answer before trying it, it wouldn't be a game. The guys who play the game the best win. But even the best GMs are right a little better than half the time, which is why they hedge their bets by getting depth. Oh, and the stats guy never said it was Correia. He said it was a player they were considering acquiring. It seems likely that if he did it for one player, he did it for every player they acquired.

The problem with your stance is it means we are only allowed to evaluate GMs based on how they behaved relative to publicly available information such as FanGraphs. So you bias the whole conversation to that. As long as you stick to that information, and you can never be wrong, no matter how poorly the guys you favor do in the season. Most of the things Ryan might use prior to signing a player he holds in confidence with his scouts. He doesn't want other teams using that information because it will tend to drive up the price of a player, or, worst case, entice a competitor to sign the player before he has a chance to make a counter-offer. After he signs the player, it does nobody any good to make the information public. It only prejudices the player against the organization. The only things that have come out since the signings relate to durability and upside. Parker interviewed the Twins stats guy, who said he used Pitch F/X data combined with video to project a pitcher they signed. I.e. Carreia. They thought he had a chance to get more movement and be more effective than his numbers. The health thing was just about Correia not having health concerns and the other options having health concerns, which is why they passed on so many of them. But every time I bring up stuff like that, you deny it because it is not available to you. As though the conversations on this site must be filtered through your lenses.

It's fair to say no team is relying on any of these pitchers to win, with the possible exceptions of Boston and Detroit. At 1/4 of the way through the season, I think we have enough evidence to justify Ryan's claim that the FA market for starters was "thin", and not to expect much from any of them. At best they are stop gaps until the young studs are ready. We all knew that coming into the season.

So the premise of this article is that maybe, just maybe, Ryan knew some stuff before he signed those players, stuff that you can't find in FanGraphs. But, like any good experiment, you don't actually know your prediction is right until it is proven. The proof is in the performance of the pitchers.

"didn't go perfectly"--The understatement of the year. He was horrible, and has been underwhelming in his previous two rehab starts. Good thing he has options.

This. Also, I looked back at JUP's scouting reports for when he was Buxton's age. The phrase I saw often was "power potential". I think sometimes people retroactively scout players. Yeah he's huge now. He wasn't that huge then. He did have the one thing Buxon is known for, though--bat speed. It's too early to say that Buxton won't get as big or strong as JUP. How likely is it? I'd give it less than 50%.

Do we really need a decent prospect? We've got 10 or 12 very good to excellent prospects, and another 10 good prospects. What we need is good veteran relievers.

No we haven't seen one of the best players in the NL. We just watch Twins games and scratch ourselves. Justin Upton has 70 power. That's in the elite category. I don't have the scout's scores of between 30 and 50 depending on the scout. I'd give him a 50. He's 19 and could fill put another 20 pounds on his frame. So it is possible he gets to 65-70 power. If I were a betting man, I would bet on at least 60. I doubt he'll end up in Upton land, but he could.

I'm just going on what Antony said in an interview, when describing the process they used to sift the FA class and sign the guys they did. The interview has been cited often here, so I'm sure you can look it up. I don't have any evidence that would differ from what you can find on the Internet.

It's too early to tell how much power he develops. His power score jumped about 20 over the last offseason, when he put on 20 pounds of muscle. He'll continue to grow over the next three years.

I could see Doumit if Pinto keeps killing it and Hermann starts to hit a bit better. That reminds me, i could also see Butters going. I don't see Carroll as much as some. He's a pretty valuable player/coach for the young infielders. Dozier especially needs time in the cage and days off to clear his head these days. Not too many bench players are actually an upgrade over the guy they replace. Normally, I'd expect Wilingham to be traded at the deadline, except he is such a perfect fit for this team and ballpark, it is hard to imagine them getting comparable value in return. Morneau is the least likely, imho, based on what both Ryan and Antony have said. Namely, they not only want to keep him, but sign him to an extension if he has a healthy year with average production for him. Now that he's staying on the ball better, I think that's pretty likely.

According to Ryan in a spring training interview, the Rays asked for Sano straight up for Shields. Ryan turned them down flat. Based on that, I'm not surprised they'd ask for Sano and Buxton for Price. I just can't imagine the Twins doing that.

I am. I don't get Pelfrey. He makes good pitches. And then he throws a cookie, which gets crushed. He just doesn't execute his pitches consistently. Worely is not the pitcher he was before the injury. He's Nick Blackburn II. Hernandez is meh. Diamond and Correia would ideally be 4 and 5. I can't wait to see some fresh arms up here.

Walker and Buxton are both pushing to get promoted. When will Keplar be ready? With Pasada, that's two outfielders who can replace them.

There are two variables that affect the prudence of signing big free agents: Available money and available free agents. There is no good argument against the notion that the Twins should spend money now. The next three or four years is precisely the time you should sign free agents given the way the budget works out. But can't you acknowledge that the last FA class, particularly for pitchers, was weak this past offseason, making investment less palatable? Just as you hope you will have a good draft class when you draft in the top 5, you hope that you have a good free agent class when you have the money to invest. It didn't line up like that this past offseason. So they traded down, in effect. Too bad they couldn't stash what they saved and apply it to next year's free agent class. Unlike the draft, there are no restrictions on when and how much you spend in free agency. That's the part of this I don't understand. Yes, you run this team like a business. But it's not a public company. You are not obliged to return profits to your shareholders. You can choose to invest them in the business however you see fit. If you don't like the free agent class one year, save the money for the next free agent class. That's the rule that has the ring of cheapness.

You don't pay for past performance, you pay for future performance. Lannan like Marcum had injury issues that scared the Twins off.

Curses. My terseness foils me again. 2/3 refers to a number 2 or number 3 starter, which, with the vagaries of WAR might only be a 1 or 1.5 WAR pitcher. But yeah, maybe he costs 5/70. I don't know. At a certain point, you start to think, "oh, what the hell, just give him 6/96" or, to outbid the Tigers 6/100. It's only money, and it's not my money....

Right. Not elite. 2/3. 5/60 not 5/85.

Point is, there are a lot more options. The FA market is supply and demand. With a better supply, they could afford to sign multiple pitchers. I like Sanchez fine. But that contract is way more than he's worth.

I looked more closely at the numbers and they look like a number 3 starter at best. You can expect 195 innings and an ERA+ of between 105 and 115. Nothing in his stats screams top of the rotation to me, except perhaps the Ks. But that's in the NL, where you get three extra Ks a game. The only reason this guy got 5/85-6/96 is because he was one of two front of the rotation starters under 30 in his FA class. I stand by my assessment: Save your money and sign Johnson, Nolasco, Volquez or E. Santana for the less after the season.

I honestly don't know what Hernandez is good for. But he's not good enough to remain in the rotation with Deduno and Gibson waiting for opportunities. If you can barely get through 5 innings while giving up three runs, that's AAA level. And I actually think he's worse than his numbers. He has been the beneficiary of a lot of long, loud outs.

My favorite time in TV land was Kaat and Robinson. Radio: Carneal and Hall, though I was still young when he retired. And I remember he was more of a character than an analyst. The best trio was Carneal, Hall and Ray Christensen. The best tandem was Carneal and Christensen, imho.

Minor nit. They both have an option. But Pelfrey would have to accept his demotion because of his vetrran status.

Lombo hated getting pinch hit for. It happened in Boston in the fifth inning or something. He sulked into the clubhouse and Gladden followed him, asking if he could stay in the dugout and root for the pinch hitter. When Gladden came back into the clubhouse after the game, Lombo was in street clothes, having missed the second half of the game. Gladden told him that was a bush league thing to do. Back at home, Lombo knocked on Gladden's door. Gladden asked him in. Lombo said no. Gladden asked if he wanted him to go outside. Lombo said yes. The resulting fight ended with Gladden pinning him on his neighbor's porch. Lombo showed up in the clubhouse with a shiner. Gladden had a broken finger. Fast forward to Game 7 of the World Series. Lombo had a great series, but was pinch hit for in like the eighth inning or something. He proceeded to go into the clubhouse and break some furniture. According to Gladden, Lombo thought he had a chance to be the series MVP, but that got taken away from him with the pinch hitting. Anyway, after the last out, Lombo came back to the dugout with a towel and was waving it around while taking a victory lap. He asked Gladden to pick him up. Gladden didn't want to, but did. He had to fight the urge to body slam Lombo at that point, considering that everyone knew what a baby Lombo had been. That's the story. Gladden tells it better, of course.