Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

cmathewson

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,290

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by cmathewson

  1. cmathewson
    Still not getting it. Tooling/retooling has less to do with payroll as with roster construction, at least this year. Payroll is one small consideration. You repeatedly try to make it all about payroll, as though a team can't rebuild and cut payroll at the same time. But most teams coincidentally cut payroll as they rebuild because young players cost less.
  2. cmathewson
    Still not getting it. They all were going to regress significantly, Correia and Pelfrey included. None of them would be able to help the team win. In the final analysis, it didn't really matter whom they signed, as long as they could get some innings. That is what I have been saying.
  3. cmathewson
    The Twins had a different opinion than I did on the available pitchers. But I have limited access to the whole data set. And I don't think the differences were all that great in the final analysis. I didn't think any of them was likely to be above average. The reason they are free agents is their teams don't really want them anymore, despite the fact that everybody needs pitching. You can occasionally get lucky with a retread (Jack Morris, e.g.). But it is too rare to rely on it. I never defended the Correia signing. But the Twins liked him well enough to spend more than FanGraphs said he's worth. On the other hand, I'm no scout, so I assumed they saw something that made them prefer him. They say it's about innings. I have no reason to doubt them. I thought the Pelfrey signing was a decent long shot. Since they only had room for two (Diamond, Worley and Gibson taking the other slots, plus depth), I didn't have a problem with it. Yes, they could have spent more money. I just don't think it would have made that much difference, except for Dempster or acquiring I. Santana, and I never really felt they had a legit chance to get either anyway. So I didn't get worked up about it. And I certainly don't think it's part of some grand conspiracy to rob taxpayers out of their give-a-penny-take-a-penny stadium tax.
  4. cmathewson
    Maybe the Twins could hire a translator? Or we can continue to have interviews like Florimon's in the post game show last night: "What's it like playing in Fenway park with the atmosphere and the fans and the history of the ballpark?" "I just try not to do too much. I just put a good swing on de ball and it go out." Entertaining stuff.
  5. cmathewson
    You don't read, do you? Well, here is it is again. And I'll try to use smaller words. And type them one line at a time so you don't get lost. The Twins needed to sign two FA pitchers out of the 15 options. Only one (Demptster) or perhaps two (?) of the 15 options were likely to be above average this year, all things considered (numbers, health, age). The rest of the options were unlikely to be average this year. The options they chose were less likely (by the numbers) to be average than some of the 15 on the list. The difference in the odds of being average between the pitchers they signed and didn't sign was not that great, all things considered. Odds are, none of the options would change the team's fortunes much. Season stats are just small evidence at this point that signing FA pitchers produces unpredictable results. But, we don't have anything else to go on at this point, except more predictions based on marginal differences between the collective pile of mediocrity the Twins had to choose from this past offseason. Clear enough for you?
  6. cmathewson
    They're not my facts. Riverbrian cited them. I was just pointing out that someone called it cherry picking, when, if the facts are right, all of the last place teams in the divisions spent 100M or more. My point was about cherry picking, not the correlation or causation of spending to winning.
  7. cmathewson
    Sanchez signed for 5 years and $80M plus a a $16M option with a $5M buyout. I think an $85M commitment is a little bit different than a $4M commitment. Are you even being serious?
  8. cmathewson
    Well, I guess you define "average or better" a little differently than I do. Maybe they were average or better in recent years. That doesn't mean they are likely to be average or better this year. Past numbers are only a guide to future numbers. Speaking of numbers, how are those 15 pitchers doing this year?
  9. cmathewson
    When every last-place team in every division is spending above $100 million, that's not cherry picking. That's a trend.
  10. cmathewson
    Yes, particularly with Gibson's often-mentioned innings limit this year. Let's not waste his bullets in AAA.
  11. cmathewson
    It was not one bad outing. He has not pitched more than 5 1/3 innings and he typically has thrown around 100 pitches to do that. He's been only slightly more effective than Hendriks. Beyond that, Gibson has earned a promotion. I feel for his start last night. But it is time.
  12. cmathewson
    OK. I understand that dominating Buffalo is more impressive than dominating Toledo. But he shouldn't be penalized for the quality of his competition, or lack thereof. Fact is, he dominated and gave his team exactly what it needed. I think it definitely shows he's the most ready to take the fifth start in the rotation.
  13. cmathewson
    By the way, that last statement was as much about Gibson as Hernandez. Gibson has earned the spot, Hernandez has not.
  14. cmathewson
    No. Keep him in the majors until after the game Sunday in case you need long help. Then swap him out for Gibson, who should start on Monday.
  15. cmathewson
    When you have five starting position players and two starting pitchers who have not had a complete year in the majors at their positions, you can't expect much more than a rebuilding year. That said, you never give up hope that it won't be a rebuilding year. And you can reasonably expect a competitive team even in rebuilding years if you rebuild well.
  16. cmathewson
    So beyond Dempster and Villenueva, looks like we dodged some bullets, at least at this point. Thanks for the update.
  17. cmathewson
    I don't think Mastro will ever be ready for everyday duty. He hasn't been an everyday player for a few years, even in the minors. He's great as a fourth outfielder, though. I'd send Wilkin down before either Hicks or Arcia. I think those two can learn a lot more up here with Bruno as their coach than they can down in Rochester, not the least of which is the pitchers up here.
  18. cmathewson
    I think this is too strong. Dempster, sure. If we wanted to trade our best minor league reliever to get Santana for a year, fine. But most of the guys available on one- or two-year deals were not likely to have above-average years. Somewhere between replacement level and average was about what you'd expect. If you look at how they've done so far, you might get my point. Jackson, McCarthy, Marcum, etc. have not fared even as well as Pelfrey. I don't expect either Pelfrey or Correia to have above-average years. I'll be happy for something approaching average, which is what I would hope for in each case on the list available to us. Looking at numbers in the offseason, it seemed less likely for those two than some of the names. But the odds on any of those guys was pretty low. I think Worley could at least be average, if not a little above, and that should count as an acquisition. Two out of three of those guys are rotation holders until Gibson, Meyer and May are ready, anyway. Upshot: it was a pipe dream to think the Twins could build a short-term rotation to help them contend via free agency in a rebuilding year. The best they could reasonably hope for was a rotation that could keep them competitive until the front-line arms are ready. That is what they got. The burden of proof is on you for the claim that they would have done better if they hadn't been so cheap. So far, it isn't looking so good. TFD: Think twice before demanding the Twins spend big in free agency | StarTribune.com
  19. cmathewson
    Not more than twice, if that. He's never been very good, despite his hot start this year. When he was here, he hardly ever was good enough to play center. Most importantly, he's an old AAAA player with no upside. What's the long-term benefit of using him as a placeholder?
  20. cmathewson
    That was part of my issue. In adition to some teams having two aces (e.g., Boston, Detroit), a lot of guys designated as aces don't deserve the designation. Just because they are the best pitchers on their team doesn't make them better than whomever we drafted that year. You have to define it somehow, and this is the easiest way to define it. But it is one of the least helpful ways.
  21. cmathewson
    I'm sure some of the following will be extended. But many more will enter free agency. At first glance, it looks like a better crop than last year. I deleted a lot of guys who are not really options, as well. Bronson Arroyo Scott Baker Erik Bedard A.J. Burnett Chris Capuano * Jorge De La Rosa Scott Feldman Matt Garza Roy Halladay * Jason Hammel Aaron Harang * Rich Harden Dan Haren Tim Hudson Phil Hughes Ubaldo Jimenez * Josh Johnson Hiroki Kuroda John Lannan Jon Lester * Ted Lilly Tim Lincecum Derek Lowe Shaun Marcum Brett Myers * Ricky Nolasco Mike Pelfrey Wandy Rodriguez * Jonathan Sanchez Ervin Santana Joe Saunders * James Shields * Tim Stauffer Jason Vargas Ryan Vogelsong * Edinson Volquez Tsuyoshi Wada * Chris Young Barry Zito
  22. cmathewson
    I agree with this. I just don't think Greinke or Sanchez were the right pitchers. Looking at Cots, it seems like there are a lot more front-line pitchers potentially available via free agency after this season than last. I'd rather have Lester, for example, than Greinke, assuming the money is the same. I'd say the same thing for Shields vs. Sanchez. And the list goes on. By waiting a year, wouldn't he potentially have one more year with the Sano team?
  23. cmathewson
    We have been over the pitching issue many many times. The market was thin for front-of-the-rotation pitchers. I would have preferred Dempster to just about any of the guys who got two-year deals. Otherwise it was a crap shoot. Same with the bullpen. I seriously doubt I can explain my position any more clearly than I did in the post you quote. It's really simple. For each position, you can choose to try an internal prospect or an external free agent. The FAs available on two-year deals or less were not significantly better than the prospects we chose (Dozier, Florimon, Plouffe, Parmalee, Hicks). You could make an argument about Hicks and Florimon. Maybe even Dozier, but it's a feeble argument, especially since the whole point of rebuilding is to give guys opportunities and evaluate what you have at the end of the year. You never learn what you have if you don't give people opportunities. You never improve if you continuously bring in FAs with no upside. But this is the crux of the argument: Choosing prospects over retreads is not about money as much as development. Several posters claim they just chose prospects to save money. I'm sure they don't mind saving money. But I don't think that is the primary reason to make the decision that favors prospects. The primary reason is to improve the team long term.
  24. cmathewson
    He had a long way to go to get back to his position. He jogged back to it. Gladden was full of stuff.
  25. cmathewson
    Were Puckett and Hrbek worth building a team around? Yes? Same answer here.
×
×
  • Create New...