Mr. Brooks

How many teams do you think would outbid someone for Kyle Gibson? Both about the same team control and salary. Practically the same career FIP and xFIP. Odorizzi has about a 3% better career FIP, Gibson a 3% better career xFIP. They get there in different ways, but they are basically the same player. I don't really have a problem with the trade, we didn't give up much, and we need arms, but it's not at all hard to see why teams weren't jumping over themselves to top our bid. We basically traded for another Kyle Gibson.

He's talented no doubt. But does he want to be great? That's the issue. Jimmy Butler was quoted in an espn 1500 article, questioning his effort level. Butler was asked who the most talented guy on the team is, he said, " Wiggins no doubt, the things he can do, and that's at 40%. Imagine what he'd look like at 80%, or better yet 100%?" How do you motivate a guy like that, after he's already been guaranteed $150 million?

His September was a 26 inning sample size that featured a .143 babip. His walk rate was still high in September. He doesn't have to give it back, but I'm not sure it means a whole lot.

Kyle Gibson has never had a FIP or an xFIP as bad as Odorizzi had last year. So, no he wouldn't have to fall any further to be on par with Gibson, he'd already be worse. Odorizzi's ERA last year was based on Danny Santana level unsustainable luck. Hopefully, though, last year was an aberration, either by injury or something correctable.

Odorizzi and Archer aren't comparable as trade assets, IMO. I'm not sure many would have expected it would cost much for Odorizzi.

I was referring to Wiggins individual lack of development when I made that comment. It's not at all uncommon for NBA players to be stars by their 4th season, do you agree?

I think maybe you should ask yourself, "why was he available straight up for such a low level prospect?" If last year was a trend in the wrong direction, he might barely be a major league starter. (He was 0.0 bWAR last year.) If it was an explainable blip, then yes, it could be a great price. The point of the trade that others are excited about (the relatively low return), is actually a point that worries me. If even 1 or 2 teams around the league weren't concerned about his 2017, then surely someone easily beats our offer, right? But, given the low cost, I'm cautiously optimistic that they've identified an injury or other mechanical issue that caused 2017.

5.43 FIP, 5.10 xFIP. He had an extremely lucky, and unsustainable babip. Now, that doesn't mean he can't be better this year. He's done it before. But last year he was pretty bad, which is why he was available for a borderline top 20 organizational prospect.

He's never had a contract year before. 2009 wasn't a contract year.

Players become superstars at a much younger age than any of the other major sports. So, I'm not sure what you mean by this. How often do you see a 20 or 21 year old superstar in baseball or football or hockey? Almost never. In basketball, anyone who is going to be a superstar, is almost always one before he's 22.

Why didn't any team desperate for an ace trade for Corey Kluber before Cleveland did? Sometimes someone spots something that nobody else does. Or, as described in the Jim Thome story, where the Twins had one of two scouts tracking him, and said scout practically begged the Twins to draft him, sometimes multiple people see something but only one team gives the go ahead. And yes, sometimes someone is just seeing their shadow. Nobody bats 1.000, we'll find out soon enough if they were savvy or delusional.

Yeah, that one is probably worse. Wiggins #2.

Well, I appreciate your passion for the TWolves, and I know you're fond of Wiggins, so I'll respectfully disagree, but move on.

I said almost. Obviously the goal is to score runs, so RBI are important. It's just not a great stat at showing an individual contribution. And the discussion was regarding salary, that's mainly why I brought up WAR. You might not like it, but most FO's are using their own internal WAR to make roster and contract decisions. I'd guess very few are still factoring a circumstantial stat like RBI much when it comes to those decisions. Is a player more valuable if he hits a seeing eye single, when there just happens to be bases loaded, as opposed to a guy who hits a home run, when (through zero fault of his own) nobody happens to be on base?

RBI is an almost worthless stat. Mauer has 7.1 bWAR over those three years to Valencia's 4.1. So, I'd expect Mauer to make roughly double the salary of Valencia next year, absent a major up or down 2018 from one of them.

W/L is a team stat, and the Dodgers aren't likely even in the WS without Darvish pitching as well as he did in the previous series'.

Gibson's best k rate is still worse than all of Sanchez' last 10 years. Gibson's best bb rate is still worse than all of Sanchez' last 7 years. Your explanation doesn't explain why his bb and k rates have mostly held. If he's throwing it down the middle (to avoid walks) he shouldn't be getting strikeouts. If he's nibbling, he should be giving up walks. Of course the hard hit rate is troubling, and likely leads at least in part to the higher babip and hr rate. But, some of those increases are probably also bad luck, and the FO might see an adjustment that could lower that hard hit rate. It's not like I love the signing. Like I said in my first post, when I saw it, I wanted to hate it. But, IMO, there are plenty of open rotation spots. I don't even think Gibson should be a lock. This move shouldn't prevent them from signing anyone else. They may not, but that's independent of this. It's not like he's blocking anyone, nor is the salary restricting payroll in any way. Do we have some examples of pitchers who have pretty much held their career k and bb numbers, while suddenly becoming super hittable? Maybe it happens more often than I'd guess, I dunno. But, it's enough for me to think that maybe a small adjustment, coupled with some better luck, and a much better defense than he's had in Detroit, could lead to a productive season. With Santana out a month, there's likely going to be a spot in the rotation that isn't ideal, regardless of how many guys they sign. Gonsalves and Romero aren't starting the year in the rotation. In addition to the limited time at the high minors, they also get an extra year of control by waiting 3 weeks. So, if at least 1 spot is going to be less than ideal regardless, I don't mind the roll of the dice on a guy who has way more upside, IMO, than someone like Slegers or Hughes.

In what way? Parise was a good player for the first few years of that deal, and Suter is still a good player.

So what? NBA is a young man's league. This is his 4th season, which is more important than his age. How many superstars in the NBA right now were still awful by their 4th season?

Max deal for one of the worst 10 or 15 starters in the league. Which decisions would rank up with that? In a salary cap league, is it even possible to build a championship team with a contract like that?

Well, league average doesn't sound like batting practice to me. Where would that k rate rank among Twins starting pitchers?

Regarding Burdi, pretty tough to pitch from the trainer's room.

Possibly. But if so, how has he maintained his k rate?

Yeah the Wiggins max deal might end up being the worst decision in the history of Minnesota sports. By nearly every advanced metric out there, he's one of the worst starters in the NBA.

Looking at the numbers the last 3 years. It appears he may have been quite unlucky. His k and bb rates have held steady, while his hr rate and babip have skyrocketed. I wanted to be upset when I first saw the signing, but this actually looks like it could be a pretty smart buy low candidate.