Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

tobi0040

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 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 tobi0040

  1. tobi0040
    So the league directive on where a team can spend and still make money should not be part of the commentary? Should we take Pohlad and St. Peter at their word when they say "we spent $75M this offseason on pitching so don't say we won't spend". Or should we think logically and say, but payroll is the same? The point was to suggest the motives of a fan and owner are different. Even if we signed one extra guy at $10M, the guidepost of 52% of revenue is helpful because we would still be a long way from it. Lastly, I did argue we should have offered 3/38 plus a vested 4th year based on innings for Ervin.
  2. tobi0040
    I agree and really love what they are doing over there. Tough break for Medlen, the second TJ is typically a horrible one for your career. A career 2.95 ERA over 512 IP. But they have had TJ out of Medlen x 2, Beachy, and Tommy Hansen was a can't miss prospect pre-TJ as well. And they still have a good young rotation and team. Lot of young studs on that team and they haven't been drafting in the top 5 or 10 consistently for a very long time.
  3. tobi0040
    I would vote for #2 as well, but also agree #3. Unfortunately we don't get a vote. They say it is easier to spend someone else's money. But if I had the net worth and was sitting on something I inherited that went up $400M in 5-6 years, I would probably not say....you know this team would win an extra two or three games with Ervin over KC or Drew over Florimon, but it is not worth the extra $7-8M (reduced by any increase in revenue). I would like to think I would pull the trigger.
  4. tobi0040
    We need to first start with an objective, then what is the best way to achieve that objective. I think with a team you have four options. 1) Win at all costs and lose money (Tigers) 2) Spend up to a reasonable profit and field the best team, while not hurting long term prospects and/or blocking top prospects. Break even or make $5M a year. 3) Spend enough to not be called cheap, find value in players, have a good or respectable win to payroll ratio. Make $10-15m+ a year. 4) Make money at all costs, i.e. have a $30M payroll. We would certainly make money here. I agree with Mike 100% that asking that we bring payroll up to say $100-$110M is not unreasonable. The team is still making money at this level. They received $150M in tax funds to get a stadium, that helped boostthe value of the franchise from $280M to over $700M (which makes the yearly revenue for payroll discussion a bit arbitrary). Which bucket do the Twins fit in? We can say no to #1 and #4. I would argue #3. We are sitting $10-$20M above the metrodome payroll. $30M under 52% of revenue. Payroll over the next 1-2 years could be at this level or lower with prospects filling roles. If #2 was the objective, it is hard to see how we don't sign Ervin over Pelfrey (or sign Ervin and trade KC). Sign Cruz and DH him or move Josh or Arcia to DH. Sign Drew, etc. These undoubtedly make the team better and don't block the prospects that we care about in the near future (Sano, Buxton, Meyer, and Gibson). I don't see how the lottery ticket approach to turning this team around, Kubel, Matt G, Bartlett, etc, is the way to go.
  5. tobi0040
    We could trade KC right now if we wanted to. The Blue Jays and Orioles are looking for pitching. Other teams will have injuries before April 1st. A team like the Yankees or Dodgers would be okay with a 4.50 career ERA guy coming off 4.19 last year as their long reliever. He is only going to make $5M next year. Santana is a 15.7 WAR player over 9 seasons. KC is a 5 WAR player over 11. Seems like an additional $7M in payroll makes sense ($12M - $5M)
  6. tobi0040
    If I could like this ten times I would.
  7. tobi0040
    The deal I proposed would be 3/38 guaranteed and would turn into the same thing Nolasco received if he pitches something like 500 IP over the next three years. He has to get $24M over years two and three for a break even point. I think it would have been in his best interest to take that deal. He had UCL issues in 2009. If that comes back or if he has a year like 2012, 2009, or the other clunker he had in the past he does may not get 2/24 next off-season. But the broader point is 52% of revenue would be something like $120M-$125M if you add revenue from the new cable deal, all-star game, etc. We are sitting here at $82M (heading down after this year) and 3 consective 95 loss seasons. Is the lottery ticket approach to SS, DH, and value and upside starters the right approach (excluding Nolasco)? I can't find a single false statement below: Ervin over Pelfrey or KC is an upgrade Cruz or Morales over Kubel is an upgrade Drew over Florimon or Bartlett is an upgrade We have capacity to make at least two of these moves without hurting financial flexiblity long term. None of these moves are blocking a prospect that we care about
  8. tobi0040
    My guess is Santana would have received 4/50 if that is what he was asking for in November. The Twins would probably rather have signed Ervin over Nolasco. But he was asking for 5/80 then and everyone moved on. Big picture, I think Ervin would have taken 3/36 with a vested 4th year at $12M or a $2M buyout now, over the 1/14 year deal. We won't know for sure, but I think this deal would have been better than what will be available next year (to the Twins). You do that and trade KC, our rotation gets much better this year and over the next few. Prospects that we care about are not really blocked. Ervin had a terrible 2012, well chronicled. But he was 9th in ERA in 2013, 14th in 2011, and 24th in 2010 (All AL only). When you are sitting here at an $82M payroll, you have to wonder if it is more about "getting deals", or common sense. We needed one blue chip guy (Nolasco). But after that I think Terry is trying to find value in both Hughes and Pelfrey as buy low types that could turn into values. We came back to Ervin and Garza when the market had moved on and they over-played their hands, therefore their value was suppressed. The Kubel deal is absolutely a value play. Same with Bartlett. Same with Matt G. My question would be, is this is the right approach to turning around a 95 loss team? Upgrades were out there at catcher, DH, and SS and we would have had to pay a market value and we came away empty handed as far as I am concerned. Santana over KC would have made this team better as well.
  9. tobi0040
    Here is what I had in mind. Sign Ervin, trade KC. Some team will take a career 4.50 ERA guy coming off a 4.19 ERA that is on a 1 year, $5M deal. A team will have a need or stick him as the long reliever/insurance policy. Probably not getting more than a guy in A ball with control issues and upside. You break camp with Nolasco, Ervin, Hughes, Pelfrey, and Gibson (I don't care about losing Worley). One of these guys will get hurt and/or it will not shock me if Pelfrey needs some AAA time to figure something out. In which case Meyer can be up here in June, which I think is the Twins plan anyway. Best case is Pelfrey pitches well and you can trade him in July.
  10. tobi0040
    I guess I don't consider Ervin a mid tier starter. The AL has 75 starters, he finished 9th in ERA in 2013, 14th in 2011, and 24th in 2010. He has consistently been around a 200 IP guy every year. I get he has been inconsistent. Your logic is very similar to why I didn't like the Pelfrey signing. I think we overpaid for a guy with limited upside and any number of players between Deduno, Gibson, and Meyer may put up similar numbers. I would have liked to seen that $7-$8M a year get a SS or DH. But I don't see Ervin in the same light as Pelfrey, he has been much better and is not as replace-able. It is moot now, as he signed with Atlanta 1/14. I get the logic that he could do 1/14 this year and next year and make $28M over two years. So 3/33 is not very compelling. I think we could have gotten this done at 3/36 plus a 4th year vested based on 500 IP, or a $2M buyout. He would have been guaranteed 3/38. If the 4th year vested he would have been on par with Garza and Nolasco. I think that would have been compelling enough for him to not risk the injury next year or inneffectiveness.
  11. tobi0040
    The thing I can't make sense of, and I am not going to go back and look to view your opinion of Pelfrey, general observations regarding the site. But the pessimism regarding Santana and optimism around Peflrey, given the track record of both is odd to me.
  12. tobi0040
    Agreed. His numbers are better than anyone that we have. Even the most pessimistic view of Santana and optimistic view of Nolasco, Hughes, and Meyer has him as our 3rd or 4th best pitcher. In three of the last four years he would have been our best or second best pitcher. Last year he would have been hands down our best at a 3.24 ERA. I think 3/33 or a 3/33 plus 4th year that vests based on innings will be a steal. Even if he has his one clunker year, the 3.50 ERA he may put up the other three years will be a huge discount based on like pitchers. Verlander, Felix, Scherzer, etc. make or will make $25+ million a year. I am not putting Ervin in that camp, but what you may get in 3 of the 4 years at $11M looks very nice compared to what those guys will make. Looking at the last three years. Santana's 2011 (3.38) was better than Scherzer (4.43) and Felix (3.47). Santana's 2013 (3.24) was better than Verlanders (3.74)
  13. tobi0040
    To be fair, I think you have three agents here desperately trying to save face, that along with the draft picks plays a huge role in why these guys are unsigned. Each one of these guys turned down 1/14 because of what would be out there. Their agents drastically over-stated the market. Nelson Cruz decision cost him $6M next year. These agents are pulling out all the stops to not be in that camp. In fact, Ervin fired his agent. Had Ervin been realistic early on, he would have gotten what Nolasco and Garza got. But he was talking about $80-100M while all the teams moved on. The question should probably be, how will 3/33 or 4/44 compare with what the free agents next year will get. I think this deal may look very good. And we have counted out Boras every year and his guys always sign late. I remember nobody thinking a market existed for Lohse or Zito when he got that huge deal. Boras guys usually get what they thought or more and it always surprises people..
  14. tobi0040
    I agree with this. I think you keep him around and the ceiling is probably last year. 108 IP, 3.83 ERA. We can't under-estimate how important those 100 IP were at that ERA. Keep him in the pen, spot starter, he will probably start as the #5 starter. But expecting him to be healthy for a full season is probably not realistic.
  15. tobi0040
    I would guess the odds KC is with the Twins after July is under 10%. So I think he is either moved before the start of the season or before the deadline. At the very least, we wait a few months for Meyer or Gibson to step up and fill that role if we sign Ervin. Even that assumes Pelfrey is somehow the guy he was in 2008 or 2010 and is worth keeping, our thesis on Hughes was correct, none of our five starters needs TJ (which seems to happen every year), no shoulder issues, etc.
  16. tobi0040
    Here are the career numbers on the Twins top 4 and Ervin. My personal opinion is Ricky has been more consistent and if you take out Hughes numbers in the new Yankee stadium, his numbers are very similar to Santana's and he is arguably more talented (and 3 years younger). But adding Ervin, if it means pushing out KC or Pelfrey via trade would certainily add talent to this rotation. Two years down the road, Ervin, Hughes, Meyer, and Nolasco is a pretty talented rotation. None of these guys is a #5 starter, with Meyer, Ervin, and Hughes, I would argue you have #2 potential or better. ERA WHIP ERA+ K/9 Ervin 4.19 1.28 100 7.1 KC 4.49 1.41 89 5.8 Pelfrey 4.48 1.47 90 5.2 Ricky 4.37 1.28 94 7.4 Phil 4.54 1.32 95 7.6
  17. tobi0040
    My read on this whole thing is the 1 year route is a ruse to try and get a 4th year from us or someone else. If his options are 3/33 here or 1/14 with Toronto, I think he will ultimately accept our deal (or a similar 3 year deal with a better team is one exists). If he signs here, KC is shipped out of town and I would love to see those two things happen. He is a definitive upgrade over KC and under a reasonable deal for a longer period.
  18. tobi0040
    I believe this is possible and I think it has happened before. I want to say Orlando Cabrera maybe did this? Signed a 1 year deal and the terms specificed the team can't offer arbitration.
  19. tobi0040
    It is tempting to offer a vested 4th year based on innings. That way you are protected from an injury perspective. But with the depth we have, this is not a deal that we have to do. So giving this guy a 4 year deal when the next best offer is a 1 or 2 year deal seems a little nuts. I think a take it or leave it 3 year deal makes sense. There will be free agents next year.
  20. tobi0040
    Thank you. I agree to a certain extent about the depth. I think at the end of the day the Twins were embarrased about our staff and wanted to get some depth and infuse talent. If we trade Correa this year or Pelfrey next year to make room for someone, that is a good problem to solve. A lot of these issues solve themselves through injury/ineffectiveness. I have almost zero confidence in Worley, very little in Diamond, and slightly more in Deduno but with him it is health. Looking two years out and from a building block perspective, we have only four guys you can say with reasonable accuracy that they will be part of the solution. Nolasco, Hughes, Meyer, and Gibson. That assumes nobody is off 15 months with TJ, our thesis on Hughes struggles in NY are correct, Gibson figures it out, etc. Had we had this conversation in 2008 or 2009 we would have all said Baker, Slowey, Blackburn, and Liriano were all staples for years to come. This is the logic that resulted in us trading Garza for an OF.
  21. tobi0040
    Ervin, all in the AL - 1,686 IP, 4.19 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 100 ERA+, 7.1 k/9, 2.8 bb/9, 8.8 h/9. 3 seasons with an ERA under 3.50, 4 seasons with an ERA under 4.00 Pelfrey, almost all NL - 1,049 IP, 4.48 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 91 ERA+, 5.2 k/9, 3.2 bb/9, 10.1 H/9. 0 seasons with an ERA under 3.50. 2 with an ERA under 4.00.
  22. tobi0040
    5. Minnesota Twins: Tyler Kolek, RHP, Texas HS The Twins have need for immediate impact and upside. While a player closer to the majors may make more sense, Kolek may have the highest ceiling of any arm in the draft and could be one of the quickest to the majors out of high school. Word for word the same write up and result as Kohl Stewart last year.
  23. tobi0040
    I think this is the wrong question. I think signing Santana means we trade KC. So would you rather have Ervin for 3/33 over KC this year? I think Ervin is a better pitcher and we have the extra $6M a year. Ervin has been up and down, but he would have been our best pitcher in 3 or 4 of the last 6 years. So I have no issues throwing KC or Pelfrey over-board for him.
  24. tobi0040
    On a side note, why would the Blue Jays go 1/14 on Santana and give up a draft pick? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If you get the guy for 3 or more years it is probably worth it. But do they think they are going to compete next year? The Orioles may make a run at the division so I get it from there perspective.
  25. tobi0040
    I agree with this assessment. I would hold onto Gibson. The issue is Gibson and Meyer are blocked by a series of pitchers with much lower ceilings. I think the plan with KC all along was to get a half year or year out of him and flip him. I kind of wonder if TR isn't thinking something similar with Pelfrey.
×
×
  • Create New...