tobi0040

When the Twins had absolutely nothing at AAA in 2012 and 2013, they should have been signing the high upside guys on 1 year make good deals left and right. Right now you have three locks in the rotation (Hughes, Nolasco, and Gibson) and three other guys that need innings (Meyer, May, and Milone). I am for giving these guys innings now over the 1 year thing.

I am with Jorgenswest. Give me a guy that is better than everyone else or roll with what we have. Regarding Ventura....his numbers in his last year at AAA were very similar to Meyer's last year. Ventura 77 IP 3.74 ERA 3.9 BB per 9. 9.5 K per 9. 2.45 k/bb Meyer 131 IP 3.52 ERA 4.4 BB per 9. 10.6 K per 9. 2.39 k/bb All he did was come up at pitch 180 IP at a 3.20 ERA this year. His walk rate was 3.4 per 9. The key is a high k rate (7.8 per 9), lower hit rate (8.3) and low HR rate of .7 per 9 more than offset the additional runner via BB every say 18 innings.

That is a fair point. But his numbers at yankee stadium were the biggest difference, in my opinion between last year and every year since 2009 or whatever. The other immeasurable is confidence. Getting shelled for 3 HR a start at Yankee stadium, then booed all the time had to get in his head.

Yeah, but the difference for me between Hughes and say Masterson is that Hughes had an identifiable issue that could be removed (Yankee stadium). Masterson has a goofy delivery and questionable control over his career (he may struggle to repeat the delivery). His career BB per 9 is 3.7. That is actually the same number that Alex Meyer had in 2013 that he needed to improve on. His 4.5 last year is actually better than the 4.8 that Masterson had and the Twins would not even bring Meyer up because of it. To me Masterson's issue is harder to fix than Hughes's was. He will be 30 next year with 1,150 career innings.

The only thing about the Hughes signing that was luck was that he signed here versus somewhere else. Terry said that he sought us out as much as we sought him out. I am guessing he thought the park was a great place to rebuild value. Phil was a former top prospect, 27, healthy, and in a terrible park that made his numbers and I believe his confidence look bad. His career ERA everywhere but the new yankee stadium at the time we signed him was 4.10. Signing him was brilliant.

I would prefer the Twins to trade for a guy that is still in his rookie deal or just hitting arbitration. I think that opens up your list of options. Take a guy like Johnny Cueto. The Reds will want a Buxton, Sano, or Meyer or something really good. Max Kepler and a few throw in's is not getting that deal done. Now we have the guy for one year and need to give up $100M+. I love the deals that the Tigers did to bring in Fister and Scherzer.

I agree, with a caveat. A trade like the Tigers did to bring in Scherzer or Fister is the type of move we should do. Or the White Sox for Adam Eaton (but a pitcher). Find a high upside, cheap guy via trade. A diamond in the rough like Hughes was. The Twins are not in a position in my opinion to trade Buxton or Sano for a guy that is making $20M+ or one that is due a huge contract. I think the two things we have going right now are 2-3 great prospects and payroll room to add talent. A trade for a top guy right now blows through both of those assets in one move. For example, if we traded Buxton for Hamels, we would lose our best prospect and be up around $100M in payroll. I don't see how that one move alone takes us to the top of the division.

That is a fair point and a beneficial outcome. I still think Ervin Santana is the best choice in free agency. He will likely be one of our two best pitchers next year.

If my memory serves me correctly, I think Burdi was our 2nd rounder at 46 overall last year. Should be back a few this year.... It is tough, if you go back 15 years or so the Twins have a poor record in the second round. I was ready to hand over that pick for Stephen Drew last year, but we would have missed on Burdi and that may turn out to be a huge mistake. Or he could get hurt of fizzle out.

I have not followed the thread enough to read that from others. I thought that was aimed at me. Thanks for the clarification.

I don't mean to pile on you Mike. I have seen this line of thought from a million others as well. But I really don't understand this meme, which is quite common here. You have no idea....or we have no idea why Joe wasn't playing, or how hurt he was. What others in the locker room think of him. Or we have no idea why Pinto is not catching. Or for that matter whether or not we tried signing a guy or trading for another. Or what dollar amount the Pohlads would go up to. This entire site is 95% opinion and speculation. To my knowledge none of us are insiders. So whenever people disagree it is easy to say they don't know or they can't prove something.

I think the perception of these moves being low risk could be questioned. In the case of Masterson or Anderson, I am guessing Anderson gets 7M and Masterson gets 10M. If you do that every year you have potentially 8-12% of your payroll perpetually tied into guys that are nowhere near a sure thing. When the going rate for Matt Garza/Ervin Santana is $11-14M a year, then I would rather pay a little extra. I see no difference in having one on a four year deal versus doing a one year deal four times with a different guy.

If you approach this from the standpoint that even if they pitch well here, their track record is not one that would be a good long term commitment.....then they are low upside deals. Maybe you don't see it that way. But then let me ask you this. Let's say we sign Brett Anderson to a 1 year deal and he pitches 200 innings with a 3.20 ERA and strikes out a ton of guys. He loves Minnesota and wants a new contract. How much would you be willing to go, dollars and years? Again, the max he has pitched over the last four years is 82 innings. Or what would you give Masterson after a good year? Would you give him a 3-4 year deal at $15-17M he thinks he is worth? We are talking about a very inconsistent 30 year old with a career ERA over 4.00.

Masterson has had two good years and two awful years in the last four. If he has a good year next year, is that the type of guy we want to hand a four year deal around $17M? He was seeking a multi-year deal for $17M a year six months ago. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10645272/justin-masterson-cleveland-indians-break-contract-talks Flipping him is the only real positive here to me. But I want to give time to guys that are part of the future. We should have been doing this in 2012, 2013, etc. Big picture, the Twins seem to have money each year tied up in short term, low upside deals like this. $11M for Pelfrey and Correia last year for example. If we give Masterson a 1 year deal for $10M....we will have $16M next year tied up in lottery type pitchers (Masterson and Pelfrey). Why not just sign a good pitcher for that amount? Is a 3-4 year deal for Ervin Santana at $15M a year any more risky than $16M on one year deals to guys like Pelfrey and Masterson when you do it every year?

I am totally against the high upside, 1 year make good contract. I don't think it makes any sense for where the Twins are as a franchise. Two things will happen, I think neither is really a good thing for us: Option 1 - The guy pitches well and stays healthy. Let's say Masterson gets back to 190 IP 3.45 ERA guy next year. We add a few wins in a year in which we are not competitive. Then what? Now he wants a 4-5 year deal at $15-17M a year (what he was seeking last year from the Indians). Would we even want to do that? I would not. He would be a 30 year old, inconsistent pitcher, career ERA over 4.00 and in the last seven years, he has had an ERA at 4.50 or higher in four of those years (2009, 2010, 2012, and 2014). What about Brett Anderson? In the last four years the most innings he has pitched was 82. If he stays healthy and somehow pitches 200 IP, are we going to extend the guy? Yikes. Best case they are flipped at the deadline, but that does not warrant taking reps from young players to me. Option 2 - the guy pitches poorly or does not stay healthy. Now you have taken innings away from Meyer, May, etc. and perpetuated the awful pitching that we have seen over the last four years. The risk/reward does not make sense to me. I think if we are giving up innings from a future rotation starter it has to be because the player has a very good chance to improve our team. When I look at the FA market, I only see four of those guys. We will not sign one of the top three. The guy I keep coming back to is Ervin Santana. I think he is signed for about 3-45 with an option (plus a pick). He becomes our second best pitcher IMO and he is off the books when our young talented guys start hitting arbitration/free agency.

The topic is subjective. We can parse words all we want. I stated it was a fact that people in the media, fans, and ex player have questioned his toughness and that the opinions out there are weighted to the side of Mauer not being a tough player versus being a tough player. I didn't say it is a fact that Mauer is not tough. Then I offered my opinion. It is impossible to prove that, or disprove it.

Allow me to revise my statement. The information available questioning Mauer's toughness versus praising him is weighted heavily on the questioning his toughness side.

I think as a summary on this thread..... These are facts: Some people call Mauer soft. Columnists, fans, and at least one ex player. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever described the guy as gritty, hard nosed, or tough. The press (to my knowledge) has never ran a story or mentioned how Mauer argued to stay in a game or come back from an injury earlier than anyone wanted, or praised him for fighting through anything. That includes the first 6-7 years of his career prior to this large contract. What it means is speculation. It could be bad luck, him being cautious, could be that he doesn't want to fight through anythiing, or it could be that he is a victim of unfair attacks for a number of reasons (money, jealousy, etc.) My personal opinion is that he does not play through things that some people would play through. That is not proveable or falsifiable. Why he does not play through things I don't know. It could be that he has high expectations for himself and playing at 80% would not meet those expectations. If it is the latter, the contract probably plays a role because he knows the contract has raised everyone elses expectations as well.

While I too think Favre is selfish and arrogant, I view this a little differently. I think Favre knew that at 80%, he was still better than a healthy backup. In the case of Mauer, it is hard to see how Mauer at 80% is not better than Drew Butera, Fryer, and the rest of the backups we had while he was a catcher. Even if playing through something prolonged it a day or two, a hall of fame caliber player at 80% is going to exceed the output of a bench guy in most cases. I am speculating that was part of Hunter's frustration and the reason for the comment.

I am guessing the FO does push for longer rest periods. But we all know Gardy could be persuaded by a veteran demanding to play. One Kurt Suzuki is a great example of this (he caught 119 games as a 31 year old and played in another 12). While the financial commitment is very different between Mauer and Suzuki, I can't recall a single instance in Mauer's career where he argued to remain in a game or argued with the training staff, coaches, etc. to come back from an injury prior to anyone wanting him to. I don't think the guy has a paper cut and misses a game, but I do think some players in the league play through things that he does not. Whether he lacks fire or is just more cautious (or smart) I am not sure.

That may be, but even if he only had 15 years without missing a game....that is a far cry.

Great stuff.

I would probably consider something like that. I am not sure Masterson would. But if it is a 50% shot he has a 4.50 to 5.00 ERA this year....the odds of having another terrible staff are a tad high.

It is hard to look at the list of injuries and conclude he is a tough it out kind of guy.

That is a true statement. But I don't think it is ridiculous or an exageration to say he has missed time with bruises, as the article suggested. He in fact has missed them on at least four occasions. I guess for me, Cal Ripken played almost 20 years without missing a game. Brett Favre went around ten years in a much more violent sport. Guys like Cano play every day. I am guessing a time or two existed when those guys had bruises, even really bad one's. Those are extreme examples. But I think as a starting point, some players gut it out through things that Joe Mauer does not. I think that is a fair and reasonable conclusion.