John Bonnes

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?861-Other-Voices

Two weeks ago on Gleeman and the Geek, Aaron Gleeman and I argued about Francisco Liriano. In Liriano's previous outing he had struck out 15 batters but lost the game when he gave up a grand slam in the fourth inning. Aaron chaffed at the portrayal of Liriano as "mentally weak" while I felt that Liriano, at the very least, had trouble pulling himself out of a nosedive when he started struggling. Anyone who listens to the podcast knows that Aaron and I arguing some perceived point into the ground is not unusual. What you may not know is that after shows, or even on the breaks, we often turn to each other and wonder what the hell we were really arguing about. And we often conclude that we weren’t really arguing with each other at all. We were arguing with Other Voices. In this case that became apparent around the 25:00 minute mark when Aaron refers to a story about the game. I didn’t even know that story existed. When he was arguing, he wasn’t arguing with me; he was arguing against that story. He was arguing with Other Voices that weren’t in the room. For that matter, so was I, only I was arguing with voices I’ve argued with for a decade. Those voices were arguing that player performances are dice throws, randomly determined like stratomatic cards. That wasn’t Aaron’s point at all. But I was listening to the Other Voices. Here’s the thing: I think Aaron and I see eye-to-eye on Liriano. We’ve had conversations where we are completely in sync. Aaron was fighting a fight he is accustomed to fighting and I was doing the same. We ended up at odds and then wondered what the hell we were arguing about. In my mind, one thing was certain: it wasn’t about Liriano’s mental or emotional stability when it came to pitching. Which was, of course, what the argument was supposedly about. I've seen more and more of this, just become I'm becoming more sensitive to it. It’s even more common in an oral medium where one can’t parse ones words quite as much, cover one’s tracks in a well-written argument. And that also means it is becoming more obvious on Twitter and message boards, where brevity is required. And I’ve seen it a lot over the past 48 hours since the Liriano trade. I wonder how often our reaction to something like that is based more on battles we are accustomed to fighting versus Other Voices than objective evaluation. I even wonder if we shift our evaluation to find room for our voices amid the din, like a youngest sibling finding the niche his older brothers haven’t covered. I don’t know that there is a lesson to be learned here. It’s just something I’m noticing. And as much as seeing that behavior in others bothers me, it’s even worse when I find myself not being full present, distracted or even driven by Other Voices.

Two weeks ago on Gleeman and the Geek, Aaron Gleeman and I argued about Francisco Liriano. In Liriano's previous outing he had struck out 15 batters but lost the game when he gave up a grand slam in the fourth inning. Aaron chaffed at the portrayal of Liriano as "mentally weak" while I felt that Liriano, at the very least, had trouble pulling himself out of a nosedive when he started struggling. Anyone who listens to the podcast knows that Aaron and I arguing some perceived point into the ground is not unusual. What you may not know is that after shows, or even on the breaks, we often turn to each other and wonder what the hell we were really arguing about. And we often conclude that we weren’t really arguing with each other at all. We were arguing with Other Voices. In this case that became apparent around the 25:00 minute mark when Aaron refers to a story about the game. I didn’t even know that story existed. When he was arguing, he wasn’t arguing with me; he was arguing against that story. He was arguing with Other Voices that weren’t in the room. For that matter, so was I, only I was arguing with voices I’ve argued with for a decade. Those voices were arguing that player performances are dice throws, randomly determined like stratomatic cards. That wasn’t Aaron’s point at all. But I was listening to the Other Voices. Here’s the thing: I think Aaron and I see eye-to-eye on Liriano. We’ve had conversations where we are completely in sync. Aaron was fighting a fight he is accustomed to fighting and I was doing the same. We ended up at odds and then wondered what the hell we were arguing about. In my mind, one thing was certain: it wasn’t about Liriano’s mental or emotional stability when it came to pitching. Which was, of course, what the argument was supposedly about. I've seen more and more of this, just become I'm becoming more sensitive to it. It’s even more common in an oral medium where one can’t parse ones words quite as much, cover one’s tracks in a well-written argument. And that also means it is becoming more obvious on Twitter and message boards, where brevity is required. And I’ve seen it a lot over the past 48 hours since the Liriano trade. I wonder how often our reaction to something like that is based more on battles we are accustomed to fighting versus Other Voices than objective evaluation. I even wonder if we shift our evaluation to find room for our voices amid the din, like a youngest sibling finding the niche his older brothers haven’t covered. I don’t know that there is a lesson to be learned here. It’s just something I’m noticing. And as much as seeing that behavior in others bothers me, it’s even worse when I find myself not being full present, distracted or even driven by Other Voices.

I agree.

Except that you've paid $14M for that haul.

And I think it's rheotric, using stats to deliberately obfuscate a truth, representing a reality that even the original poster would deem absurd. If the logical conclusion of chosen statistics is that Liriano's value is similar to Blackburn's, then you're using the wrong statistics. The valuelessness of the statement is confirmed by it's logical conclusion. Let me try to frame Liriano's value using plain words. Liriano is talented but fragile. He is a risky, high-upside pitcher whose mental makeup is often (sometimes legitimately) challenged. He can be outstanding for stretches and brutal for others. FWIW, he was also, however, the best remaining pitcher on the trade market that wouldn't cost a king's ransom. This assessment was apparent this year, when he was brutal in April and May and outstanding in June and July. Organizations were tasked with determining which Liriano would be for the last two months. Thus, his last start, the first poor one in two months, justifiably gave some teams pause and hurt his value. But want to know what likely gave teams more pause and hurt his value more? A GM demanding that teams give him their best offer less than 24 hours before his next start. If you're an opposing GM and wondering exactly how much you trust Liriano, wondering what happened in that last start, and the Twins GM tells you you need to pony up your best offer before you can get another look, how much do you bid? Don't you have to assume there is something wrong? That his own GM isn't willing to put him on the mound or wait another 24 hours to see what it does to his value? The other teams took their cue from the Twins front office. When they saw that the Twins didn't trust Liriano, why should they? Ryan clearly didn't trust Liriano's next start. Maybe he was right to do so - maybe Liriano would have melted down. But what if Liriano had? Let's not pretend the Twins got anything of value in this trade. When the offer was this bad, there was far more upside to a good start than there was downside from a bad start. This ended up being as close to a giveaway as it could be. The problem was not our expectations. The problem was that they traded an asset at a terrible time, representing it in a terrible way, producing a terrible return.

Here you go: The Twins Payroll Crunch

I can't claim that the Twins won't get a bunch of 3rd-tier free agents instead of some premier guys. I expect they will. But the argument that only "some" of the $14M will be spent on free agents doesn't hold water. Here's how it works: 1) Right now, the Twins payroll is about $100M. 2) The remaining guys on the Twins payroll (including Morneau) cost about $76M next year. 3) So pick a number for payroll next year. Say you think payroll will go down $15M again. That would make it $85M. 4) If you don't trade Morneau, the team has $9M to spend on free agents. If they do, they have $23M to spend on free agents. So long as you think the Twins payroll doesn't dip beneath what they already have committed - $76M or a $24M decrease - all of the $14M will be spent. Now, what they spend it on is a different story. But any money cleared will be available for free agents. The problem with the say you look at it is some of that money they "saved" by not re-signing people has already been committed to other players. But that's all included in the $76M number.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/19687715/blue-jays-dodgers--giants-among-teams-thought-interested-in-morneau The whole (albeit small) story is on Morneau, but I found this interesting. I bet they do. I love Morneau, but Ryan will be forgiven for the Liriano debacle if he makes lemonade out of that contract. I hope he's open to paying some of that contract in return for legitimate prospects.

How about the Twins pickup Ryan Dempster or Dan Haren in the offseason? 5 Ds.

http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/article/sources_mariners_considering_willingham_craig/11325958 It's an interesting thought. The Twins give up Willingham or young Mariners pitching. They could move Revere to left field and plug Parmelee in right. Mariners are loaded w pitching prospects. Walker, Hultzen or Paxton could each be in play for Willingham, I think.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?855-Gleeman-and-the-Geek-Ep-52-Liriano-to-the-White-Sox

Aaron and John talk about the Francisco Liriano trade, break down the prospects from the White Sox and the Twins' reasoning for the deal, get sad with Otis Redding, welcome back Danny Valencia, look ahead to potential other moves before the deadline, marvel at Lew Ford, update Alex Wimmers' health, and then John leaves and Aaron does a solo podcast with the help of Twitter questions. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes.

Aaron and John talk about the Francisco Liriano trade, break down the prospects from the White Sox and the Twins' reasoning for the deal, get sad with Otis Redding, welcome back Danny Valencia, look ahead to potential other moves before the deadline, marvel at Lew Ford, update Alex Wimmers' health, and then John leaves and Aaron does a solo podcast with the help of Twitter questions. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?852-Ten-Things-I-HATE-About-The-Liriano-Trade

Ten Things I HATE About The Liriano Trade I started making a list of the top 10 things I hate about this trade for today’s Gleeman and the Geek podcast. I’m up to #28. (Kill me. Or better yet, add on in the comments section.) 1. I hate that after waiting out the market so Liriano was the best remaining rental, the Twins traded him after his one terrible start in the last two months and less than 24 hours before a possible redeeming start. 2. I hate that what the Twins got in return is SO much worse than what other rental pitchers brought back. 3. I hate that despite that evidence, people will defend Minnesota Twins GM Terry Ryan by saying “we don’t know what offers they had.” 4. I hate that neither player received was ranked in the top 10 of White Sox prospects by Baseball America, which relies heavily on what the organization thinks of their own prospects. 5. I hate that since those rankings, neither player has had a particularly strong year. 6. I hate that the Twins traded with an organization whose farm system is weaker than their own ravaged system. 7. I hate that the only way I could think this trade made sense was if the Twins knew Liriano was hurt and hiding an injury. 8. I hate that the Twins didn’t even attempt to negotiate with Liriano. 9. I hate the Twins traded a high-upside player to division rival without knowing if he was willing or maybe desperate to sign a long-term extension. 10. I hate that White Sox GM Kenny Williams first reaction must have been “How soon can I hang up this phone?” 11. I hate that Williams 2nd reaction was likely “Hold it – this is too good. Is there something wrong with Liriano? Is he hurt?” 12. I hate that Williams 3rd reaction was probably “Meh. Even if he is, who cares? All I’m giving up is Escobar and Hernandez!” 13. I hate that the last time we thought a trade was almost this bad was when the Twins traded Capps for Ramos. And even then it wasn’t this unanimous. And the Twins stubbornly kept overpaying and bringing Capps back for two years to justify it. 14. I hate that the last time we had this much complete unanimity on how bad a move by the Twins this is was back when they signed Nick Blackburn to a long-term deal, which also involved loving a low strikeout pitcher way too much. 15. I hate that Hernandez is such a stereo-typical Twins pitcher – low strikeouts, good control. I hate that the Twin still think this is really the way to go. 16. I hate that it makes me wonder if Scott Diamond - another low strikeout/great control pitcher with a lot of initial success - is going to end up like Blackburn/Carlos Silva/ Joe Mays sooner rather than later. 17. I hate that the Twins, rather than walking away with their winnings on guys like this, keep doubling-down until they lose. 18. I hate that the Twins acquired a middle infielder that can’t get on base. 19. I hate that the Twins acquired a middle infielder that likely won’t make the top 10 prospects in their own organization. 20. I hate that this trade reinforces that the Twins have failed to develop decent middle infielders – even when they trade for them. 21. I hate that this trade makes me wonder if the Twins inability to develop good middle infielders doesn’t have less to do with their farm system and more to do with their philosophy and scouting. 22. I hate the Liriano was my Gleeman and the Geek Pickpointz pick of the week, making it possibly the worst pick in the history of the game. 23. I hate that if this was the best offer, keeping Liriano wasn’t an option. 24. I hate that Ryan felt the need to dump Liriano for this package while simultaneously praising him for his character in the locker room, bringing into question why he didn’t keep him. 25. I hate that the most obvious answer to that question might be fiscal. And that implies thatcut-backs could make 2013 even more painful than last year. 26. I hate that Terry Ryan did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do: acquired low-upside players close to the major instead of high-upside players further from the majors. 27. I hate that this makes me doubt Terry Ryan’s leadership of the Twins. 28. I hate that I no longer want the Twins to trade for any more “prospects” at the

Ten Things I HATE About The Liriano Trade I started making a list of the top 10 things I hate about this trade for today’s Gleeman and the Geek podcast. I’m up to #28. (Kill me. Or better yet, add on in the comments section.) 1. I hate that after waiting out the market so Liriano was the best remaining rental, the Twins traded him after his one terrible start in the last two months and less than 24 hours before a possible redeeming start. 2. I hate that what the Twins got in return is SO much worse than what other rental pitchers brought back. 3. I hate that despite that evidence, people will defend Minnesota Twins GM Terry Ryan by saying “we don’t know what offers they had.” 4. I hate that neither player received was ranked in the top 10 of White Sox prospects by Baseball America, which relies heavily on what the organization thinks of their own prospects. 5. I hate that since those rankings, neither player has had a particularly strong year. 6. I hate that the Twins traded with an organization whose farm system is weaker than their own ravaged system. 7. I hate that the only way I could think this trade made sense was if the Twins knew Liriano was hurt and hiding an injury. 8. I hate that the Twins didn’t even attempt to negotiate with Liriano. 9. I hate the Twins traded a high-upside player to division rival without knowing if he was willing or maybe desperate to sign a long-term extension. 10. I hate that White Sox GM Kenny Williams first reaction must have been “How soon can I hang up this phone?” 11. I hate that Williams 2nd reaction was likely “Hold it – this is too good. Is there something wrong with Liriano? Is he hurt?” 12. I hate that Williams 3rd reaction was probably “Meh. Even if he is, who cares? All I’m giving up is Escobar and Hernandez!” 13. I hate that the last time we thought a trade was almost this bad was when the Twins traded Capps for Ramos. And even then it wasn’t this unanimous. And the Twins stubbornly kept overpaying and bringing Capps back for two years to justify it. 14. I hate that the last time we had this much complete unanimity on how bad a move by the Twins this is was back when they signed Nick Blackburn to a long-term deal, which also involved loving a low strikeout pitcher way too much. 15. I hate that Hernandez is such a stereo-typical Twins pitcher – low strikeouts, good control. I hate that the Twin still think this is really the way to go. 16. I hate that it makes me wonder if Scott Diamond - another low strikeout/great control pitcher with a lot of initial success - is going to end up like Blackburn/Carlos Silva/ Joe Mays sooner rather than later. 17. I hate that the Twins, rather than walking away with their winnings on guys like this, keep doubling-down until they lose. 18. I hate that the Twins acquired a middle infielder that can’t get on base. 19. I hate that the Twins acquired a middle infielder that likely won’t make the top 10 prospects in their own organization. 20. I hate that this trade reinforces that the Twins have failed to develop decent middle infielders – even when they trade for them. 21. I hate that this trade makes me wonder if the Twins inability to develop good middle infielders doesn’t have less to do with their farm system and more to do with their philosophy and scouting. 22. I hate the Liriano was my Gleeman and the Geek Pickpointz pick of the week, making it possibly the worst pick in the history of the game. 23. I hate that if this was the best offer, keeping Liriano wasn’t an option. 24. I hate that Ryan felt the need to dump Liriano for this package while simultaneously praising him for his character in the locker room, bringing into question why he didn’t keep him. 25. I hate that the most obvious answer to that question might be fiscal. And that implies thatcut-backs could make 2013 even more painful than last year. 26. I hate that Terry Ryan did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do: acquired low-upside players close to the major instead of high-upside players further from the majors. 27. I hate that this makes me doubt Terry Ryan’s leadership of the Twins. 28. I hate that I no longer want the Twins to trade for any more “prospects” at the

What BA list are you looking at? Is there another one? I don't see him here: http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2012/2612801.html

The ONLY was I can think to justify this trade is if they thing or know that Liriano is hurt, possibly seriously hurt. Otherwise, this is just foolish.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?849-Twins-Trade-Francisco-Liriano-To-White-Sox

More Reds-Span talk. This time from current MLB.com CIN beat writer (and former MLB.com MIN beat writer) Mark Sheldon: http://mlb.mlblogs.com/2012/07/27/reds-still-want-leadoff-help/