jharaldson

[TABLE=width: 960] [TD=class: xl65, width: 64]Player[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]W[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]L[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]IP[/TD] [TD=class: xl67, width: 64]K/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]BB/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]HR/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]BABIP[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]LOB%[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]GB%[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]HR/FB[/TD] [TD=class: xl67, width: 64]ERA[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]FIP[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]xFIP[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]WAR[/TD] [TD=class: xl68]Pelfrey[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]50[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]54[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]896.1[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]5.08[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]3.19[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]0.7[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]0.307[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]70.90%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]48.60%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]7.60%[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]4.36[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]4.2[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]4.5[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]9.2[/TD] [TD=class: xl68]Baker[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]63[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]48[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]958[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]7.23[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]2.1[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]1.16[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]0.302[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]73.30%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]34.10%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]9.30%[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]4.15[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]3.95[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]4.07[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]17[/TD] [/TABLE] The obvious comparable for Pelfrey next year is going to be Baker. Both guys are coming off Tommy John and have signed 1 year deals to prove they are back before going back into the market in 2013, Baker for $5.5 and Pelfrey for $4.0 with the same $1.5 million in incentives. I think Baker looks like the better guy with a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, FIP, and xFIP over a comparable amount of innings. I also think Pelfrey's HR/FB% is artificially low due to being in the NL. The only area Pelfrey looks better in is durability with 4 seasons of innings over 184.

Regardless of how people feel about Correia as a pitcher his contract is disturbing in its own way. When I heard that they had signed him to a 2 year/$10 million contract I assumed it was either split evenly accross the years or possibly even weighted towards 2013 because they are so far under payroll. I saw the published details today and it is actually neither of those: 2013: $4.5 Million 2014: $5.5 Million Obviously $500,000 more in payroll in 2014 is not that big of a deal and this is not that big of a shift but in my mind it reflects a cheapness on the part of the Twins front office that should not be there this year. We are probablly going to have a problem spending our available payroll this year due to the Twins reluctance in signing big free agent contracts so I don't know why they are shifting payroll like this. These actions are usually done when you are nearing your payroll max and want to sign a guy who might push you over. What do other members of the Forum think? Is this a sign we are near our payroll max or is this Ryan just letting his inner cheapness shine through?

Correia isn't the best choice out there but he isn't awful. If you compare him to Blanton and McCarthy he has the worst K/9 and BB/9 but his GB% is best of the three. [TABLE=width: 960] [TD=class: xl65, width: 64]Season[/TD] [TD=class: xl65, width: 64]Team[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]W[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]L[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]G[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]GS[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]IP[/TD] [TD=class: xl67, width: 64]K/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]BB/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]HR/9[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]GB%[/TD] [TD=class: xl67, width: 64]ERA[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]FIP[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]xFIP[/TD] [TD=class: xl66, width: 64]WAR[/TD] [TD=class: xl68]Correira[/TD] [TD=class: xl69]Pirates[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]12[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]11[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]32[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]28[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]171[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]4.68[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]2.42[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]1.05[/TD] [TD=class: xl72]51.20%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]4.21[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]4.43[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]4.34[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]0.9[/TD] [TD=class: xl68]Blanton[/TD] [TD=class: xl73]2 Teams[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]10[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]13[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]31[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]30[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]191[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]7.82[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]1.6[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]1.37[/TD] [TD=class: xl72]44.60%[/TD] [TD=class: xl71]4.71[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]3.91[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]3.39[/TD] [TD=class: xl70]2.4[/TD] [TD=class: xl74]McCarthy[/TD] [TD=class: xl75]Athletics[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]8[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]6[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]18[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]18[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]111[/TD] [TD=class: xl77]5.92[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]1.95[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]0.81[/TD] [TD=class: xl78]40.50%[/TD] [TD=class: xl77]3.24[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]3.76[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]4.23[/TD] [TD=class: xl76]1.8[/TD] [/TABLE]

It's incredible, isn't it? I have yet to see any real sentiment about not making the trades Ryan has made or signing guys to long term deals that may block minor league talent from coming up in 2014-2015 but how would have signing/trading for Haren to a 1 year contract and getting Blanton or McCarthy for 2 years impacted the next talent wave? Using our payroll for decent options this year instead of settling on lower tier guys like Myers and Lannan would have sent a message that even though we are setting up for the future when guys like Sano, Meyer, May, Berrios, ect.... arrive we are still trying to compete by maximizing what we have in 2013.

One of the more underrated blog posts recently was this one by John and I think it got overlooked due to the great trade Ryan made with Revere but after Ryan’s interview with Reusse and Mackey on Friday (12/7) I am more convinced that John hit this on the head. Reusse started the section on Free Agency this way: Reusse: “It seems like Jackson is waiting for Anibal, and the guys after Anibel are waiting for him to sign. It seems like the boys at the top have to sign before we know what the price of poker is.” Ryan has a couple of ways to go here. He can acknowledge that 13 of the top 32 guys have already signed, roughly %40 of the market, and that free agency is working differently this year as John pointed out in this article. Or he can do this: Ryan: “You’re right, this is the way it works in Free Agency. Before those guys at the tops sign it is amazing about that logjam. Everyone is waiting to see where Greinke goes, or Lohse goes. Until that frees up everyone is at a standstill.” Emphasis is mine above. When something is %40 complete and still moving forward there is not a reasonable person in the world that can say it is at a standstill. Terry Ryan has still not adjusted to the reality of this market and we may find out at the end of the offseason that many of the good deals on guys with some potential upside were actually signed before Greinke.

Minor update: Please cross Feldman off, he signed with the Cubs. Given we know that pitchers are accepting reasonable/good offers already by the fact that so many have signed and given the fact that we know through the reporting of LEN3 that the Twins have many offers out I think we can conclude the Twins are not offering reasonable/good contracts and are throwing out lowball offers and seeing what, if anything, sticks. It is disappointing knowing we could have Haren ($13 million), Blanton ($6 Million) and a fringe guy like Francis ($1.5 million) all on 1 or 2 year deals and all within budget.

When would critics not be premature? I agree that Terry Ryan deserves more time but I would put out there that if he has not signed a starting pitcher to a guaranteed Major League contract by December 31 I would start thinking this offseason feels like a failure.

I like Lee's bit above so I have some numbers too ;-) 20% - The percent of starting pitchers (6/30) that were described in the Twins Offseason Handbook who are no longer on the market. Are 50% of the available pitchers off the market before free agency really "starts" for the Twins? 5.5 - A number that is going to start looking a lot better later this year when we start seeing what guys like Joe Saunders, Jeff Francis, Kevin Millwood, ect... start getting if Guthrie's contract is any indicator.

The article today from Mackey, who is usually very good, was just ridiculous. Here is his evaluation from today: "Baker will be guaranteed $5.5 million with a chance to earn an extra $1.5 million in performance incentives. ... Passing on Baker was probably the right decision for the Twins" http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Baker_wanted_deal_before_Oct_but_Twins_likely_wise_to_pass111312 Here is his recommendation from his OWN plan to fix the Twins just 2 weeks ago: "Bring back Scott Baker on an incentive-laden deal. Baker ... perhaps $3-4 million base with an extra $4 million in incentives." http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/How_to_fix_the_Twins_Part_3_Could_Braves_Rays_be_good_trade_fits103112 P-Mac says it is a great idea to sign him to a minimum $4 million, maximum $8 million contract but suddenly it is a bad idea to sign him to a minimum $5.5 million, maximum $7 million contract? This is effectively the same contract with a little more risk on the downside and a little more return on the upside. Next P-Mac said the following: "Baker's departure should not come as much of a shock." http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Baker_wanted_deal_before_Oct_but_Twins_likely_wise_to_pass11 Baker said in September he would like to be back. Ryan said in October they would like ot have him back. After they declined his option they still said they wanted him back. P-Mac and virtually every offseason blueprint I have seen this in the past month have pretty much assumed a 1 year deal with incentives. To say that Baker not being on this team in 2013 is not a shock is just not a credible statement.

If you take John's point to heart and think that playoff success is binary then the odds that a team would lose 6 straight playoff series is %1.6 (%50^6). That either indicates horrible luck for the Twins or indicates that other factors besides win/loss are involved.

We did have a guy like Lowe on our team the past 4 years earning quite a bit of money (~$25 million). His name was Carl Pavano and he had 2 years of 5+ ERA like Lowe and 2 years of ERA at 4.30 and 3.75. Both Pavano and Lowe had truly bad seasons in 2012 and had a season where their ERA looked a lot worse then how they pitched (Lowe 2011, Pavano 2009) but I would say that both were not "massive failures" and both were worth $30-40 million during that timeframe. That happens to be above what Pavano earned so he was a good deal where that is %50-66 of what Lowe earned making him not a good deal but not a massive failure. [TABLE=width: 1012] Pavano [/TD] Season W L G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR [TD=align: right]2009 14 12 33 33 199.1 6.64 1.76 1.17 0.329 66.10% 43.40% 10.70% 5.1 4 3.89 3.7 [TD=align: right]2010 [/TD] 17 11 32 32 221 4.76 1.51 0.98 0.281 74.00% 51.20% 10.60% 3.75 4.02 3.86 3.2 [TD=align: right]2011 [/TD] 9 13 33 33 222 4.14 1.62 0.93 0.306 67.30% 50.60% 9.40% 4.3 4.1 4.14 3 [TD=align: right]2012 [/TD] 2 5 11 11 63 4.71 1.14 1.29 0.329 56.90% 41.20% 10.70% 6 4.38 4.48 0.6 [/TD] Lowe Season W L G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR [TD=align: right]2009 15 10 34 34 194.2 5.13 2.91 0.74 0.327 68.70% 56.30% 9.40% 4.67 4.06 4.14 2.6 [TD=align: right]2010 [/TD] 16 12 33 33 193.2 6.32 2.83 0.84 0.307 74.20% 58.80% 13.10% 4 3.89 3.54 2.8 [TD=align: right]2011 [/TD] 9 17 34 34 187 6.59 3.37 0.67 0.327 65.90% 59.00% 10.20% 5.05 3.7 3.65 2.6 [TD=align: right]2012 [/TD] 9 11 38 21 142.2 3.47 3.22 0.63 0.326 66.40% 59.20% 9.10% 5.11 4.37 4.59 1.1 [/TABLE] Not to press the question again but if you disagree with my opinions and what Fangraphs states then what do you think their value is? If Lowe is not worth $40 million over the past 4 years then what is your number? What are you numbers for Lackey, Burnett, and Meche?

I think the interesting thing above is that Fangraphs and Kab actually agree most of the time. Pretty much all of the at the top are as he describes. The difference is once we get in to the brutally awful contracts. Again, Kab and Fangraphs agree on half of them. Perez, Silva, Zito, Suppan, and Schmidt were truly awful contracts. Where they begin to disagree is on Lackey, Lowe, Burnett, and Meche. The question is, what do you do when there is a disagreement? Do you disregard the numbers out of hand or do you take a second look? Take a second look at those guys and they are not as bad as you would expect: Lackey – A good first year with the Red Sox (4.40 ERA in Fenway and 200+ innings) followed by a bad year and a lost year. If he comes back well from Tommy John I think he still has potential to provide a %50-60 return on the Red Sox investment. Not good, but not truly awful. Fun Fact: Red Sox get a free season from Lackey due to a quirk in his contract so this is really a 6 year/83.5 million contract now. http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2012/08/23/could-john-lackey-be-part-red-sox-solution-201 Lowe – 2 years of good ERA (4.00 and 4.67) and 2 years of bad (5.05 and 5.67) but his FIP never got above 4.59. Fangraphs says he was a %66 return on investment which seems about right. Not good, but not truly awful. Burnett – I put a table out above that shows 2 good seasons (4.04 and 3.51 ERA) and 2 bad seasons (5.26 and 5.15 ERA). I think a 4.04 ERA in Yankee stadium is pretty good and a 3.51 ERA is as well. I think if he has another good season in Pittsburgh that he will end up a %60-80 return on investment. Meche – He had 2 really good year with the Royals, 1 bad year, and 1 injured year. If you adjust his contract to 4 years/$44 million due to him opting out of the last year he actually gave the Royals almost equal value. I would truly be interested in the values that other posters on Twins Daily would assign to these pitchers performance. If Lackey is not worth $23.5 million his first three years, what is he worth? How far off are the Fangraphs numbers to ones you would assign? Thanks!

I am seeing a lot of disagreement with the Fangraphs value indicator. I agree that it is not perfect but at least it is impartial. Just out of curiousity, what value would any of the recent posters put on AJ Burnett over the past 4 years and how would it differ from Fangraphs: [TABLE=width: 859] Season Team W L G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR VALUE [TD=align: right]2009[/TD] Yankees 13 9 33 33 207 8.5 4.22 1.09 0.295 75.90% 42.80% 10.80% 4.04 4.3 4.23 3.5 $15.70 [TD=align: right]2010[/TD] Yankees 10 15 33 33 186 7 3.76 1.21 0.319 68.80% 44.90% 11.60% 5.26 4.8 4.49 1.3 $5.40 [TD=align: right]2011[/TD] Yankees 11 11 33 32 190 8.2 3.92 1.47 0.294 70.00% 49.20% 17.00% 5.15 4.8 3.86 1.4 $6.50 [TD=align: right]2012[/TD] Pirates 16 10 31 31 202 8 2.76 0.8 0.294 74.10% 56.90% 12.70% 3.51 3.5 3.4 3.4 $15.20 [/TABLE] I actually think it looks reasonably on. I would pay $15 million each for the 2009 and 2012 seasons while I might pay lower ($3-4 million) for the 2010 and 2011 seasons. One other note, there was a comment above that these guys would be lumped in with Nick Blackburn if they were on the Twins. Fangraphs has Nick Blackburns total value under his current contract (2010-2012) at $1.7 million dollars for those 3 seasons with a negative $3.4 million this year.

You included them in your list that you supplied on page 4 and I will include them in mine. I took the parameters of over 50 million and applied it to the past 5 years. You are correct about Darvish, the ESPN Tracker link did not list the posting fee and I forgot about it. That changes the percentage to %78.6 which doesn’t change my point. Contracts over $50 million are not dollar for dollar great investments but they are not flops either. Again, you included them in the list you provided on page 4 so if they weren’t eligible for discussion I would assume you would not have brought them up. Also, they have shorter contracts (4-5 years) then someothers because of that concern. Typically I do my analysis in normal timeframes (5, 10, 15, ect…). You are accusing me of cherry-picking stats but you pick a random 6 year period just to pick up Zito’s bad contract. I would also state that there has been a well-acknowledged shift in free agent contracts in the past 5 years where there are no longer ridiculous numbers being given out to guys just because they are the last ones standing. It’s how we got Crede for 1 year instead of 3. It’s how we got Pavano on a decent 2 year deal instead of him getting a bigger contract elsewhere. Lowe had FIP’s of 4.06, 3.89, 3.70, and 4.37 those years as well. If you can find some other reference that uses a consistent mathematical formula and not just opinions for value I will refer to that, but until I find another source Fangraphs value is all I have for a neutral source. In short, I think if the Twins go after Greinke or Peavy in that over $50 million range they won’t get exact value but they won’t get robbed either but if they take a step down into the $20-$49 million range they will find that money foolishly spent.

Just for fun I took a look at all starters signed over the past 5 years to contracts over $50 million in value and return on investment is not that bad. If you compare the salary they have earned to what Fangraphs projects as their value you are looking at a 88.44% return on investment which is not great but is not the really bad number I was expecting.

Why does it appear that the coaching staff vacancies have been filled with just internal candidates? Do you see any value in new perspectives in the coaching staff?

The old contract was worth $23.7 million a year leaving the net growth at $28 million which you have correctly, if in somewhat of a rude manner, pointed out should be counted in 2014. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/04/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/MLBTV.aspx If you build in for basic inflation the $143 million base goes up to $159 million. http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=143&year1=2007&year2=2012 159 (Base w/ inflation) + 5 (Stadium) + 17 (FSN) = $181 Million / 2 = $90 Million payroll Metrodome could have supported. The $10 million dollar gap between the Metrodome possible amount and the Target Field Payroll of $100 million equals around ~$20 million revenue jump at Target Field which I don't buy, especially when estimates were $50-$70 million. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/08/twins-ballpark-finance/

Some payroll facts, if you take the Twins at their word and they spend %50 on payroll then we have some math trouble because in 2007 they spent $71.5 million on Payroll which equates to $143 million in revenue. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=80 Earlier this year the FSN deal went from $12 million a year to $29 million a year bringing revenue up to $160 million. http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Like_it_or_not_scaling_back_payroll_is_right_move_for_Twins010512 Twins also have naming rights at another $5 million a year bringing revenue up to $165 million a year. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1027_quirkiest_stadium_naming_rights_deals/20.htm Plus the most recent national TV Deal will leave each team with $52 million a year ($12.4 Billion / 8 Years / 30 teams) brings Twins revenue up to $217 million a year leaving the Twins a payroll floor of $108.5 million without even accounting for the revenue generated from the stadium and its fluctuating attendance. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121002&content_id=39362362&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb They don't need to spend this all on free agents if they don't think the quality is there but they can increase their investment in the minor league system and if money is still left over they can pre-pay Mauer's contract so when they are in a position to make a run a few years from now they have more payroll flexibility. What is not acceptable is putting a mediocre product on the field around $85-90 million and pretending the resources are not in place for something more.

This is obviously an important first step in addressing the critics of the medical staff for the Twins but it is not the last step. Here are the things I will be looking for to see if this turns into something I would look on as a positive change: Trainer is filled from outside this organization. A fresh way of doing things is a must. Trainer is interviewed by a beat reporter and addresses in some way the issues that have frustrated fans and what they look to either do about it or how the fans have misconceptions about those issues. We have surgeries this November and December on this team instead of Spring Training. The one I am most interested in above is someone from outside this org and that applies to all the coaching spots. If this turns into a migration of folks from Rochester to Minneapolis then these firings are pointless. If we take select guys from Rochester and fill this trainer spot and one or two other coaching positions with fresh voices then this has a chance to matter somewhat.

Let's just say for argument that RBI's are not a worthwhile stat, if you look at what Cabrera has done with regards to RBI% (Percentage of Runners on Driven in) his RBI related stats are still impressive. http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/RBIPCT.py?StartDate=01%2F01%2F2012&EndDate=10%2F02%2F2012&SortField=1.0*%28OnRBI.RBI-OnRBI.HRs%29%2FOnRBI.RunnersOn&SortDir=desc&MinPA=100 Cabrera is #2 in RBI% while Trout is 49th (behind even local scapegoat Danny Valencia).

The Twins have the option of paying some of his salary for next year if he is traded. I agree that Morneau at $14 million is not super valuable but if you make it known that he is available at $5-7 million then I bet we can get something of value.

I agree with the sentiment that we should not extend WIllingham because of his age/injury concerns but we need to keep in mind that Terry Ryan has this opportunity. The easiest thing in the world for a GM to do is NOT sign someone. Part of being a GM is judging that risk and inaction can be as costly as action.

I don't know why Baker would want to sign with us with our medical staff causing him an 8 month delay in his recovery. Timeline: July 5th 2011 - Scott Baker is shut down for 18 days to see if rest will help his elbow. August 8th 2011 - Scott Baker is shut down for 44 days to see if rest will help his elbow. September 24 2011 - Scott Baker is shut down for the offseason to see if an even longer rest will help his elbow. April 11 2012 - Scott Baker undergoes surgery for a tendon repair surgery with a 6 month timeframe that turns into Tommy John with a 12-18 month timeframe for recovery. I understand that rest is frequently advised with injuries but I would think after the second time of 44 days didn't do anything that they might have explored surgery at the end of 2011 instead of at the beginning of the season. If I were Baker I would be pissed this team cost him a decent contract in 2013 because he lacked recovery time from his surgery. I would also be pissed because in the back of my mind I would think that maybe if I had the surgery and didn't stress the elbow so much with all these comebacks that maybe I would have only needed the tendon repair. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/11/scott-baker-to-undergo-season-ending-elbow-surgery/

It wasn't 100% unprecedented, the Angels took on $86 million in salary in Vernon Wells. Great prospects were not involved but the Jays did get Mike Napoli for Wells.

We don't know the specific details of what was on the table but knowing now what the Dodgers gave up to the Red Sox we know what they were willing to give up during negotiations: 1. They were requesting a left handed power hitting first baseman with around a .810 OPS. 2. They were willing to absorb the contract of a pitcher who had previous success but was now performing well under salary value. 3. They were willing to absorb the contract of a poor utility fielder. 4. They were not requiring much of the offloaded contracts to be paid for by the team sending them out. 5. They were willing to send out some prospects despite all of the conditions above. I don't know where the Red Sox and Terry Ryan took their trade talks but I could argue that a package of Morneau, Blackburn, and Nishioka compares in many ways to Gonzalez, Beckett, Punto, and Crawford. In some ways it might be considered better since it involves over $200 million less in future money, although it would have less upside to go along with the lower risk. Given our current knowledge I am inclined to think that Ryan didn't look into the Dodgers options enough and the Red Sox were able to swoop in and take advantage.