Comments on: Twins Should Follow Blue Jays Bold Lead

By: lisatwink

lisatwink — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:38:04 +0000

So far this offseason is shaking out to be just like all the others. Let good players go, let marginal players go, call it “addition by subtraction,” and end up with nothing. I’m not even worried at this point that the Twins won’t field a competitive team next year. I’m worried they won’t field a team at all, that “gaping holes” will stop being figurative and end up being literal.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:47:06 +0000

Eric, if the option year was really the deal killer, that just pisses me off more. Yeah you’d like an option year because that gives you the potential to have a 2 year good value deal. But if you can’t get it, you don’t walk away from a 5.5-7.0 mil deal like what he got from the Cubs. And even if the Twins wouldnt end up being competitive in 2013, if Baker is productive, you try to extend him during the season or you flip him at the deadline (which is no doubt what the Cubs are planning on doing). Twins can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim they’re committed to improving their rotation and then say 5.5 for Baker on a 1 year deal was too much.

By: Eric Pleiss

Eric Pleiss — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:31:12 +0000

Regarding Baker: I heard that the Twins wanted a deal that included an option year, and Baker wanted a straight one year deal. That seems to have driven the two sides apart, as the dollar value of the contact is not likely to be out of line with any other pitcher the Twins might bring in.
I understand the Twins not bringing back Baker on a one year deal, especially if they don’t believe they can be a competitive team in 2013. Then if he pitches well, he likely prices himself out of their range after 2013, or if he pitched poorly or never was healthy, the Twins are stuck on the wrong side of another injured arm, something they’re understandably attempting to avoid.
However, if the Twins believe they can contend in 2013, and not just tell the fans that they believe it, but really believe it, then signing Baker at 5.5 million, or even $7 million with the full value of the contract, is a no-brainer. If he is healthy, he’s a bargain at $7 million, and if he isn’t healthy, the team was still expecting to compete without him, so his loss would/should not be derailing a run at a championship.
The decision not to bring Baker back leads me to believe that the Twins, at least internally, recognize that 2013 is going to be another year where the team takes a few lumps in hopes of being prepared to seriously compete in 2014 or 2015.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:56:37 +0000

Thanks, AW.

First, on Baker. Sure what he got was “a little high” and if the Twins find 3 better pitchers this offseason, terrific. But here’s the reality: Pretty much any time you sign a FA or make a trade, it means that, virtually by definition, you were willing to pay more (in $ or players) for the guy you added than any other team was willing to go… so you in essence valued that player higher than anyone else. So every other team would say what you gave up was “a little high” for that player. Now… what do we think the chances are that the Twins will be the team that will “overpay” for THREE pitchers better than Scott Baker this offseason? Not gonna hold my breath. And if they don’t end up filling out their rotation with better bets than Baker, then as far as I’m concerned they screwed up by not being willing to cough up a couple extra bucks to keep Baker, even if it would have been a little more than they would prefer.

As for 2014, you’re right. But by then, the Twins are going to be swimming in money, which just makes me angrier if they continue to plead poverty this winter. Project the starting line up out for 2014… and certainly by 2015… and try to identify any starting position player but Mauer who will even be arbitration eligible. If they still have Willingham (which is a big IF) in 2014, he’d be the only position player other than Mauer who wouldn’t still be a serf (assuming they do trade Span, which seems all but certain). Some of the pitchers may be arbitration eligible, but Perkins is the only one that may be making any real money.

And by the way, by 2014, Mauer’s entire salary will be more than covered by the additional MLB tv revenue the Twins will be receiving.

By: AW

AW — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:33:36 +0000

Great post, JC. I’m very much in agreement. As a fan, between losing Baker yesterday (even though the contract admittedly was a little high considering what he might be able to produce in 2013), and then seeing what went down with Miami/Toronto, it’s a little frustrating.

I’ll throw in another source of revenue for the Twins organization: the 2014 All-Star Game. I have no idea how revenue is collected and distributed for this MLB event, but I have little doubt that the Twins will walk away at least a little bit ahead.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:49:22 +0000

Thanks Craig.

I typically wait at least half a day after posting here before I re-post on Twins Daily, but I screwed up the scheduling this time so it’s already up over there, too.

I don’t know if Ryan even had an opportunity to bid on the package the Marlins sent to Toronto, but if he did it appears it came down to money and that’s something I’m getting really frustrated about because it’s just no longer justifiable.

Would the Twins have been overpaying to give Baker the contract the Cubs game him? Yes… I think so. But saying they couldn’t afford to do that is crap.

By: Craig H

Craig H — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:11:02 +0000

Nice read, Jim. Wouldn’t it be nice to have Buehrle and Reyes? I must go next to see what the Twins Daily people think of your non-conservative take.

I don’t get the Twins Way either. We let Baker, who would have been our top starter last year, walk for a one-year deal why?