DeRosa to Indians

Twins NOT making this trade:

Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412

by joeiscool12 on Dec 31, 2008 2:22 PM EST reply actions

this is absurd. None of three guys were in the Indians top-20 prospects according to Sickels. Maybe there’s something about one or more of them that the Cubs really like, but I cannot believe the Twins weren’t in this, which appears to be the case as LENIII hasn’t mentioned it, nor has any of the other Twins media.

Not only would he have helped at 3B, but would have provided versatility in case of injury/Punto meltdown.

by Eric in Madison on Dec 31, 2008 2:31 PM EST reply actions

Heap this on the balooning pile of missed opportunities by Bill Smith.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on Dec 31, 2008 2:41 PM EST reply actions

God.......Damnit......

Shit like this Almost Makes you want to jump ship for god sake…this is annoying..DO SOMETHING..WE HAVE ENOUGH FRICKEN TALENT…Mulvey or Swarzak and 2 guys like Mike McCardell and David Bromberg would have got DeRosa Here…Oh Well…I guess we can battle for the Bottom with the Royals Next Year.

by Tony_O on Dec 31, 2008 2:53 PM EST reply actions

I can't believe this

I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt one too many times. This one is on Smith. If there’s one thing we have, it’s a surplus of minor league pitching. This was definitely a winnable trade.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 31, 2008 3:28 PM EST reply actions

Yep

And we have some pitchers that we likely won’t have a major need for. I think Bonser and a couple of minor league pitchers would have gotten him. Maybe less…

Smith is really pissing me off…

by Twins Territory on Dec 31, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Cubs may not have wanted Bonser or Humber

considering they are out of options and Chicago’s pitching staff is pretty full.

Still, I’m shocked that this package got it done and that we were not willing to beat it. DeRosa makes all the sense in the world for this team. He could start at either 2B or 3B depending on whether Harris/Buscher, Casilla or Punto are injured or slump badly (I’m very concerned about a return to Punto 2007 form). Effectively, we’d be replacing all of Tolbert’s and a portion of Casilla/Punto/Harris/Buscher’s AB with DeRosa. Hard to believe it would be anything less than about a 15-20 run improvement, well worth the cost.

Maybe Chicago (or San Diego) REALLY liked these young pitchers, but we have to have MANY better options throughout the system. Ugh.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 1, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

....

Anyone else still secretly hoping Bill Smith has something up his sleeve?
I was until I just gave up all hope.

by ianmader on Dec 31, 2008 5:58 PM EST reply actions

Up his sleeve

Count me as skeptical that Smith has anything up his sleeve. About the only good news here is that it takes a major bidder out of the mix for signing Wigginton. A reasonable contract may be very possible there, and it wouldn’t involve trading any young pitchers.

Other than perhaps Adrian Beltre (still my pipe dream), I don’t see many other good possibilities to improve by 10+ runs over Harris/Buscher. Atkins would cost a lot in trade, and it’s not clear he can perform outside Coors. Kouzmanoff is a nice option, but probably doesn’t improve us that much next year given the cost. Same with Andy LaRoche.

And DeRosa goes to a team in our own division to boot…

by Adam Peterson on Jan 1, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

I thinks so... I think we're still in the market

For a Relief Pitcher, I think Smith will sign one into the Mix and I still think we’re going to deal away Bonser for whatever we can get…even if its just 1 prospect …(i.e. Kyle Lohse for Zach Ward)

I have a hard time imaging Bonser pitch on our 2009 Minnesota Twins for the whole season.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jan 2, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions

that would have been an equivalent for us of.....

trading guys like:

1. Charles Nolte
2. Loek Van Mil
3. Henry Reyes

Wow what a deal for the Indians!!!….

I still think the Cubbies did this because it is a precursor to the Padres for Jake Peavy, as I still think a deal may get done.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 31, 2008 6:09 PM EST reply actions

Can you say "ironic"?

Maybe the Twins figured out the DeRosa’s career stats are almost identical to those of Mike Lamb, who’s a year younger than DeRosa. Maybe they saw that DeRosa’s offense was helped by Wrigley. Maybe they considered the fact DeRosa has played about 100 games at third in the past four seasons, meaning that no club he has played for considered him to be a starting third baseman.

He was supposed to be Atlanta’s answer to moving Chipper Jones off third years ago – until DeRosa made four errors in one game. He’s been a late-blooming, OK utility player. He’s not a third baseman. He’s 34 when spring training starts.

Brian Buscher has a chance to be as good defensively as DeRosa, at a fraction of the price.

But most importantly, offensively, his career is almost a Silly-Putty print of Mike Lamb. So, in essence, everyone here favors signing a man who’s a year old than Mike Lamb and has had an identical career.

Feel the irony.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 1, 2009 4:14 PM EST reply actions

It's not exactly signing

…when it would be a one-year rental.

Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412

by joeiscool12 on Jan 1, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

In that case...

…keeping Mike Lamb would have been a one-year rental.

As is typical here, a post strays into semantics that has nothing to do with the issue, that being, DeRosa is hardly worth the fuss.

He has been a utility player in general in recent seasons. He played outfield more than any position for the Rangers, and second base more than any position for the Cubs. He did not play 60 games at third as a Cub. He has played about 25 games a season at third the last four seasons. He fields poorly at the position, and the Twins are not looking for that at third. His offense, based on history, would not offset his third base defense, based on history.

Just focusing on that – not his career stats that mirror Lamb, not his offensive stats that were helped by Wrigley – how does he solve the Twins’ third base problem?

Oh. I bet if you checked, DeRosa’s ‘08 RBI total was within a dozen of what the Twins got out of their third-base position last season. Now, the DeRosa lovers will say RBI isn’t a great stat. However, that won’t change the fact that DeRosa backers have undoubtedly looked as his ’08 HR and RBI totals and been impressed, yet I can bet you the Twins got 75 RBI out of third base last year. Maybe a little more.

I just don’t see how this guy is much of a step up, if any, and I don’t see how he can be so heavily embraced when Mike Lamb was – rightly – reviled.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 1, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions

Well...

You can count me as someone who both 1) considers RsBI to be a near-meaningless statistic; and 2) considers DeRosa to be not enough of an upgrade to be worth the cost the Twins would have had to pay.

I would say you’re engaging in a bit of revisionist history regarding Lamb though. My recollection is that the blogosphere didn’t react to the signing, when it happened, with the kind of universal disgust you seem to be ascribing to it. The Lamb signing only became repulsive retrospectively, in light of his collapse in ‘08. I wouldn’t project DeRosa to collapse this year to that degree, but I’d expect some decline from his ’08 performance.

by DK on Jan 1, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

Not worth the cost?

So, you’re saying that DeRosa would not be worth a comparable cost to what Cleveland gave up? I disagree. Even if you expect a decline in performance moving out of Wrigley, adding an additional WAR by giving up none of our top minor league prospects would be well worth it. The package that was originally rumored (including Span plus pitching) during the winter meetings, no thank you. But a comparable package of minor league arms, definitely do the trade.

FWIW – I was OK with the Lamb signing when we made it, but I questioned the need to go for two years. Didn’t expect him to fall off so quickly, but sh*t happens.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 1, 2009 10:55 PM EST up reply actions

If DeRosa had been acquired to replace Punto...

…as a utility player, that would have been an offensive upgrade at a marginal – or more – defensive cost, depending on your opinion of Punto’s defense, which I think is better than the majority of those voicing an opinion on the matter here but not as good as I hear about from the random knucklehead in the stands at the Dome. Offensively, DeRosa wins the war, and he can play more positions than Punto.

As a thirdbase man, I see no point in acquiring him as long as Harris and Buscher are around.

As for “we could have afforded that,” when the hell did that play into trades? First of all, this isn’t a Fantasy League, so trades involve a great deal more than just names that carry statistics with them. There are all kinds of considerations. For example, did it occur to you that maybe the Cubs scouted the hell out of one of the players they received and really liked him? Have you seen any of the players the Indians traded? Naw. You know nothing about those guys. They’re just Fantasy Leaguers to you, a pile of numbers.

And if we even cast that aside, I still view the “we could have afforded that” argument as silly. If you already have two perfectly good cars that you are making payments on, chances are that even if you can afford it, you’re not going to go out and buy a third. You’ll probably spend that money on a vacation to Italy instead.

Why should the Twins pony up for another car when they already have two? Shouldn’t they use that collateral to get the Italy vacation?

by Johnny Safron on Jan 1, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions

If you can show me the evidence...

that the Twins could have actually made a trade that would satisfy the Cubs with comparable cost, I’d love to see it. The only evidence we saw during the Meetings was a cost of, as you said, Span plus pitching. We both agree that’s not worth it. If you can name me a group of Twins’ assets equivalent to what the Indians paid, and prove that the Cubs would’ve accepted that, then I might agree with you.

Maybe the Twins DID offer something comparable in cost, in their view of what those assets are worth. Or maybe they even offered something comparable to how you would value the Indians’ assets and the Twins’. But maybe the Cubs didn’t value the packages the same way. Maybe the Cubs still wanted more from the Twins, and the Twins wouldn’t agree to that. Or maybe none of my speculation happened. We just don’t know, because there is no evidence either way.

by DK on Jan 2, 2009 2:32 AM EST up reply actions

The point is, however...

…If you hate Mike Lamb, why don’t you hate DeRosa? Nothing revisionist about it, as I’m talking about the Mike Lamb of today, not last year.

Sure, Twins fans feel hurt because Mike Lamb burned them, in their opinion, but that doesn’t change the fact that his major league career is practically identical to that of DeRosa. So close that it’s startling to me that no one noticed – while they were skewering Bill Smith and patting themselves on the back because they would have made that trade – that DeRosa is the offensive mirror image of Mike Lamb, and a year older.

So what’s to say 2009 isn’t going to be Mark DeRosa’s 2008 Mike Lamb season?

I’ll need that answer now, by the way, not in August.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 1, 2009 11:51 PM EST up reply actions

Just to be semantical again...

It would be more accurate to say I hate no one. ;)

Seriously, though….just for illustration, Lamb was projected going into last year by PECOTA at about a .250 EqA, with a 39% , which is a pretty high potential of collapse. He had EqAs of .240, .279, and .280 the previous three seasons. He finished 2008 with an EqA of .216, so the collapse potential certainly came about in his case.

Collapse rates, from what I know, tend to be especially high with aging unathletic guys like corner infielders. I don’t know that DeRosa profiles as strictly a corner infielder since he’s been used in more of a utility capacity, but in any case I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to see his projected collapse rate approach Lamb’s from last year. (I’d be even less surprised to see Casey Blake’s collapse rate that high.) I think DeRosa’s definitely a candidate for a significant risk of collapse, but significant risk is still not certainty. If you want your answer now, you’re going to have to cozy up to a guy named .

by DK on Jan 2, 2009 2:54 AM EST up reply actions

Sorry...

Couldn’t get my links to work…

Collapse Rate should follow “39%” up there and…

Heisenberg is how that should end.

by DK on Jan 2, 2009 2:57 AM EST up reply actions

Comparing to Lamb is a non sequiter

In order to assess the benefit of trading for DeRosa, one needs to assess the quality of DeRosa’s AB (and defense) compared to those he would be replacing. I understand this is not what Gardy would do setting lineups, but if I traded for DeRosa, he would play a number of positions for me. Considering the five other infielders in the mix, here’s where I project their net runs above average projected for next year (using combination of Bill James and Marcel):

2B Casilla: .307 wOBA -12.3 RAA (-11.6 offense, -0.7 defense) over 525 PA
SS Punto: .297 wOBA -5.3 RAA (-16.0 offense, +10.7 defense) over 500 PA
3B Harris: .329 wOBA -3.9 RAA (0.0 offense, -3.9 defense) over 450 PA
3B Buscher: .327 wOBA -4.2 RAA (-0.7 offense, -3.5 defense) over 350 PA
UT Tolbert: .324 wOBA -3.3 RAA (-1.5 offense, -1.8 defense) over 275 PA

Effectively, on a per plate appearance basis, all of these guys are about the same, a bit below average. Now consider DeRosa’s projected numbers.

3B DeRosa: .349 wOBA 13.3 RAA (9.8 offense, +3.5 defense)

To address your defensive points, DeRosa’s defense at 3B has been well above average the last two seasons. +24.0 UZR/150 each season. The few years before that, in comparable sample sizes, he was at -5.0, -14.9 and -14.5 UZR/150. At worst, I would say DeRosa is now an average fielding 3B, more likely a bit above average at this point. If DeRosa started at 3B, he would be replacing two inferior defenders in Harris and Buscher. It’s not a matter of whether DeRosa’s defense cancels out his offense, I compare it to the players he’d be replacing.

RBI? IMO, pretty much useless as a stat to determine value from previous years or to project value for the future. Buscher/Harris actually had a good 2008 RBI-wise, with a combined 96 RBI over 652 AB. Compared to DeRosa’s 87 RBI in 505 AB, it’s a difference of about 16 RBI in favor of DeRosa over the same number of AB. However, one should consider that Buscher had a BA with RISP of .386 (!) last year, and a BABIP of .349, I consider many of his RBI to be a result of good luck, which I do not expect to repeat next year.

All considered, I would expect that trading for DeRosa, and giving him 350 PA at 3B and 200 at 2B would result in about a +18 net run, +1.9 win above replacement (WAR) compared to our existing lineup. About two wins in exchange for three minor league pitchers, none of which are top prospects? SIGN ME UP.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 1, 2009 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

I do really like and appreciate...

the methodology you’re using here. My own opinion is that the upgrade would be closer to something like 10 runs/1 WAR rather than approaching +2. I’d actually be surprised if the Twins had acquired DeRosa and used him as much at 2B as you’d project, but that’s an open question Again, though, there’s simply no evidence that the Cubs would take a package that didn’t include at least one of (what you, I, or the Twins would consider) the Twins’ top prospects.

by DK on Jan 2, 2009 3:16 AM EST up reply actions

10 runs / 1 WAR

Considering any offensive downgrade going from Wrigley/NL to the Dome/AL, I can see the potential upgrade being closer to +10 than +20 runs. However, the moment any of Casilla/Punto/Harris/Buscher get injured and we have to replace their PA, DeRosa’s impact would go up. That’s the value of depth.

Of course, I do not have proof that the Twins offered, and the Cubs would accept a similar package. I can define a number of prospect packages that I consider to be comparable to what the Indians gave up, but obviously there’s no guarantee that Chicago accepts. I would like to see Bill Smith explain the talks, more likely Chicago was set on getting their LH OF (Span or Kubel) during the winter meetings, we told them to pack sand, and trade talks were never revisited.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 7:29 AM EST up reply actions

DeRosa played so little third base the last two seasons that your point is moot

by Johnny Safron on Jan 1, 2009 11:53 PM EST reply actions

The point being?

59 games and around 400 innings played at 3B is enough for me to conclude that DeRosa would be at least an upgrade over Harris/Buscher defensively, and above average overall at this point. That’s my point, and it’s certainly not “moot”. Yes, DeRosa was below average at 3B with Atlanta and Texas, but this would not be the first time an athletic (from what I hear) MI/UT guy improves after more time at 3B.

When I calculated total impact defensively, I estimated DeRosa at +5 DRAA/700PA and Harris/Buscher at -5 and -7, respectively. If you have anything other than blanket statements of points being moot, pointing out grammatical errors, etc., I’m all ears.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 7:38 AM EST up reply actions

Curious

When was the last time you saw DeRosa play third?
When was the last time you saw him play on turf?
How is he at charging bunts, based on what you have seen?
When he charges a rolling ball and throw on the run, does he throw off his left or right foot?
How is he on the 5-4-3 DP?
Does he throw overhand on the 5-4-3, or sidearm?
How deep does he play at third?
How is his first step in and first step back?
Does he stand tall and throw on a 5-3 ball, or does sidearm it?

Also, you base your entirely numerical assessment of him on 400 innings played. Those were all on natural grass. How did you adjust your numbers for turf?

by Johnny Safron on Jan 2, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions

Channeling Dwight

Fact: The Twins expressed keen interest at the winter meetings in acquiring DeRosa to play third base.

Assumption: Twins scouts think he’s at least as good defensively at third as the guys we have slated to play there.

Fact: DeRosa would be a huge offensive upgrade over what we have slated to play over there.

Fact: The Twins have better pitchers in the minors than the three it took to get this guy.

Fact: The Twins don’t need half the pitching depth they have in the minors.

Conclusion: This is a huge missed opportunity for the Twins, especially since the team that acquired him is the favrite to win the Central Division in 2009.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 2, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury

of watching him, or most players in person or regularly on TV. I did, however, have the chance to watch virtually every Twins game on TV last year (thanks DVR). How woudl you grade our existing options against your questions?

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

How in the hell...

…can someone endlessly lament a player they have never seen play?

No matter how many damned numbers you run, he’s worth about 1 win. $5.5 million and three players for one win? Dunno what fantasy league you’ve been winning in, but the other "general managers " can’t be very good.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 3, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions

Some comments from this board's members after the Lamb signing:

And now, the same folks are weighing in on DeRosa:

“Give him 200 more at-bats, and I think there is a chance that he can be NEAR 20 HR and 60-70 RBI. We should be happy the Twins are making some moves and not just sitting around.”

“Bill Smith is the man, as far as I’m concerned right now.”

“I love EVERY move he has made so far.”

“Lamb is a HUGE upgrade over Punto at 3b.”

“Lamb is ready to go.”

by Johnny Safron on Jan 3, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

Never seen play?

We get WGN up here. Who said we have never seen him play? I have. He’s a tough out and a solid infielder. That’s what I see. Is he worth wheat it would take to get him? I think so. You might disagree, but don’t assume we haven’ seen him.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 4, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions

Who am I lamenting that I've never seen play?

I said I don’t have the luxury of watching DeRosa or many others regularly. I would imagine most others outside of professional scouts are in the same boat. What I have seen are our current options at 3B, offensively and defensively.

My point from day one has been that DeRosa is at least a 10 run / 1 win upgrade, more the moment any of our infielders gets injured (fewer replacement AB). That would put an expected upgrade closer to 20 runs / 2 wins. IMO, that type of an upgrade would be worth a one year / $5.5M commitment and a package of three mid to low level minor leaguers.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 4, 2009 7:48 AM EST up reply actions

One thing I've seen come up speculatively...

and I’ll pose this issue to you specifically since I think your analysis of this has been solid even though we came to slightly different conclusions (hopefully you’ll see this nested down here) is whether it would turn out to be only a 1 yr/5.5M commitment. Imagine if DeRosa reaches Type A status next season (he would have hypothetically been straddling the A/B line this year). Initially, we’d say that’s great, he in all likelihood helped the team a great deal in 2009 then, and we can get picks for him this way. But what if DeRosa doesn’t see the market shaping up the way he likes it in the 09 offseason – maybe he’d be looking for a Blake-type deal, but nobody would want to give him that AND give up the Type A picks – so instead, he takes our offer of arbitration and comes back for 2010 at around 7 or 8M, and shoots for being classified Type B the next offseason. Is it still worth it?

by DK on Jan 4, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

That's a real sensible, plausible scenario

that he becomes Type A and then decides to accept arbitration. Put it this way, if DeRosa was already signed for two years at 5.5 + 7.5 = $13M, he would be a less attractive option. I’d probably say no if we were committed to the extra year, we’re going to need all the flexibility we can to extend Mauer and sign a few additional players to extensions.

The decision for 2010 would depend on how Valencia progresses. If DeRosa has a good enough year to become Type A and Valencia falters, I’d offer him arbitration. If he accepts, he’s better than any in house option. If he declines, we’ve got two draft picks and can look elsewhere for a 3B.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 4, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, it's "non sequitur "

You both misspelled and misused it here.

By using it, you are saying there is no logic in saying Mike Lamb and Mark DeRosa are identical offensive players over their careers. Which was my statement.

Of course, the numbers prove you wrong.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 2, 2009 12:02 AM EST reply actions

The grammar and spelling police have gotten me again.

You’re right though, since you were not responding to my analysis of the degree to which DeRosa would be an upgrade over our existing players. There is logic in comparing Lamb to DeRosa. Yes, DeRosa’s collapse rate would have to be considered. I for one don’t expect it to be quite as high as Lamb’s, Lamb was not as athletic as DeRosa and could not play MI.

As for the degree that Lamb and DeRosa are “identical offensive players”, while they might be similar, they are certainly not identical. For one, since 2000, Lamb had basically always been used in a platoon role, getting 300-400 PA a season. He had very good age 31 and age 32 seasons (wOBA .351 and .355) just prior to coming to Minnesota, but again, in a platoon type of environment (422 and 353 PA resp.) DeRosa, on the other hand, was a below average offensive player until 2006 (age 31), when he became an every day player. From 2006-2008, DeRosa has been consistent, with wOBA of .350, .349, .376 and 572, 574, 593 PA resp. However, DeRosa became an above average hitter once he moved to Texas and Chicago, so we have to take that into consideration as well.

In terms of archetypes, I would consider Lamb to be a relatively unathletic platoon CI, while DeRosa is a more athletic utility infielder who thrived once he finally became an every day player. FWIW, BPro had Lamb’s comps last year as Dick Sisler, Irv Noren, Glenn Adams, Catfish Metkovich while for DeRosa they had Randy Velarde, Travis Fryman, Kevin Seitzer, Jerry Priddy.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 8:08 AM EST up reply actions

The grammar and spelling police have gotten me again.

Yeah, we don’t want to emphasize a grasp of the English language in a forum that relies entirely on written English or anything.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 2, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Latin

Disregard that we’re talking about Latin in this example…can’t really say this forum “relies entirely on written English” either, as statistical analysis, graphs, pictures, etc can also be used to advance a number of points. I’d rather discuss baseball than semantics.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

Then when the "grammar police" appear, let it go.

by Johnny Safron on Jan 3, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions

Did you wiki the meaning and spelling of non sequitur?

Nice to see you get so riled up, Johnny.

"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella

by natetheskate on Jan 4, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

im starting to really not like bill smith

he is just sitting with his thumb up his ass and doing nothing because its easier to do nothing, but if the twins want to improve then sign or trade for a 3rd basemen since everyone on here knows that buscher/harris isnt going to workout

MLB-Rays,Marlins,Twins, and Reds
NFL-Vikings,Lions(i know Shut up),texans, and Bills
NBA-Timberwolves(also shut up),Cavilers(bye bye LeBron in '10)
NHL- Wild and Penguins
College-Gophers,Gators,Longhorns and Irish.
all of the above mentioned teams are in order by my favorites

by RaysOfHope on Jan 2, 2009 1:00 AM EST reply actions

No.

Everyone on here does not know that. What does “work out” even mean? If “work out” means “providing a level of overall value approaching or even equaling the level of Blake, Wigginton, DeRosa, etc. at a much smaller cost in money and/or assets” then certainly everyone here does not know they won’t do that at all.

by DK on Jan 2, 2009 3:04 AM EST up reply actions

just watch how bad a Buscher and Harris platoon will be next year

it is going to be embarassing, they wont even hit 10 HRs combined next year, i just know it.

MLB-Rays,Marlins,Twins, and Reds
NFL-Vikings,Lions(i know Shut up),texans, and Bills
NBA-Timberwolves(also shut up),Cavilers(bye bye LeBron in '10)
NHL- Wild and Penguins
College-Gophers,Gators,Longhorns and Irish.
all of the above mentioned teams are in order by my favorites

by RaysOfHope on Jan 2, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

I agree that not everyone...

…does not want to see Harris/Buscher platoon this year. Personally, I am higher on Buscher than most. I think he will do a good job at the plate, continue to hit for good average with double figure home runs (assuming 350 at bats or so) and over 50rbi. I also expect that Buscher has been working his butt off this winter on his defense and will be better, although I concede he will not be great.

by roger13 on Jan 3, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions

i could live with just buscher, but they need to add another bullpen arm

MLB-Rays,Marlins,Twins, and Reds
NFL-Vikings,Lions(i know Shut up),texans, and Bills
NBA-Timberwolves(also shut up),Cavilers(bye bye LeBron in '10)
NHL- Wild and Penguins
College-Gophers,Gators,Longhorns and Irish.
all of the above mentioned teams are in order by my favorites

by RaysOfHope on Jan 4, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions

My biggest issue with Buscher

is that I don’t think his 2008 performance is repeatable. He had a .349 BABIP, very high for someone with his lack of speed. He also had a .386 average with RISP, the reason he had such a high RBI total in 218 AB. I expect both to regress next year. Hopefully through hard work, Buscher will improve on defense, but I suspect he will still be below average in the field.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 4, 2009 7:55 AM EST up reply actions

Two sides to that coin

You can interpret Buscher’s 2008 in two ways: 1. It was a career year not likely to be repeated. 2. He’s a late bloomer who finally put some things together. Though 2. is the less likely interpretation, it is not totally implausible. I could see him repeating it and actually adding power in 2009. I don’t think it’s all that likely. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if it happens.

My biggest worry with Buscher is his defense. But, since Gardy is a stickler for defense, I could see Harris getting the lion’s share of work over there, with Buscher filling in against tough righties like Verlander. And when Buscher does start, Harris will be his defensive replacement if we have the lead late in the game. In short, it’s a workable platoon.

Still, it is one of two positions where it wouldn’t have been too tough to upgrade. At short, they settled for the status quo because the market is just insane. At third, they had options, most notably DeRosa. I guess there’s still time to acquire a rental such as Beltre close to the deadline (assuming the no-trade clause gets worked out). But even if they had acquired DeRosa, they could have done that as well. It’s always good to have more good hitters on the bench.

This offseason tells me one thing loud and clear: They’re playing for 2010. They want to wait and see how things shake out before they send any depth away for short-term fixes.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 4, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

Two sides

Yes, Buscher could improve elsewhere as a hitter, more power, better OBP, etc. My point is that it will likely take a decent improvement in isolated slugging or discipline in order to counteract any regression in BABIP or RISP.

I still see Buscher as a nice backup 3B/1B option and left handed bat off the bench. Harris will probably get the majority of the 3B AB due to defense, upside and being a RH bat. This is his year to put up or shut up. Hopefully starting the year at 3B will help, he really settled down once he was moved from 2B.

Totally agree on 2010. We’ve made a number of moves (Gomez, Young) looking at a serious run in 2010, when our young guys have a bit more experience but aren’t yet too expensive.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 4, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

Value

Well, the Twins would have to pay Mr. DeRosa a salary above-and-beyond being just the swing man/backup, plus give up some three mid-minor prospects to boot.

Instead, they look at the tandem of Harris and Buscher to maybe produce nubers they can live with for a fraction of the price, and still have Harris as a backup at second/short and Buscher as a backup for Morneau (which is something the Twins desperately need, unless that becomes one of Cuddyer’s jobs).

The Twins signed Lamb…didn’t have to part with any “prospects” for him. Don’t know why he totally tanked, but he did. Good luck in 2009 in Milwaukee, Mike.

Is tehre still anything in the works? The Twins have some chips. Delmon Young (or Cuddyer). I’m sure they could part with one of their Big Five pitchers. Boof and Humber are still legit wares. Plus, the “prospects” of which there are always an abundance.

Visit www.TwinsCards.com and check out "rosters" to see my collection!

by rosterman on Jan 2, 2009 1:19 PM EST reply actions

im starting to believe they arent going to do anything and stand pat

bill smith has gone into hibernation. if Smith was smart he would sign joe crede to a incentive laden 1 year deal, low risk, high reward, since when crede is healthy he is a top 10 3rd basemen, but smith wont sign him. we still need bullpen help, and we continue to just let cheap options go sign elsewhere, we couldve had joe nelson for 1.3 mil, scott proctor just signed with the marlins for 750 k, why in the hell arent the twins signing any of these guys? because smith has no clue what he is doing.

MLB-Rays,Marlins,Twins, and Reds
NFL-Vikings,Lions(i know Shut up),texans, and Bills
NBA-Timberwolves(also shut up),Cavilers(bye bye LeBron in '10)
NHL- Wild and Penguins
College-Gophers,Gators,Longhorns and Irish.
all of the above mentioned teams are in order by my favorites

by RaysOfHope on Jan 2, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Numbers they can live with

Sure, we can live with the numbers that Buscher/Harris will put up, for a fraction of the $5M and three mid-minor level pitching prospects that we could have allegedly offered to Chicago…

My point is that to add a likely (IMO) 10-20 net runs, or 1-2 marginal wins, it’s well worth the increased salary commitment (one year) and mid-minor prospects, where we could give up comparable players.

One other thing, does DeRosa have any chance of being a Type A free agent after 2009? That would make the cost even more palatable.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 2, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

we're done

There staying pat so far
http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081221&content_id=3724914&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min
I wouldn’t expect anything to happen. Based on the teams history..
Regards,
Brian

by MagikLair on Jan 2, 2009 3:44 PM EST reply actions

Stop Playign Devil's Advocate

The Mike Lamb comparison is further misleading. Lamb played in Houston, an even more absurb hitter’s environment. More importantly, he never received nearly as many at bats as DeRosa did, as he was primarily used in a platoon/situation role while DeRosa has proven his time as a regular.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on Jan 3, 2009 5:30 PM EST reply actions

Lets throw another cash scenerio into these discussions...

…What if the Twins only spend another couple million dollars, likely on a short reliever. They then should have more than $5,000,000 available. I expect we will see them do what they did last year, ie, use that $5,000,000 to front load contracts for Baker and Kubel. They would also be in position to use a couple million of that to front load say a 2 year extension for Mauer. Now if we got 3-4 year contracts for Baker and Kubel and an extension keeping Mauer with the Twins thru 2012….wouldn’t that be a better use of dollars than spending $6-7,000,000 on a tiny upgrade at third base?

by roger13 on Jan 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST reply actions

I'd like to see the extensions

especially with Mauer, and yes, I believe all of those extensions would be a better use of dollars than a 1-1.5 WAR upgrade at 3B. We’ve got a big problem coming down the road extending Mauer before he gets to free agency. In fact, I suspect Mauer, along with the many arbitration eligible players come 2010, is a major reason we are hesitant to take on an additional $20M in salary. Baker and Kubel are still a few years away from free agency. At this point, are extensions needed for them, or does it make more sense to assess after 2009? Of the extension candidates though, Baker and Kubel would definitely be at the top of the list, after Mauer of course.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 3, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe

The more I think about it. The idea of DeRosa was to play 2nd and move Casilla to SS and not sign Punto and leave the platoon of Harris and Buscher alone. I still think the IF would be better if we got DeRosa and moved Punto to the bench and Casilla to SS.

Also I saw on www.mlbtraderumors.com that the Twins are one of the 3 finalists for one of the Japenese pitchers.
The Japan Times has reported that Kawakami had narrowed his choices to the Baltimore Orioles, Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals. O’Brien’s report disputes this by saying he spoke Saturday with Kawakami’s agent, who said the Braves were still one of the teams Kawakami had on his list.

by doofus on Jan 4, 2009 10:38 PM EST reply actions

I agree

Punto is the weak link among the infielders. I’d prefer him to be the utility infielder, getting 200-250 AB. The key is that DeRosa would give additional flexibility in the infield, moving Casilla to SS, giving Casilla a day off, or playing 3B. IMO, a base lineup with DeRosa at 2B, Casilla at SS, Harris/Buscher at 3B and Punto on the bench would be over a 20 run / 2 win improvement over the current lineup, but this improvement would depend on Casilla – DeRosa defense up the middle and how much worse they would be compared to Punto – Casilla.

Doesn’t matter anyway, Gardy says Punto is his starting SS, and DeRosa is now an Indian.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 5, 2009 8:13 AM EST up reply actions

Middle infield depth

I’m not all that happy about Punto either. Besides his inevitable regression to a mean of about 70 OPS+, he has a history of injuries. Suppose he gets injured, do we move Casilla to short and use Tolbert/Machado/Tolleson at second? Do we use Tolbert at short and keep Casilla at second? Neither option is pleasant, and the uncertainty of where you would play Casilla just as he’s developing into a regular player is equally upsetting. DeRosa would have made these questions go away.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 5, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions

Tolbert

At this point, I believe Tolbert is our most likely utility infielder to start 2009. If/when Punto goes down, I’d play Tolbert and Harris at SS, split depending on how Buscher fares at 3B. Plouffe/Machado/etc would then become the UT IF.

This has been one of my points all along wrt DeRosa. In an “all healthy” scenario, I agree with others that DeRosa is probably a marginal (10-15 run) upgrade at 3B. But once injuries strike, we’d be replacing likely replacement AB with DeRosa, increasing the potential upgrade above 20 runs, beyond a “marginal” level.

by Adam Peterson on Jan 5, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions