Twins interested in Joe Blanton?

No thanks

Home/Road ERA/AVG splits from 2007 and 2006:

Home: 2.69/.227 4.52/.299
Road: 5.11/.304 5.12/.318

Blanton is a product of pitching in Oakland. For the price I'd expect Oakland to want, I'd pass.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 7, 2008 2:02 PM EST reply actions

I'll pass

for the same reason Adam Peterson mentioned...Blanton is likely over-priced, and for the Twins wouldn't be worth the price of admission.

by Jesse on Feb 7, 2008 2:15 PM EST reply actions

I say go for it

When he hit his stride last year, he threw 230 innings with these numbers:

BB%:4.2% K%:14.7% BABIP.306 GB%:50% HR%:4% FIP:3.57

I wouldn't want to overpay for him. But if we can trade three maybes for a sure thing, I think it's worth it. How's about Duensing, Mullins, and Mulvey?

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

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 2:16 PM EST reply actions

Splits

One split I noticed is that lefties BAA is .291, however he only gave up 2 HR to lefties last year. Righties hit .248 off him, but hit 14 HR off of him.

I'm not against it, but the way the winter's been going I worry about Bill Smith dealing with Beane.

by TheMattWilke on Feb 7, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

They would have to be below our top tier of pitching prospects. I think Blanton is a solid #3-#4 starter, I just would not give up Blackburn, Swarzak, Guerra, etc. Duensing-Mullins-Mulvey would be OK.

I'd give that up for Blanton if he is able to give us a good 200+ IP with an ERA around 4.25-4.50. Would take a huge load off our bullpen and rotation. We should not pay for sub 4.00 ERA numbers though.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 7, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

My feelings exactly

The Twins have a glut of back-of-the rotation prospects. They should hang onto the guys with #3 upside or better. But guys with #4 or #5 upsides should be made available. I don't know if the A's would do a three-for-one without getting any of the higher upside guys. But it's worth an offer.

If Blanton can give the Twins what he gave the A's last year, he would instantly become the ace on this staff. That might change by midseason if Liriano returns to form. But Blanton would likely be the opening day starter--a guy who can get to the back of the bullpen and give the long guys a rest.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

I'd give up Swarzak

I'm not as high on him as our list suggests. I was really high on him until I read Seth's interview of John Manuel, who said Swarzak lacked an out pitch, FB control and a third pitch. Based on his assessment, the 22-year old Swarzak projects as a reliever to me.

I would consider these guys untouchable, based on my assessment that they have #3 starter upside or better:

Baker
Bonser
Slowey
Liriano
Blackburn
Perkins
Guerra
Robertson

I would be willing to deal any three of the following, based on my assessment that they project as #4 starters or worse:

Swarzak
Duensing
Mulvey
Humber
Mullins
Manship
Sosa

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

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

No way

Give the youngins a chance. We have 4 guys who will be better or on par with Blanton if not this year, by next. Baker has the makings of a workhorse. Remember when he had his fastball moving well he was tossing some long games last year. Bonser could also be a workhorse if he can figure out his 5-6 inning woes. Slowey is a magician, just let him work. BA was probably a bit out of range when they had Blackburn as our top prospect but I don't think they were crazy. All said and done the guy threw 190 quality innings last year. That's 4 guys with no significant injury history with good stuff. Let those guys pitch and you got 4 guys who can give you 180-200 innings with ERA's in the 3.50-4.50 range. Plus you have 2-4 intangibles beyond that who can easily make impressive strides this year. Liriano, Perkins, Duensing, Swarzak could all make some breakthroughs. If you want to trade for a stud I'm all for it. But Blanton certainly not the guy we're looking for.

P.S. if Kelly Theiser reports again that a pitcher had a bad start because he didn't keep the ball down, I might have to kill myself.

by caseintheface on Feb 7, 2008 2:43 PM EST reply actions

Baker, Bonser, Slowey, and #5

All of these guys have to turn in 180 innings or we're going to see a bullpen similar to the White Sox last year. Liriano can't be expected to go more than 150, so all of these guys have to NOT struggle in order for the bullpen to avoid going to mush. They need a mediocre to good veteran in the mix. I'm just not sure Blanton's price is going to be worth it.

by TheMattWilke on Feb 7, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not against this but . .

We do have a lot of other guys that could be brought up if one or two of those guys struggle. We have such a glut of average to good young pitchers from AA to the Majors that acquiring another one maybe doesn't make the most sense. However if you read my post below I wouldn't be against it either partially because of the positives Blanton brings in cost, years of control, and experience.

by halfchest on Feb 7, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

4 slots isn't enough?

It was a different story last year when the 4 and 5 slots were open but favored to Ortiz and Ponson, because there were inning eaters in Santana, Silva, and (presumably at the time) Bonser.

This year ANY of the starters can have adjustment periods and possibly need time to go to AAA or consider moving to the bullpen. (<cough> Boof <cough>) So there's plenty of room of giving 'the young guys' a chance even if they do get a veteran like Fogg or Blanton, strictly for purposes of eating up innings.

by TheMattWilke on Feb 7, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

Let's give our guys a chance to win

Most people here seem to think that the Twins won't be in the race for the division so why not let our young pitchers have at it?

I'm ready to see what we have, which I think is pretty good. If we have a rotation of 2's and 3's and the offense produces it might not be a long summer. Mostly, I'm just not a fan of Blanton.

by caluofmn on Feb 7, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions

We could use a veteran

but as many have said the A's will probably want a lot for a guy that resembles many players we have. He's definitely an interesting guy though, averaged about 210 innings the last 3 years and was great in 05, kind of bad in 06, and pretty good again in 07. I'd like to hear more scouting information on him and an in depth analysis of his numbers. It's intriguing because he is locked up for a 3 more years and we have the kind of money sitting around the Twins could probably afford to lock him up if he had a good 08.

If it wasn't too high of a price then I'd say go for it. There's not one sure thing in our whole rotation and he would be a nice mix of value, experience, and years of control. I'll be surprised if anything comes of this but I wouldn't be completely against it.

by halfchest on Feb 7, 2008 3:13 PM EST reply actions

Funny ...

I agree with your comment, but not the title!

As I see it, 2008 is a "get experience" year for the Twins - absent a "1991 Catch a Wave" type experience, I just don't see this team as having enough offense / pitching to contend for the Division / Wild Card.

I'd just as soon start the year with the idea of getting the kids innings & at bats to accelerate the future. If we find ourselves in a race, then we can talk about getting help.

by BD57 on Feb 7, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions

locked up

The fact that he's locked up for 3 years (arbitration) is the only reason I would be happy if he became a Twin. Plus he's only 27 so like I said locking him up and making him a long term piece is definitely not out of the question. I'm not going to lose sleep as I think the A's will want too much and I won't be too sad about not getting him. It's definitely intriguing though.

by halfchest on Feb 7, 2008 6:43 PM EST up reply actions

cost

Obviously we don't know what Beane would ask for for Blanton, so it's kind of hard to dismiss him out of hand. If it were up to me, I'd be more than happy to give up two or maybe even three of the logjam of #3-type prospects we have who may or may not pan out in exchange for a known #2-type guy who is a lock for 200+ innings. Blanton gives up hits, but he has reduced his walks significantly each of the past two years, and he has upside. If halfchest is correct that he's locked up for three more years, it makes even more sense. A year from now we might know that, for example, Duensing and Swarzak don't have what it takes. We already know that Blanton does.

by cooldude on Feb 7, 2008 3:50 PM EST reply actions

We Don't need an innings eater

I don't agree that an innings eater gives us anything that we really need. We have tons of innings available (about 8-10 guys who could probably throw 150+ if asked). Innings isn't the problem.

Here's how I would do it. Trade Reyes (for free if we must, but someone needs a lefty). We don't need him. I don't think he's worth having on any team, but you don't need a one batter lefty on a team that doesn't expect to make the playoffs.

Then you put together your 5 man rotation. For the sake of argument:
Baker, Liriano, Bonser, Slowey, Humber

You carry 12 man bullpen:
Blackburn, Perkins, Guerrier, Rincon, Crain, Neshek, Nathan

You know have three potential starters in your bullpen (Blackburn, Perkins, Guerrier). You can reasonably expect to throw them for 5 innings per week. Treat them like second starters. Expect your first starter to go 5 innings, let them go 6 or 7 if they are playing well. Then bring in the second starter for the remainder of the game, unless they need to be pulled (pitching poorly), or its a one or two run game in the 8th or 9th inning. We have a bullpen that should be easily capable of putting up a lot of innings at a sub 4.00 ERA. Let them do it without pushing your starters to go 7 innings, just cuz that seems like the magic number. This will improve starter ERAs a lot. (I'd like to see Baker, Bonser and Slowey's ERAs past the 5th inning. Is there a place I can find that?)

by snolls on Feb 7, 2008 6:34 PM EST reply actions

ESPN Player Cards

You can find a pitcher's performance by pitch count (increments of 15, out to 120) and inning (1-3, 4-6, 7-9) in the "splits" view of the ESPN player cards.

I have not seen anyplace that allows you to view past the 5th, but then again I haven't really looked.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 7, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

Meaningless conjuring

>>(I'd like to see Baker, Bonser and Slowey's ERAs past the 5th inning. Is there a place I can find that?)

Lots of places. baseball-reference.com. But what's that going to tell you?

Baker didn't face 75 batters after the 6th last year. Bonser didn't face 45. Slowey didn't face 10. These guys are short-hitters with virtually no record in the last three innings of games.

Your interest in what the trio did in '07 is even of less use in projecting '08 when you understand that the odds are good that with three young pitchers, by June one of them will stink and one will be in AAA or hurt.

As for your mathematics on starters, etc., real-life baseball doesn't come neatly packaged into X innings a week. One 13-inning game, one blowout and one-three-inning start in the same week and your neat rows of numbers fall off the spreadsheet.

And once your staff is off schedule and over-worked, you are screwed, particularly with a young staff.

Also, while I do not agree short outings are guaranteed to keep down the starters' ERAs, there's little question that shorter outings by starters are more likely to increase the relievers' ERAs.

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Feb 7, 2008 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

It's about 2010

With a subject line like that you might assume that I'd be against Blanton and Nathan (or other non-prospects to be sure).

In general, yes. But these two could be major players in 2010 at reasonable prices.

II have a two ways to look at it:
Does it matter in a given year
Does it matter in terms of team development

this year: no eventual: big
this year: yes eventual: yes
this year: big eventual: n/a

2010:
Blanton as the #3, giving you 200+ innings, 11-10, 4.35
Nathan: an elite closer

If it costs virtually all our payroll flexibility (after securing Kubel, Gurrier, Crain, Neshek, Baker, Boof...) and,

Mulvey, Perkins, Robertson (or the equivalent)

Tough call, but it makes sense to me.

Often is a word I seldom use.

by Heinie Manush on Feb 7, 2008 8:32 PM EST reply actions

make this deal

if we could make this trade with only giving up prospects for an ace i say make this trade so the twins dont have to rush any of their other young pitchers.

by MauerPower07 on Feb 7, 2008 9:15 PM EST reply actions

Blanton

Blanton isn't an ace, he's a number 3 starter. We have lot's of those...

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 7, 2008 9:47 PM EST up reply actions

On this staff...

...Blanton would be the ace. He eventually would be the number 3 starter, but it might take a year for that transformation to occur.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

Oh

Oh, well, yeah, he'd be the TWINS ace, at least to start the year, but he isn't an ace caliber pitcher. That's what I meant.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 7, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions

Billy Beane and Bill Smith...

that's the deal this will never happen IMO. The Twins and A's both thrive on getting the most value out of deals, and they're both (assuming Bill Smith will be somewhat like Terry Ryan) very good at it.

They can both get more value in a trade from some other "sucker" so I don't think we'll see the A's and Twins dealing anytime soon.

by djskilbr on Feb 7, 2008 9:47 PM EST reply actions

that should say...

"reason this deal" of course.

by djskilbr on Feb 7, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions

Smith is not Ryan

I think the Young trade showed us that Smith is willing to give up talent if it means getting talent that fills team needs. I never thought that was the case for Ryan. He only traded guys he wanted to trade. And he hated trading talented guys like Garza or Adam Johnson.

I don't know if Smith would overpay. But the Twins are in a very good position to make this deal. They have 10 pitchers of moderate quality. If they could get one above-average pitcher for three pitching prospects, it would be a good trade for both teams.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 10:08 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with that...

but I'm talking about value. I just don't think the A's can get the value that they could get from elsewhere from the Twins, and vice-versa. So it makes sense to go with a team that will give you more value.

For instance, Beane's said to be asking for Bailey or Cueto, Votto, and another prospect from the Reds for Blanton.

If that is true, the Twins definitely don't have the horses to pull off this deal.

by djskilbr on Feb 7, 2008 11:13 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah

The Reds are loaded. But they'd be fools to give up any one of those three in a deal for Blanton. Maybe Krivsky does it. I don't know. I don't think even Krivsky is that dumb. I doubt Blanton will fetch even one A prospect. (The Reds have three and most other organizations don't have any.) But if Beane would take thee B or B- guys, the Twins can oblige him.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions

So

So you'd give up, say, Anthony Swarzak, Glen Perkins, and Jeff Manship for Blanton? I don't think I'd give three for Blanton...

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 8, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions

Not quite

I put Perkins on the do not trade list. But I would trade Swarzak, Manship and Duensing for Blanton. It might be more value than Blanton's worth. But how can the Twins even keep all those guys in three years? When you have 10 starters who are all out of options, you have to let some of them go. Better to trade some of them before you get to that point. Blanton's the best thing going right now. I suppose you could hold onto them for another year and make a deal in the offseason or something. It all depends on how much you want to win now vs. 2009 or 2010.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 2:20 AM EST up reply actions

I dunno

I dunno. I agree that you only have so many option years, but when are those options up. Manship not for awhile I think. I think all those guys have #2 potential too, so I don't like it too much.

I guess I'd do, like, Blackburn and Swarzak or Duensing. I like Blackburn, but I don't think losing him will kill us.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 8, 2008 4:17 AM EST up reply actions

I'm heavily influends by John Mauel

In whom I would choose to keep or let go. So my evaluation is very different from a lot of guys.

It's probably a moot point anyway, because Joe C. is reporting that the Twins are not in discussions with the A's about Blanton.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 9:59 AM EST up reply actions

That

That makes me happy. I wouldn't like that trade much.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 8, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

Reds

I agree that there is no way I would give up any one of Bailey, Cueto or Votto for Blanton, and to think that Beane is asking for two of them AND another player... that tells me that Twins fans shouldn't get their hopes up.

by SethSpeaks on Feb 8, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

I doubt that...

...Beane is actually asking for two of Bailey, Cueto, and Votto for Blanton. That would be a completely insulting demand and probably wouldn't accomplish anything other than making Krivsky and the Reds irritated with him.

by ubelmann on Feb 8, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Doh

That's influenced. Stupid spell checker.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 10:01 AM EST reply actions

two of Bailey, Cueto, and Votto for Blanton

Didn't the reds trade 2 productive players for 2 relievers a couple years back?

by doofus04 on Feb 8, 2008 7:47 PM EST reply actions

Not the same

That was a bad trade. But neither of the guys they sent to Washington was ever an A prospect.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 9, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions

After 2008

I can't wait for Boof and/or Baker to put up 15-11 4.something 2008 seasons and the Twins can market their #1, 2, or 3 starter for 2-3 prospects. Especially since both will be coming up on arbitation and could be valuable to some team wanting someone MORE established.

Is Beane being smart, trading off prospects mid-stream for more guys on the cusp? Or just being cheap?

Throwing a lot of stuff against the wall to see what sticks while giving up guys he didn't win with anyway?

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Feb 11, 2008 1:04 PM EST reply actions

Beane is being smart

If he can move Blanton to the Reds for anything close to the package being thrown around, then he's a genius. He's selling his pitchers high for prospects all over the field. With that ballpark, an average pitcher can have very good numbers, and someone will always overpay (Hudson, Mulder, Haren, Blanton?) and then end up surprised when the pitcher underperforms.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 11, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

Yep...

Beane is in the middle of the quickest rebuild I have ever seen in my lifetime. The A's will be contending for that division by 2009.

Genius.

by djskilbr on Feb 11, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions

If he gets any one of...

Bailey, Votto, Bruce or Cueto, Beane is a genius. If he gets two of them, not only is a genius, Krivsky is a moron.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 11, 2008 9:00 PM EST up reply actions

One other thing to think about...

I think it's fairly reasonable that at least ONE of Crosby/Harden/Chavez has a healthy/bounceback season this year, so that would be ANOTHER very good chip to deal (any of them) to go with Street.

Heck, I sure wouldn't mind Crosby for the Twins at SS if he can finally deliver on his promise.

Man, Billy Beane makes me jealous of the A's sometimes. I have tremendous, tremendous respect for that organization/Beane.

by djskilbr on Feb 11, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure about that...

They've waited at least two years for a bounce back from all three of these guys. Not sure if a bounce back is in the cards for them.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 12, 2008 9:43 AM EST up reply actions

+1

I don't have medical reports on these guys. But their injury problems are starting to have the look of chronic to me.

Chavez: Chavez is a shell of his former self. But it's a pretty good shell. He's still an elite defender. And offensively, he's about average for his position. But I wouldn't project improvement from him, even if he manages to get into a normal number of games. His rate stats are about the same the last four years. I would project something like his 2006 season: .241/.351/.435/.786 with 22 homers.

Crosby: He had one good year and a bunch of injury riddled so-so years. And even his good year (.239/.319/.426/.745) was below either of Bartlett's with much worse defense. I'd put long odds against a bounce back. And a bounce back doesn't make him even above average.

Harden: Looking at his graphs, he's a mess. Like Crosby, one good year and a bunch of injuries. 2005 was very good, for 128 innings. That's not going to get it done. I would be shocked if he ever has much of a career.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 12, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions