GM Meetings Day 2: Open Thread

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 4:58 PM EST in News Comment 86 comments

Check back periodically for updates...

4:00 pm: Afternoon updates from Joe C.

Congrats to Joe Mauer, who wins his second Gold Glove. Well deserved.
Apparently the GM's are expected to discuss intant replay? I had no idea. At any rate it hasn't been discussed yet.
Bonser, Neshek and Slowey have been reinstated from the 60-day DL.
Joe promises more tonight.

12:45 pm: Some news from around the league

It sounds like Jason Varitek will pick up his part of the option to stay with the Red Sox, which will be a favor to teams across the American League if he continues to hit like he has the last two seasons. Which he probably will. In related news, Tim Wakefield is never going to stop pitching. NEVER.
If the Twins want to put together a package for Roy Halladay to really make a run with an Ace in hand for 2010, it will have to be a package of "quality over quantity". Sorry, Cmath.
Lunch time trade question: would you trade Jesse Crain and Delmon Young to the Royals for David DeJesus? Is it a realistic scenario?

9:30 am: Catching up on the highlights from yesterday

• Carl Pavano wouldn’t mind sticking with the Twins as long as the money is right. Quotes from his agent, Tom O’Connell, imply that Pavano won’t settle for another contract asking for his client to re-establish himself. If he’d still be willing to take an incentive-laden contract at a reasonable price (say something like one year, $5 million with $500K for reaching 100, 125, 150, 175 and 200 innings) with an option for a second year, I’d do that. He’s a Type-B free agent, but I’m not sure he’d make more than that taking the arbitration route (which the Twins are sure to offer).
• Twins General Manager Bill Smith has mentioned there will be interest in free agent starting pitchers during the off-season. I have to believe that only three spots (Scott Baker, Nick Blackburn, Kevin Slowey) are locked down.
• It sounds like Ron Gardenhire wouldn’t mind bringin back Orlando Cabrera as the team’s second baseman next season, but it seems highly unlikely the front office would follow through on that.
• The Orioles claimed Armando Gabino off waivers.
• Justin Huber cleared waivers, paving the way for his possible return to Rochester (or the Twins) in 2010.
• Juan Morillo has been added to the 40-man roster, bringing the current tally to 33 (not including 60-day DL guys Boof Bonser, Pat Neshek and Kevin Slowey, or impending free agents Ron Mahay, Mike Redmond, Joe Crede, Pavano and Cabrera).
• Tim Dierkes at MLBTradeRumors has posted his yearly series where he guesses where the top 50 free agents will end up. He thinks Adrian Beltre (number nine on his list) will end up in Minnesota.
• Before the Twins snapped up J.J. Hardy, a number of other teams had been in contact with the Brewers, including the Red Sox, Reds and Blue Jays.

0 recs | Comment 86 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: O-Cab

So if Gardy puts O-Cab at 2B, he’d apparently throw LNP at 3B. Ahhh.

by fischean on Nov 10, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yuck

No thanks. If LNP is going to play every day, let’s get a 3B and leave Punto at 2B. The way Punto’s arm looked last year, 3B could be a disaster.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 10, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate Gardy

Quotes like that are the reason why. He’s infatuated with people who won’t help this team much because of reasons that I cannot tell. Punto should be a super sub. He does better when he has to earn his PT and he’s versitile enough to be able to play any position. He will get plenty of PT in that role. Cabrerror should simply go elsewhere. Bring in a Ronnie Belliard or swing a trade for Dan Uggla.

by diehardtwinsfan on Nov 10, 2009 11:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Gardy makes himself a fool on personnel decisions

I wish he would just shut up and deal with the team the FO gives him.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 10, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The FO stays out of managerial decisions. I even remember reading about how they make sure not to step on eachother’s toes. Gardy should move to Tahiti in the offseason.

by lookatthosetwins on Nov 11, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If they have the money to re-sign O-Cab

Than they should have the money to get Felipe Lopez. GO GET HIM!!!!! Damn he would look good hitting in the 2 hole.

CF Span
2B Lopez
C Mauer
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel
SS Hardy
LF Young
3B Punto

Then you have Valencia waiting in the wings should Punto start this year like he did in 08 as well as Harris likely on the bench with Tolbert, a 5th OF (Pridie/Martin), and Morales. I really like that team.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on Nov 10, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yep

There is a good supply of guys you could get for either 2nd or 3rd and still leave a spot open for Punto. Shoehorning Cabrera makes no sense. There’s Lopez, Polanco, Figgins, Beltre, resigning Crede, Hudson, and probably some guys I’m forgetting.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just the thought of punto at 3rd makes me feel sick

i want him on the bench, sign Beltre and Lopez, both capable of hitting .280, 20HRs

our infield would be one the best in the league if we were to sign these guys

Vikings 4 the superbowl

by RaysOfHope on Nov 10, 2009 1:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lopez hasn't hit 2hrs for a long time

he’d still be a very good pickup though.

by lookatthosetwins on Nov 11, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crain + Young for DeJesus

Hell, yes.

DeJesus is signed to a reasonable contract ($4.7M, $6M club option) through 2011, and he’d probably give us much more value than Delmon over that time. Since joining the Twins, Delmon has performed below replacement value, moving 10 runs (1 WAR) in the wrong direction last year. Even a significant improvement from Delmon probably puts him well below DeJesus, who has averaged 3.4 WAR (never lower than 2.7) over the last five years. I’d stick DeJesus in LF, where he’s a career +18.8 UZR/150.

Losing Crain would hurt our bullpen depth, but between Neshek and Bonser I expect/hope one of the two to pan out this year, plus Guerrier, Rauch, Mijares the bullpen doesn’t look like the gaping hole it was last year. Plus Crain is probably going to earn $2M+ with arbitration this year, so he’s not the bargain he once was.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 10, 2009 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think I would do this

though getting older makes me nervous. Still, it’s hard to imagine this wouldn’t be an upgrade to left field over the next 2 seasons.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Revere in 2011!

Vikings 4 the superbowl

by RaysOfHope on Nov 10, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DeJesus getting older, or the team in general?

Stolen bases haven’t really been much of DD’s game, and his defensive metrics have been pretty consistent. It would make me a little nervous, but less than when any fly ball is hit to left field with Delmon out there…

by Adam Peterson on Nov 10, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was just talking about Dejesus

being older than Young. but in general I agree with your take.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes yes yes

This would be a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned. Where did the question come from? Are the Royals looking to trade him? Dayton moore might be the one guy who would give up an above average player for Delmon Young.

by lookatthosetwins on Nov 11, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dream offseason at this point

Going only with speculation from this post, sign Beltre (would $8M over a couple years + option get it done?), trade for DeJesus, and re-sign Pavano ($5M + $2-3M incentives). Back of the envelope, we’d be adding about 10 WAR just with these moves, and overall we’d be adding about $20M to the payroll…

1. Span – CF
2. DeJesus – LF
3. Mauer – C
4. Morneau – 1B
5. Cuddyer – RF
6. Kubel – DH
7. Beltre – 3B
8. Hardy – SS
9. Punto – 2B

Rotation: Baker, Slowey, Pavano, Blackburn, Liriano/Duensing/Perkins/?

Sure, we wouldn’t add an ace to the staff, but 1-4 we’d be very solid, and with a deep lineup we could go places.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 10, 2009 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

competition

The Twins are competing with the Phillies for Beltre.

My dream offseason has Punto on the bench. If they get a 3B and 2B I’d be fine with Punto as a super-utility guy including the 5th outfielder role.

The Twins wouldn’t trade Delmon for a middling veteran like DeJesus. They would only move Delmon for a similar young player at a position of need or a star pitcher.

by DJL44 on Nov 10, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing middling about DeJesus.

He’s patient, a decent hitter, and one of the best left fielders in baseball. A great number two hitter at a reasonable price who could be bought out after this year or picked up for ’11 at a good price.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

There is nothing middling about a 3+ WAR player, great defensive left fielder, at a very good value.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

plus you really have to add to that 3 WAR, since he’d be replacing someone below replacement level.

by lookatthosetwins on Nov 11, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(shaking my head)

Potential!

by Adam Peterson on Nov 12, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Punto on bench = dream offseason

I’ve got to agree with you there. Punto can be a very solid, if overpaid, utility infielder in a backup role. Realistically, going into this offseason with holes at three infield positions, needing another starting pitcher, and needing to resolve the OF/DH logjam, not to mention EXTEND JOE MAUER, realistically we can hope to address two of three infield holes with Punto taking the other.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 8:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

-1

Any scenario with Punto not starting is not a dream. It’s a nightmare. Punto is best served as a super sub and plays best when he earns it. It’s amazing how one good month makes us all forget about how bad Nick Punto was last year… and how bad he was in 2007. Maybe we get “even year” Punto, but I’d rather make him earn it.

Don’t get the Beltre love. He’s going to get a 3 year deal and an expensive one. We have Valencial waiting. I’d rather have 3 months of Crede and his superior defense and average (possibly above) bat for a 1 year incentive laden deal. It makes a lot of sense. Just make sure that Gardy, Crede, and Boras all know that anything more than 2 missed games constitutes a trip to the 15 day… It gives Valencia a low leverage situation to shine, and that may actually keep Crede healthier too.

by diehardtwinsfan on Nov 10, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Beltre gets a large contract

say, 3 years $30M+, then see you later. This would depend on how desperate Philly is to bring him in. Given their need for a right handed power bat to break up their lefties, I think they’ll go after Beltre hard. I’d only go for Beltre if his price drops down to the $6-8M per year range over 2 years + option. That would give us flexibility to fill another hole.

Frankly, I’d be much more willing to offer Figgins a 3-30 contract than Beltre.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 8:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bleacherreport article about Halladay...

Says the Twins have the pieces for a good trade, but those pieces seem like awfully big ones to trade away for one pitcher. They say: Baker, Duensing, Swarzak, and Valencia. For Halladay. :\

Though he is right, the Twins need an ace to be contenders again. The Manship//Swarzak/Gabino/Etc experiment was just painful last year.

by fischean on Nov 10, 2009 3:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Baker is the only sure thing in that group.

I’m not sure either side would pull the trigger on that one.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I’d do it, I think. Though it’s somewhat more complicated since it would probably require an extension to get him to waive his no trade, so now your talking about serious budget questions involving overall team expenditures.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the thing.

The ONLY way that trade is worth it is if Halliday sticks around for a few years. And the only way that happens is to spend $18-$20 million a season on the guy. Considering this team’s situation, even with the expected boost in payrolls, that’s just not worth it to me. Keep Baker and use that money more wisely.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the thing is

I’m not sure there is a wiser way to spend the money than on Roy Halladay. He’s been durable and excellent. There’s no reason he shouldn’t continue to be durable and excellent. What else do you want for your money? Look, I know they won’t, I know they won’t sign another big contract on top of Mauer’s (and Morneau’s). But they ought to think about it.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I get it.

The Twins just can’t afford it, this year or in the next couple of years. Maybe if they trade Joe Nathan, and don’t sign any additional free agents until 2012.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They choose not to afford it

they absolutely could afford it.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You'd have to show me the numbers on that one.

Because I don’t see it, not realistically. Not unless the Pohlads start paying out of their own pockets like the Steinbrenners. I don’t want that, either, although that’s a different point altogether.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really? You don't want the uber-wealthy owners

of the local team for whom the populace just outlayed a lot of money to build a new stadium to pry open the wallet? Really?

Frankly, there’s a lot we don’t know about revenue, so I can’t be sure what their break even point will be, but I can’t say I understand your position.

Look, I think there’s a fundamental lack of acknowledgment of where this team is in the success cycle and how rare their situation is. It is absolutely a stroke of fortune (and good work), that the Twins have Mauer and Morneau (and others) in their prime for the next handful of years. That isn’t going to happen again for a long time. This team never has to be as bad as it was in the 90s, but there are going to be times when they don’t have this kind of talent. You have to strike while the iron is hot. If it means extending the budget for a couple of years, then that’s what it means. Go win.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this position

But I’ve just been beaten down with the notion that you stay within 52% of revenue for baseball operations that I’m not optimistic they’ll go beyond that. If they did for a couple of years, it would be great. But I’m not holding my breath.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 10, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like Minnesota Gov. Tim P.

Minnesota Govenor Tim P said something like, you egt a $50 gift card…you don’t spend $51. Hey, I’m sure the business that honors the gift card hopes you spend $51.

Yes, the Twins are a business. If they take in $150 million, they don’t WANT to spend more than $150 million (although there are ways they can — cross advertising, taking losses against other divisions, et al).

Now, the notion of 52%. I still thumb my nose everytime I hear that.

Let’s say I make $60,000 a year. Nice comfortable salary and such. My mortgage, insurance, phones, gardener, daycare, food, car and everything else youc an possibly think of that runs my little enterprise — except for my luxury needs and desires — is $32,000. I could make $32,000 and still survive…no HBO, maybe, no dining out every night, smaller car. But I could survive. Si, I basically am wasting $28,000 on the good life on top of what is basically a survivable good life.

Next year, I take home $80,000, or do really good and take home, say, $100,000. But the truth of the matter is that my "expenses still stay around that $32,000 mark. I may choose to get a bigger house, a yacht, a larger car, a mistress….but to survive, I still only need to pay out $32,000. Any of these extras I mention just make life a little bit better.

The Twins cost x-million to operate. The same amount a few years back as they will a few years in the future, give or take some modest cost-of-living increases. If they actually did take in less revenue and (like if I made only, say, $30,000)…something would have to cut. But it ain’t happening. They add revenue, which can be used for new and glorious expenditures that can absically be thrown to the wind…like bonus money, player salary, things to imporve the product on the field. If the Twins make $30-40-50 million more in 2010, they don’t have to put it into day-to-day…they can put it into product, period.

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

by rosterman on Nov 10, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

-1

the 52% rule applies to player salaries only… I guarantee you they are spending more than that when you consider other operating expenses.

by diehardtwinsfan on Nov 10, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that was the point

It’s true that the Twins are certainly spending more than 52% of revenues on their overall expenses (although that would be a hell of a profit margin). The point, though, is that revenues going up doesn’t necessarily mean that expenditures will go up, and even if they did, there’s no reason to think that they would go up linearly with revenues.

Example (numbers are completely made-up and assume that the team takes in a total of a hundred bucks):

$100 in revenue
$52 in player salary
$20 on minor leagues
$15 on drafting and scouting
$3 on administrative costs

That’s $90 in costs, for a $10 profit (10% profit margin). If revenue goes up to $200, they would budget $104 in player salaries, per the 52% formula, but they’d still only have $38 in other expenses, giving them a $58 profit (29% profit margin). The assumption by rosterman was that, since the team has such a larger profit margin, they could conceivably increase the percentage of revenues spent on salaries.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.......

I’m sure the front office would like that extra 19% fer sure to raise their salaries and buy better dirt for the minor league fields, but it probably won’t happen. And 10% overall profit is soemthing ncie to put in the old back pocket (or use for debt reduction).

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

by rosterman on Nov 11, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's all fine.

I get what you’re saying. Maybe there’s a way for the Twins to spend more on payroll than they have. But I can’t prove it. And we both know how this franchise has operated. If they continue to operate by the same guidelines, then all I’m saying is that picking up Roy Halladay wouldn’t be the best maneuver. Hopefully that makes a little more sense of my position for you.

by Jesse on Nov 10, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do the Steinbrenners actually spend out of their own pockets?

Serious question here. I have my doubts – the Yankees take in bales of cash every year, and I’m pretty sure they’re still profitable even with the ridiculous amount they spend on salaries. If the Pohlads and Steinbrenners suddenly switched franchises, I don’t know that there would be a huge change in the way the Twins do business (other than more visible ownership, I guess).

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 10, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankees are an ATM

The Steinbrenners spend huge, because the rewards are huge. In 2007 the Yankees made 4.5M extra per win. The Twins made 1.5M extra per win, last in the league. Every team will stop spending when it becomes unprofitable to do so. Hopefully, with a more favorable lease the Twins will be able to increase revenue/win and thus increase payroll.

by Jon Kammerer on Nov 10, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankees local revenues...

I read a year or two ago that their LOCAL broadcast revenue was in excess of $200 million (not sure that was accurate, but the number for the Red Sox was in the $150 mil range) . That alone should/would cover their payroll.

In relation, what is the Twins LOCAL broadcast revenue? Probably several or many million less.

Regards,

I don't suffer from insanity...I relish every moment of it!

by the Dragon on Nov 10, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last I checked

It was in the neighborhood of $15 million. That was before the move from WCCO. But even if their radio revenue went up by $5 million, it’s still an order of magnitude lower than the Yankees. This is the main difference between the MLB and other sports. All TV for the other sports is national. Most TV for baseball is local.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 10, 2009 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by Jon Kammerer on Nov 10, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the point...

I have not ever seen Yankee’s profit or loss numbers, BUT, I suspect that EVEN with their payroll, the Steinbrenners make several/many multiples of the Pohlad’s baseball business.

It’s been a very long time since George S. went into his own pocket to supplement the team.

Regards,

I don't suffer from insanity...I relish every moment of it!

by the Dragon on Nov 10, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, C Math...

Presuming $15 mil for the Twins local revenue, IF the Twins had half of the Red Sox number ($75 mil) AND using the 52% payroll allocation, that alone would be @ $31.2 million additional payroll to work with.

I have arguments with a friend/client who is a lifelong yankee fan from NY. I submit, IF MLB had a $120 mill salary cap and a $95 mil salary floor. The Yankees, Angels and maybe the Red Sox would find it very difficult to compete.

Regards,

I don't suffer from insanity...I relish every moment of it!

by the Dragon on Nov 10, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2008 revenue

Yankees 375M. 209M on payroll. Either they have some well paid scouts or Steinbrenner is making lots of money despite/because of his huge payroll. This probably understates the current situation as it doesn’t factor in the value of the YES network or new stadium.

by Jon Kammerer on Nov 10, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

They’d find it hard to compete now, since they’re already over the salary cap and would have to jettison players. I’d guess that those teams would eventually do okay, as long as they were run by smart folks. They certainly wouldn’t have the advantages they have now, though, so they’d have to compete in the same mode that the Twins do, with smart baseball decisions.

They would also make ungodly sums of money – that’s $100M that the Yankees would no longer be spending on payroll.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 11, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Luxury tax

Perhaps it can be like the NBA. There’s a substantial penalty for being over the salary cap. Right now, MLB has a luxury tax, but it’s kind of a joke. It needs to be a serious deterrent to outspending most teams by half.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 11, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How about just increasing revenue sharing?

The other teams should be entitled to 1/2 the local broadcast $$ and 1/2 the stadium revenue. Without anyone to play the Yankees don’t make any money. That also incentivizes MLB to maximize revenue league wide. The Yankees would still have an extra $100M to spend, but not an extra $200M.

by DJL44 on Nov 11, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What about using that money on two risks

If they were willing to spend that kind of money what would you rather have. The prospects + two of Harden/Bedard/Sheets/Duchsherer or Roy Halladay.

I would go with keep our prospects and take two risks. If the Twins sign two of those guys for 2 years and they get a combined 100 starts out of them that could be a scary pitching rotation. Sorry I keep throwing in the ridiculous scenarios but if the Twins coul get Harden and Bedard two guys that are absolutely dominant when healthy to mix in with Baker, Slowey, and Blackburn that would have to be the best rotation in baseball.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on Nov 10, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not me

I’ll take Halladay everyday and twice on Sunday.

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think they would extend it for someone like Halladay

It would have to be for the right guy, though—someone who could turn the team from a division contender to a series contender. They’re not going over budget for, say, Pedro Feliz.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 10, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't we just do this?

If they weren’t going to give the mega-contract to Santana, why would they give it to Halladay?

by DJL44 on Nov 10, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They wouldn't

by Eric in Madison on Nov 10, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Multi-year

Santana wanted six or seven years and $140 mil. Halliday’s existing contract is for one year and $15.75 million. There’s a big difference there.

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

by cmathewson on Nov 10, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No difference

That was the deal when the Twins had Santana – he wouldn’t sign to a contract the Twins were willing to give so they dealt his final year for prospects rather than take the draft picks and 1 final season. What’s different if they acquire Halladay?

by DJL44 on Nov 10, 2009 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One difference

The 2010 Twins are built to be contenders. The 2008 Twins ended up being contenders, but I think the front office approached it as a rebuilding year to reload for ‘09-’10, so they were willing to punt the last year of Santana in exchange for guys who would be ready sooner than draft picks.

Had Bill Smith known that Denard Span was awesome, Alexi Casilla could be good for a half-season, and the Twins would spend the whole year out of their minds with runners in scoring position, I’m not so sure the Santana trade happens.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 11, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2008

Santana…he wanted mroe than the Twins wanted to play, and the concept of letting him go for draft picks, which is expensive in itself, rather than some players who have already been run thru a system………

Plus the Twins had no Torii Hunter. They needed to replace that bat. And needed another outfielder (Span wasn’t in the book, really) and weren’t sure if Kubel would shine at DH. They thought Casilla was the guy, Everett would be okay, Punto would play somewhere.

Garza was sent packing for a Hunter replacement. Santana wanted more than the Twins would offer. Had the Twins kept Johann and traded him mid-season or let him walk, in hindsight, the Twins would’ve done better.

The sticking point over Santana was the salary anotehr club would have to pay PLUS the players they would lose from their system. In some ways, Toronto marketing Halliday is the same…..will someone banrupt themselves of prospects or give better than ok-a quantity for the privilege of adding $20 million a eyar to the payroll.

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

by rosterman on Nov 11, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

why we would give up Baker and Valencia for one year of Halladay, not to mention both Duensing and Swarzak (one of whom is likely needed to be our 5th starter this year)

by montanatwinsfan on Nov 10, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

trading baker

for Halliday would be dumber than dumb. I’m sorry. Exactly how much of an upgrade will Halliday bring in one year over 3 with Baker? And we would still have two holes in the rotation afterwards. I’d be OK with the other 3, but I’m guessing the Jays won’t.

by diehardtwinsfan on Nov 10, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Halladay...probably not, if Baker is involved

The only way I’d consider the trade at all is if we sign Halladay to an extension, something around 5 years $100M. That takes care of the “ace” situation with the staff. What could we reasonably expect in total value from Halladay over that time? He’s been mister consistent, averaging a whopping 6.5 WAR over the last four seasons. I’d expect some decline over the length of the contract, perhaps an average of 4.5 WAR over the six seasons, or 27 WAR total. Just about in line with the 5-100 contract extension.

Over the same time, what would we expect to get from Baker? He has also been mister consistent, averaging 3.3 WAR over the past three years. Considering his FIP has remained relatively consistent over this time, and his innings have steadily increased to a career high 200 last year, it’s reasonable to expect that Baker could improve his average WAR over that time, say 3.5 WAR per season, or 21 WAR total. And what would we be paying to get this value? Baker is locked in for the next 4 years at a total salary of $23.75M. If Baker is able to provide nearly 4 WAR per year at this point, I could expect two more years to cost around $35M.

So in this scenario, the total cost for Baker is $58.75M, compared to Halladay’s $115.75M, a cost difference of $57M over the six years to get an extra 6 WAR of value. Not the best investment, IMO. Not to mention the impact that spending $20M per year on both Halladay and Mauer (assume an extension) would have on our ability to foll holes elsewhere.

I’d be more willing to consider the trade if we could get Toronto to take someone (Liriano?) other than Baker-Slowey-Blackburn, as this would be an enormous improvement to the team replacing, say Duensing with Halladay in the rotation. Quite possibly a 4-5 WAR improvement right away.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mauer wins Gold Glove

GGs are decent selections this year, with the exception of Jeter at SS.

by DJL44 on Nov 10, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and

Tex, and the 3 outfielders.

http://twinkietalk.com
http://thecollegehockeyblog.com

by fetch9 on Nov 10, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least Teixeira is in the top 5

I don’t mind when a gold glove goes to the wrong guy as long as he’s a good fielder. Tex is above most 1B. There are guys that get snubbed every year. As long as they don’t give it to terrible choices (Jeter, Palmiero) I don’t get too worked up about it.

by DJL44 on Nov 10, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed,

one year UZRs shouldn’t be the end all for GG. They have too much variance. Teixeira’s been a good fielder throughout his career, and I saw nothing that made me think differently this year. The same applies, only the opposite way, for Jeter. He’s been below average every year, and one year above average doesn’t make me think he’s a gold glover.

Adam Jones and Torii Hunter over Franklin Gutierez though? That’s just a crime.

by lookatthosetwins on Nov 11, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jeter's UZR

I agree that one shouldn’t look solely at single year UZR, but the Gold Glove is a single year statistic. Unless there’s a better metric.

Regarding Jeter: After three terrible defensive seasons (-14.3, -6.8, -15.3 according to UZR) in 2005-2007, he has turned it around the last two seasons. -0.5 in 2008 and +6.6 last year. Yes, there are better defensive shortstops in the AL (Izturis, Andrus), but Jeter’s much improved over a few years ago.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 12, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Diminished by Jeter

Gutierrez should have won a GG, not Jones or Hunter. Torii only played 115 games in center, Jones only 118. The numbers show that Torii is slipping in the field, quite noticeably. He is now an average CF. Ichiro is still very good in right.

My sense is that Polanco is range challenged, but his numbers were very good. I am surprised about Longoria, as well. But he is kind of a golden child, everyone thinks he’s already on the way to the Hall of Fame (sort of like Mauer, but Joe has put in 6 yrs. now).

by Alexi Casilla All-Star on Nov 11, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DeJesus

No body messes with De Jesus.

Was this just pulled out of thin air? I just haven’t seen the story anywhere or a link to it. I don’t see it happening because I don’t know if the Royals would want to pay Crain that much and because DeJesus’s contract is reasonable I don’t know why the Royals would want to get rid of him unless they think Delmon is going to turn it around.

I could see them going for maybe Delmon and a young starter however.

Here’s one Mauer for Greinke straight up? It gives the Twins an Ace plus suddenly frees up a bunch of money to spend for the next couple of years. However, there isn’t crap availalbe in free agency. Maybe you could trade for a guy to sit in for a year and hope Ramos is ready by 2011 or even part way through 2010. A Ramos/Morales plate combo along with an Ace like Greinke would look pretty nice for 2011-2012, huh? Yes, I do realize this is crazy talk but would you consider pulling the trigger if you were the Twins, Mauer for Greinke?

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on Nov 10, 2009 3:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

but would you consider pulling the trigger if you were the Twins, Mauer for Greinke?

No. Mauer’s benefits aren’t just behind the plate.

by fischean on Nov 10, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doub......

that the Royals would want to be saddled with a contract like Mauer’s.

He is NOT Mr. Royal. Never was, never will be.

Yes, Mauer (or anyone) can pretty much get BIG money from the Big 3-5 teams. But if Mauer left Minnesota for, say, Boston or the Yankees…would he be the franchise player on those teams?

He’s Mr. Minnesota, now and forever. He’s bigger than Killebrew. Bigger than Puckett. But only in Minnesota.

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

by rosterman on Nov 10, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right about the Royals

However he’d be the best player on their team in quite a long time. If he went to one of the big clubs then yes he would likely be their franchise player and the only reason he wouldn’t is because of their own hometown loyalties to players like Jeter.

Mauer isn’t just good for a Minnesota player he’s so far had one of, if not the best career ever by a Catcher (to this point in his career). He’s about to win his 3rd batting title and it had never been done before by an AL batter and now he added power along with the ridiculous batting average.

Yes there’s no way the Royals find any way to pay Mauer which is likely what makes this deal even more unrealistic.

However, forget who Greinke plays for, for a moment. If the Twins could straight up trade Mauer for Greinke both under their current contracts would it be worth it? You’re getting arguably the best pitcher in baseball at an affordable cost for 3 years but giving up a player who is about to be paid 20 million a year for the next 5-7 years. On top of Greinke you’re getting some salary relief to improve the team in other ways as well. Greinke is probably one of the only players that would make me feel ok losing Mauer but I still don’t know if I could do it.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on Nov 10, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

umm

so we get possibly the best pitcher in baseball, but in the process lose the best player in baseball (and possibly history)? That is a wacky idea and I seriously hope you are joking!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Nov 10, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

in history?

how high are you right now?

http://twinkietalk.com
http://thecollegehockeyblog.com

by fetch9 on Nov 10, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

They are fairly similar in VORP (WARP, etc.) – in theory, at least, they have similar value on the field.

However, the Twins are a business, and they should consider off-the-field value as well – Mauer is much more marketable, especially in Minnesota, and on top of that, he’s an everyday player, so the attendance bump from people who come specifically to see him play happens every day, not once every five days like a starting pitcher.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 10, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, they are similar in WAR/VORP, etc.

But who would we replace Mauer with at the catcher position?

We have above replacement options at the back end of our rotation, but less so behind the plate.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 8:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Morales, with Ramos in another year or two

Morales is a horrible downgrade defensively and a moderately-horrible downgrade offensively, but he should be easily above replacement level. Big hole at backup catcher, though, depending on whether you rush Ramos to take that spot.

Anyway, I’m just trying to point out that it’s not completely insane. I’m not going to claim it’s a good idea.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Nov 11, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not completely insane

Is true, but I’d contend that Morales is probably closer to replacement than anyone we’d be looking at for our #5 spot in the rotation. If he plays a full year next year, I don’t think he bats over .300.

by Adam Peterson on Nov 11, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs