Meet: Lester Oliveros
I haven't done the research on this, so let me ask you: how often does the Player To Be Named Later turn out to be more interesting than what you might call the primary return? It's probably not too much of a stretch to answer: not very often. But I mentioned on Sunday that I thought Lester Oliveros has potential to be a bigger contributor to the Twins than Cole Nelson.
Oliveros, who was signed by the Tigers as an undrafted free agent in 2005 at age 17, is a hard-throwing, three-pitch right hander from Maracay, Venezuela. He's about to appear in his second stint in the Majors, following nine appearances with Detroit in July.
Debuting with the shared foreign rookie team for the Tigers and Marlins in the Venezuelan Summer League in 2006 (posting the fourth-best opponent average in the league that season at .188), he appeared in 20 contests and started in two (the only two starts on his minor league career), setting a tone that would be reflected in the coming years. He retired 46 batters on strikes in just 39.2 innings, but he also walked 20. Those walks were off-set by low hit rates, but it's all a common thread.
More on the history of Oliveros, and a scouting report, after the jump.
In 2007 he was once again fourth the league in batting average against (.181) but led the league in strikeouts per nine innings (13.9). After throwing four innings in the winter league that season he was promoted to low-A Oneota to kick off 2008 before earning a promotion to high-A Lakeland late in the year. He'd stay there for a vast majority of 2009 before making the jump all the way to triple-A for a single game at season's end. His level-skipping cup of coffee was due in no small part to the great year he'd put together for Lakeland including exceptionally strong months of May, June and August. In his two innings with triple-A he struck out three, walked one and didn't allow a run. At 21, Oliveros had clearly caught the eye of the Tiger(s).
Going into the 2010 season, Detroit sent the 21-year old Oliveros to the Venezuelan Winter League. No doubt Detroit was eyeing him up to see where he was at for the coming year, but unfortunately he didn't have a good time. The strikeouts were still there (19 in 20.1 innings), but in 16 appearances he allowed 13 runs and finished the winter with a 5.75 ERA.
Possibly as a result of that disappointing performance, Oliveros began '10 back in high-A Lakeland once again. He went right back to killing opposing hitters, posting 24 strikeouts in 19 innings and walking six. 20 appearances and a 1.84 ERA was good enough to get him a promotion to double-A Erie for the first time at age 22. In 25.1 innings the hits weren't a problem, and he still struck out more than a batter per inning, but walks were once again out of control.
It was the first month in Erie that wrecked the overall line. His promotion came in late June, but one month later a switch must have flipped. From July 24 to August 22 he struck out 25 batters in 14 innings, allowing just two runs. The 4.97 ERA is indicative of the whole stint at double-A in 2010, but for that month Oliveros was unhittable. And this time it wasn't just the Tigers who noticed, as Baseball America ranked him Detroit's 17th best prospect going into 2011.
So, this past winter he was once again showcased in the Venezuelan Winter League. This time, he impressed. He struck out 20 in 25.2 innings, which was a bit low for him, but his 3.86 ERA was far more digestible. Detroit sent him to double-A to start 2011, where he was too good to not promote. Opponents were hitting .193 off him through 17 innings, he'd struck out 28 and walked just four, and his ERA was a pristine 0.53.
He'd struggle in what was his first stint to triple-A, overall striking out 26 in 28 innings for Toledo but allowing 37 hits (seven homers) and 17 walks. When the Tigers needed a reliever in July they still called on Oliveros, whose last two Major League appearances came against the Twins. They sent him back to Toledo, where he was when the Twins plucked him as the PTBNL in the Delmon Young salary dump.
No doubt you're seeing a pattern here: pitcher struggles in first stint after promotion, then adjusts and pitches better. But there's an over-arching profile here, too.
Level |
ERA |
Games |
Innings |
WHIP |
H/9 |
HR/9 |
BB/9 |
K/9 |
K:BB |
| F-Rook (VSL) | 2.08 | 47 | 78.0 | 1.12 | 6.2 | 0.2 | 3.8 | 12.1 | 3.2 |
| Low A | 1.74 | 15 | 20.2 | 1.02 | 6.5 | 0.4 | 2.6 | 14.8 | 5.7 |
| High A | 3.66 | 59 | 83.2 | 1.30 | 8.4 | 0.5 | 3.3 | 9.1 | 2.7 |
| Double A | 3.19 | 34 | 42.1 | 1.32 | 6.6 | 0.6 | 5.3 | 13.6 | 2.6 |
| Triple A | 5.73 | 25 | 33.0 | 1.79 | 11.2 | 2.2 | 4.9 | 9.0 | 1.8 |
Season-to-season there are ups and downs, but the profile remains. Oliveros misses a lot of bats. He also misses the strike zone.
In his eight innings with the Tigers in July, Oliveros carried that profile over to the Major Leagues. Against the most difficult opposition his weaknesses were magnified and he walked and struck out four in eight innings, also surrendering eight hits en route to five runs. None of them were off the long ball.
If the 142 pitches that he threw in those eight innings (nine appearances) are any indication, we can tell a little bit about the 23-year old flame thrower. Against left-handed hitters he's almost exclusively fastball-changeup and tends to stay away quite a bit. If he can adjust his command and get to me a little more accurate, with that fastball he'd be able to come inside more often. Right now it's a dangerous place, because if he doesn't get inside enough he'll just be serving up a 95 mph fastball on a silver platter. Against righties he abandons the changeup completely and replaces it with his slider, which is a good pitch. He tries to catch the strikezone low-and-away with that pitch, and helps set it up with high fastballs. More than 20% of his pitches to right-handed hitters are either directly over the strike zone (high), or up and in.
Ron Gardenhire just mentioned that the Twins were likely to non-tender Delmon at season's end, so if the Twins can get anything for him then it has to be seen as a marginal victory. Does it erase the Delmon-for-Matt Garza trade, which can now be accurately and fully dubbed as a fiasco by Bill Smith? Absolutely not. But anytime you can retrieve value for a negative asset above and beyond simply dropping that negative asset, then you have to be happy. Hopefully, Oliveros can be that guy.
As for Cole Nelson, I'm happy to wait and see.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Getting anything out of Delmon now that we're essentially out of contention is great
Considering that he wasn’t doing well, and he was a sub-par fielder after putting back on all of that weight, I’m fine with more much-needed pitching.
I'm still a Minnesotan at heart...
Maybe the Twins can teach him a better changeup
If he has a decent changeup he can spot against RH batters that would make his fastball even more effective.
so according to baseball - reference (because i am unable to do the math even with the numbers right up there in front of me)
It looks like he posted career minor league totals of :
In 257.2 innings he had a 3.21 era, about 11 SO/9 and about 4 walks/9 with a career WHIP of 1.288 and only gave up the long ball 0.7/9 innings. (link here)
Looks pretty promising.
Oh and just to be on the positive side … those numbers are significantly better than Joe Nathan’s minor league numbers (link here)
Just saying…
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 23, 2011 3:25 PM EDT reply actions
Try him as a starter.
I’m really reaching here I know, but start him a couple games in September and see if he’s got anything there. Something good needs to happen this year, right? Maybe he can be an Alexi Ogando type.
True.
That guy turned out to be an absolute stud center for the Washington Capitols.
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 23, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that's too much.
If the Twins want to do that, they’d have to stretch him out. The guy hasn’t started in five years, so he wouldn’t be available to start until the end of September anyway. If the Twins want to do this, and I don’t think it’s a good idea in this case, they’d need to try it over the winter.
He doesn't have the pitches
A pitcher who has 2 pitches against RHP and 2 pitches against LHP doesn’t have enough pitches to get through the lineup more than once.
Jesse I agree until the end.
But don’t call this a ‘marginal victory.’ It’s a disaster anyway its sliced. It might not be an unmitigated disaster if Oliveros pans out (and I’d call Nelson a waste of time, TBH). But it’s still a disaster that displays the inability of this FO to gauge proper value for its players and make truly profitable trades.
Everyday players for relievers is always a bad deal. Always. And I agree, this guy’s arm and profile is bullpen all the way. Possibly a high-leverage arm eventually. But still not a replacement for an everyday starter. The ‘non-tender’ line is just admitting that they screwed up to make the trade to get him. The logjam at DH-ready ‘run-producer’ should’ve been cleared in the offseason. Not when the choice was between ‘diddly’ and ‘squat.’
It depends on how you want to look at it.
If you look at it as just getting rid of Delmon, and evaluate this as a stand-alone transaction, it’s a fine move. You’re not going to get much for a salary dump in August.
But I agree with you, and I said this in the post, that if you want to go back and evaluate it from the Young-Garza trade it’s still terrible. It doesn’t stop that trade from being a disaster.
Exactly
You don’t evaluate this trade with respect to anything but this trade. Delmon Young is not worth $7M for next season so they had to cut him loose. They got a cheap, young relief pitcher, a live lefthanded arm and $1M in return for a player who won’t be back. They made the right move. It was either that or keep him the rest of the season and get nothing. I see it as the equivalent of getting a 5th and 10th round draft pick in return.
I wish they had been able to deal him before the trade deadline when there were more buyers. Of course, I wish they had sold more of the team off by the end of July.
OBJECTION!
I feel like Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny [stands up to impose all 5’2" of his height]
If you want to go back and evaluate it from the Young-Garza trade it’s still terrible.It doesn’t stop that trade from being a disaster.
Not rational to use the Young Garza Bartlett Harris trade to evaluate this trade. For a comprehensive evaluation of this trade we need to look at the players and salaries and decisions in the here and now … and we need to wait a few years to see if Young develops into the next Ortiz or whether Nelson Oliveros develop into the next (insert your favorite baseball villian or hero here).
Please stop extending such generosity to the angry narrow minded crowd out there that wants to make the worst of everything to fill their need to vindicate their angry irrational hatred of Bill Smith and Ron Gardenhire.
(p.s. agree that the Young Garza Bartlett Harris trade was a bad one)
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 23, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don't think we should continue to view Delmon in the light of the Garza/Bartlett Deal
That was 4 years ago and at some point the time to judge that deal has to expire. If the Twins trade Alexi Casilla for a blue chip prospect who turns out to be a stud we can’t go back and say, “well it looks like we finally got the best of the JC Romero trade.” Likewise if we trade Frankie for some junk in the offseason Brian Sabean can’t claim victory for the AJ deal.
Delmon for Garza and Bartlett, not a good trade.
Delmon for Oliveros and Nelson not half bad.
If we continue to view Delmon in relation to Garza/Bartlett couldn’t we than use the logic that we got Oliveros and Nelson for Buck Buchannon?
exactly.
Y/G/B trade should be evaluated using 2 factors:
1. what were all of those players worth/salaries/other factors/needs at that time; and
2. What have Y/G/B done over the past few years since the trade for the respective teams they were traded to.
at some point trying to extend this argument for “future trades” is irrational.
Spock has spoken.
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 23, 2011 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Garza/Bartlett deal?
Aw Hell, I’m still looking at the Nelson/Oliveros deal as an extension of the Knoblauch trade…
Fully agreed
There are two different things that people are evaluating:
1) The trade of Delmon Young to Detroit for a couple minor league relievers
2) The entire Delmon Young experience
1 was a decent trade given the circumstances – they made the decision to cut bait on him, and rather than run him into the outfield for another month and let him leave, they turned him into a couple decent relief prospects. About the only negative was that it was to a division rival (in the event that he does break out).
2 ended up being pretty much an unmitigated disaster for the Twins, who gave up two valuable players while committing nearly four years of everyday playing time to Delmon Young, who was barely better than replacement level at a position where moderately-priced free agent talent is available virtually every offseason. The major league players the Twins acquired in the deal were both traded, and both for a pittance (Brendan Harris most likely hurt the Twins’ return in the Hardy trade, being included as a salary dump).
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
You're looking at this completely out of context
It’s a disaster anyway its sliced. It might not be an unmitigated disaster if Oliveros pans out (and I’d call Nelson a waste of time, TBH). But it’s still a disaster that displays the inability of this FO to gauge proper value for its players and make truly profitable trades.
Everyday players for relievers is always a bad deal. Always.
Gardy said in an interview that Delmon was going to be non-tendered. If they did that (which, given his production, was a defensible decision), they’d get nothing for him. Rather than let him walk for nothing, they traded him for something of little value. Unless you think the Twins had better options (which is almost certainly not true, since I believe Detroit made a waiver claim on Delmon), this trade, in itself, basically amounted to getting something for Delmon instead of waiting a month and getting nothing for him.
The ‘non-tender’ line is just admitting that they screwed up to make the trade to get him.
I don’t get it… would you rather they just kept forcing him into the lineup every day, despite a continued failure to produce? I’m impressed that they actually admitted their failure and cut bait, rather than keep desperately hoping that Delmon would put things together.
The logjam at DH-ready ‘run-producer’ should’ve been cleared in the offseason. Not when the choice was between ‘diddly’ and ‘squat.’
I don’t get which offseason you’re referring to. If you’re talking about last offseason, the team had four guys for three spots (RF, LF, DH), one of whom would need lots of rest and one of whom had some positional flexibility to allow the other guys to get into the lineup. The situation worked pretty well last year and made some level of sense to give another year, especially since they didn’t know Delmon would basically be useless this year.
If you’re talking about next offseason… that’s not useful at all. They couldn’t trade Delmon without tendering him a contract (like they did with Hardy), and guaranteeing him $7M basically destroys his trade value (unlike Hardy, Delmon wasn’t worth what he’d make in arbitration). Trading him now was basically the only way to get anything for him.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
The situation made NO sense
to be continued, when you consider they resigned Thome, and could have brought up Revere to play LF right away.
It makes even less than no sense when you factor in the stupidity of salary dumping Hardy to KEEP this boneheaded situation.
And IF he was going to be kept, I would rather he had been used in a way profitable to the club, rather than in LF, where his range was always suspect. Give me 1 reason why he couldn’t have platooned in RF, for instance? Was there any realistic reason he shouldn’t have been tried there? Besides Gardy’s patent inflexibility?
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 23, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
oh how easily you show your true colors...
Besides Gardy’s patent inflexibility?
attempts at rational and reasonable arguments that suddenly and inexplicably boil down to irrational ad hominem conclusions.
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 23, 2011 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I'm honest that Gardy is inflexible in his approach.
How many Quality Middle Infielders has he run off because they don’t play “The Gardy Way”?
How many times do we have to listen to people say “it’s just bad luck” when the next guy sucks.
I’m sick of your personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you about whether or not Gardy has run the club into the ground by trying to influence the FO. If you have something tangible to contribute, say it. Otherwise, it’s just pot calling kettle when you talk about ad hominem attacks. You have no EVIDENCE but your faith in Gardy. Faith that looks pretty darn irrational when he ran off a Shortstop who hit more Homers than ANY Twin this season, and insisted on the Alexi Casilla experiment with NO backup plan in the middle infield.
Is that ‘rational’ team-building? Really? Sorry. That’ not bad luck. That’s bad planning. And the guys who sold the lemon deserve to be held accountable for their rubbish. Deal with it.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 23, 2011 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, you're a train wreck
If you have something tangible to contribute, say it.
All you have to do is look at the first three things I posted on this thread alone to see positive contributions to the discussion.
This thread alone.
Clean yourself up buddy. Buy yourself a clue.
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 24, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
ahh, another personal attack.
I expect nothing less.
“Dude” you cannot carry on an honest discussion with anyone with an opposing point of view. And this is not a new thing. It is invariably kill the messenger with you.
Be an adult.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 24, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
=)
ok. I will.
I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 24, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Revere wasn't ready right away
Truly, he still isn’t ready.
The topic here is the Delmon Young trade, not the botched offeseason decisions of 2010-2011.
Nothing you disagreed with in December (now in hindsight) has any bearing on whether or not this was a good decision in August. You’re just complaining for the sake of complaining here.
You can’t defend your dislike for a good decision by stating that you also disliked other decisions that many people dislike. That’s not how debate works.
FIRE DAN EDWARDS!!!
by Flip27 on Aug 23, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It is entirely fair to ask if the FO has a clue about team-building
or making rational trades, when EVERY trade the team makes, the Twins come out on the bottom end. When the best thing that can be said about this trade is we ‘might’ have a September call-up reliever in exchange for an everyday player, that’s a pretty sorry return.
And saying “Well we would’ve got nothing at the end of the season” is pathetic mewling. There isn’t a guy in the Twins lineup that hasn’t underperformed this season. How many non-tenders will we turn loose? At some point, the question has to be asked, “Is the guy in charge getting the most out of this lineup?” If you could point to someone…anyone, who outperformed expectations, you MIGHT have a case that this was just a dopey player.
But when a roster is built without concern for a defensive spine, or pitchers that can miss bats, or any kind of legitimate power, there will come a reckoning. You cannot expect every decision to pan out 100%. That’s not rational, that’s wish-fulfillment.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 23, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Good God, man.
You remind me of Red Sox fans.
by spanspanspan on Aug 23, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So you're position is that the Twins should have gotten a star player for Delmon?
When the best thing that can be said about this trade is we ‘might’ have a September call-up reliever in exchange for an everyday player, that’s a pretty sorry return.
I like you’re sense of optimism, but I think that your expectations may be a little on the moronic side. When you trade away a negative asset (read: liability), getting anything in return is a win.
And saying "Well we would’ve got nothing at the end of the season" is pathetic mewling.
How is getting something rather than getting nothing + paying an extra $1 million to Delmon a “pathetic mewling”? That sounds like good business to me. -But maybe I’m just too bogged down with wanting the best option at the time.
I guess I should just be angry at ary good move because the same people who made this good move made bad ones in the past, right? I assume that’s your logic here: Bill Smith has made some bad decisions as the GM, ergo every decision he makes is terrible. Who cares if it’s the best option available?
At some point, the question has to be asked, "Is the guy in charge getting the most out of this lineup?" If you could point to someone…anyone, who outperformed expectations, you MIGHT have a case that this was just a dopey player.
But when a roster is built without concern for a defensive spine, or pitchers that can miss bats, or any kind of legitimate power, there will come a reckoning.
Yes, let’s all grab our torches and pitchforks and storm Target Field demanding Bill Smith’s and Gary’s heads. They shall become sacrifices to the baseball god of failed expectations! ¡Viva la Revolución!
This kind of angry, entitled fandom makes me sick. -It actually makes me enjoy being a baseball fan less. If you have nothing of substance to contribute, please go back to the Strib comments or call in to KFAN or something. Ugh.
FIRE DAN EDWARDS!!!
by Flip27 on Aug 24, 2011 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not 'entitled'
I’ve said specifically in other posts that I can understand that the Twins, as a mid-market team, are not going to compete every year.
But this season’s collapse was preventable. And acting like it wasn’t, that it was just ‘bad luck’ is nonsense.
Luck is the residue of design. And the design was flawed.
And I love it how anyone who dares suggest that Bill Smith screwed up the team (and yes, Gardy for his insistence on middle infielders who suck helped ruin the team), gets labelled ‘moronic’ or a ‘strib’ commenter. (which is something I’ve never been). But anyone who wants to hide in the sand and act like next year everything will be better without making changes is free to make PERSONAL attacks.
Disagree with me all you want. But don’t play flame-bait and then claim other people don’t belong here or attack their intellect. Point a finger and see where the rest of the hand is aimed.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 24, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I label people who just whine without contributing anything as "moronic."
This whole argument between you and everyone else here started because you called the Delmon Young trade a disaster. It has been pointed out by myself and several others that in this case the Twins got the best possible outcome from making the deal.
You then began ranting about how much Bill Smith and Ron Gardenhire have screwed everything up and that no one on the team has lived up to expectations. #1, that’s just not true. Players like Cuddyer and Baker have had very good seasons, and I wouldn’t call them “dopey.” #2, trying to deflect the argument onto a different topic just means that you lost the debate.
Carrying on a “debate” just because you’re angry and want to blame someone is not contributing to a discussion. It’s just angry ranting for angry ranting’s sake. -And yes, that is moronic.
FIRE DAN EDWARDS!!!
You're trying to argue two separate things as though they were the same thing
1) The front office did a poor job assembling the 2011 Twins.
- I’m not going to argue with you here. They royally screwed up the middle infield (the Hardy trade was awful, even at the time, although no one thought Nishi would struggle as he has), had no backup plan for their most important player, and overvalued saves at the expense of otherwise quality relief pitchers. Some of this year wasn’t their fault (the flurry of injuries, the relievers being even worse than expected), but a lot of it was. I am not arguing this, and few others are, either.
2) The Delmon Young trade was, in itself, an okay move for the Twins
- Evaluating it as a move in itself, it was a fine trade, like getting someone to give you $1 for a CD you were just going to throw away. They got a couple assets (admittedly, low-value ones) in exchange for a player they were just going to play for another month and then give his walking papers, and they freed up a starting spot to get prospects in the lineup more often. I am failing to see the harm in that, unless you believe that Delmon was primed for a great recovery season next year.
Did the whole Delmon experience indicate a failing in talent evaluation and valuation by the front office? Yes. It looked like a bad trade when it was made, and it’s only gotten worse in hindsight. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS. But you can’t take that into account when determining a fair return for Delmon when trading him in August of 2011. If you’ve made the (mostly justified) decision that you’re not going to bring him back, and the team is not in contention for a playoff spot, there is literally no downside to getting something for him while you still can.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Bill Smith has made good trades
You’re absolutely wrong with your assertion. Bill Smith has made several good trades.
Trading Pino for Pavano
Trading Mulvey for Rauch
Trading Gomez for JJ Hardy
You also keep repeating “everyday player” as if playing Delmon every day was helping the team in 2011 (or 2009, 2008, etc). It’s clear Delmon wasn’t going to be an everyday player for the Twins in 2012 which is all that matters at this point. At that point you’ve traded nothing (a player who won’t be with the team next year and can’t help them win in 2011) for something ($1M, a young, cheap relief pitcher and a live lefthanded arm).
And then we got rid of 2 of those 3 for nothing
Invalidates the ‘good’ part of the trade.
And we resigned Pavano for Free Agent money past his sell-by date coming off numbers that screamed ‘career year.’
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 24, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
They didn't get rid of Rauch
Rauch left as a free agent. Players are allowed to do that now, it isn’t 1970. Did you want them to trade Rauch away during a pennant race?
No, that doesn’t invalidate the good part of the trade. Trades are made based on the current situation, not all situations into the future forever.
by DJL44 on Aug 24, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And Pavano hasn't been that bad
He certainly has done more to earn his paycheck than several other players. He’s eating innings which is exactly at the level of his $8M paycheck.
Compare that 8mil paycheck
to what could have been had in MI depth or one of our quality relievers still on the roster, with Slowey under Team Control in the rotation (and his injuries happened because of the bullpen, he was the 2nd best starter in Spring, easily).
Now tell me that 8mil was wisely spent on a pitcher flirting with a 5.0 ERA and a K/9 rating in the basement of starting MLB pitchers.
The one thing the Twins don’t lack is “innings eaters.” A front end of rotation pitcher, that’s another issue.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 24, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You can what if that way all day
Was Morneau’s contract a mistake? How about Joe Nathan? Picking on Pavano seems pretty ludicrous this year. By itself the Pavano contract was not a bad move by Bill Smith.
Rauch was lost because they refused to pay him
IE: overvalued saves, and undervalued his high-leverage value.
Overvalued Pavano’s future contribution, coming off a career year, and refused to use that money for players who could contribute more ‘this’ season.
by Shawn Gillogly on Aug 24, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
You're making a flawed assumption
Rauch had a choice where he wanted to go. Would you have paid Rauch 2 years $10M? The Twins needed to outbid the Jays, not just match contracts. How is that a better way to spend money than $16M on Carl Pavano for 2 years?
Rauch is a generic middle reliever with a 4.5 ERA in 50 innings. Pavano is a generic starting pitcher with a 4.5 ERA in 174 innings. If Pavano is “flirting with a 5.0 ERA” then Rauch is flirting with 6.0. The Twins made the correct move here. An additional 124 innings eaten for only $3M.
I disagree that the Twins “don’t lack innings eaters”. Duensing, Swarzak and Blackburn are all not as good as Pavano. Liriano has been inconsistent and Slowey has been completely undependable for several years. Pavano has been the 3rd best pitcher on the roster after Baker and Perkins. He has pitched 40 more innings than any other pitcher. He was the 2nd best pitcher last season. He’s not part of the problem.
disagree...
Pavano (and especially his contract) is certainly PART of the problem. Not as much as Duncecap and Blackcrap. But PART of it.

by 


























