to your main point, though, I agree the key is money. the entire state would welcome corey back with open arms, if he came free or cheap. but if we wouldn't touch his contract a year ago, why would he want it now, when he is a year older? If the jays picked up half, though, I would send them punto in a second.

I wouldn't pay coskie $5 mil a year for two years with his age and health, but neither would the jays, if they had the choice. the money is already spent, though. they have to make trades based on his actual value in the current lineup. a 5th 3rd baseman will be of little use to them. it's not like he's a proven pinch hitter; on the contrary, someone below argues that he takes 50 at bats to get his timing back. so what is more use to them? corey on the bench, or a useful utility player or a young arm with the chance to be useful in the future? I would argue the utility man or pitching prospect. Even if they ate coskie's entire salary, it wouldn't cost them a penny more than keeping him on the team. I'm not saying they would do this, mind you, just that it would strengthen their team if they did, so the prospect of them eating half his salary would not be irrational.

The twins were right not to pay 9% of their entire payroll for an agiing injury prone infielder. But given that they have a realistic shot at contending this year, I think they definitely should be willing to pay a few million to fill their last gaping hole.

let's not forget how precious an opportunity it is to realistically contend for a championship. this should not be squandered. those who lived through the 70s and early 80s probably appreciate best the incredible job ryan has done in assembling a team on a shoestring. when you take into account that ryan only had $1 million to spend on 3B if he also wanted to get castillo and white, I even think batista was a smart pickup. but that is very different than saying that batista is good. I would much prefer to have coskie than batista.

of course I would prefer glaus even more. money is the real issue. but since the jays do have an incentive to pay part of koskie's contract, i would seriously look into it. the key, as you say, is how much money, and which cheap prospects would they take. but as long as the jays take responsibility for their mistakes, and don't act as if someone else should be expected to overpay for coskie just because they did, I do think the right trade could realistically improve both teams next year without greatly altering their current payrolls.

ryan should not overpay, and he won't. we probably could have had coskie for less than the jays paid him, as a home town discount, without giving up any players, when he was a year youner. why would we want his contract now? but getting coskie's contract at a 50% discount would be hard to pass up, and certainly worth throwing in a couple marginal players for. If you could have coskie at third for $2.5 million and punto, wouldn't you be tempted?

if the jays paid a big chunk of it, though, ryan would come out looking like a genius. he would have held the line when the price was too high -- and then gotten the same guy for half price! How smart would that make him? that's not eating crow, that's making the other guy eat crow.

I think there would be no backlash of any kind. the public and gardie would be thrilled to have koskie back. ryan's thrifty ways would be validated. koskie is no knobbie or marbury, who wanted to leave for money or ego. koskie wanted to stay. he's a good guy. i wouldn't pay 5 million per for him, but for half that, I'd say, welcome back Koskie!

The whole argument for thinking Koskie might be productive hinges on this.  What evidence do you have that makes you think he'll come back healthy?  He's older, he keeps getting injured, there's no reason to think playing on turf in the Metrodome would help.  And it's not like the question is simply whether or not Koskie is healthy, we actually have to give up players, salary space, and a roster spot to take the chance that maybe he'll beat all the odds and come back healthy.

"...but overall it is MUCH worse..."

I completely disagree with this.  You're trading a some walks from Koskie for some home runs by Batista.  Home runs are more valuable than walks, so I think it's far from clear that Batista's line is worse, let alone much worse.

"And while Koskie's defense may have declined according to your ratings, he is still better than anyone we have there now."

Except that Batista is rated as a better defender than Koskie at this point in their careers, and Koskie has injury troubles while Batista has been healthy and his numbers have held steady.

"I'm sorry, but you seriously undervalue on-base percentage."

While we're being condescending, I'm sorry that you're having trouble opening your mind.

About the actual point, though, you are overvaluing on-base percentage.  Show me one single solitary study that shows how varying one player's on-base percentage affects team scoring.  They aren't out there.  Ever since Bill James started putting out his lazy studies, everyone has been perfectly willing to follow in his lazy ways.  He looked to see how TEAM on-base percentage, which is largely driven by batting average, correlates to TEAM scoring.  Then, you make the leap of faith that there's a one-to-one correspondence between how team OBP relates to team run scoring and how individual OBP relates to team run scoring, even though there are lots of ways for a team to wind up with the same OBP.

In particular, looking at OBP, you can't differentiate between the importance of a walk versus a single, a double, a triple, or a home run.

And, in the Twins offense, the 8 and 9 hitters aren't exactly going to be huge run producers, so putting Koskie at first by walk is going to be less valuable than in an average lineup.  And, being able to drive all baserunners home via HR is going to be a bit more valuable because the 8 and 9 hitters probably aren't going to get the job done.

Also, consider this: the market has adjusted since the early 2000s so that it now costs a lot of money to acquire players with high OBP, or even solid, Randa-esque, OBPs.  In particular, at this point, the market is almost certainly overvaluing players with walk-heavy OBPs.  However, as can be evidenced by Batista's non-guaranteed contract, the market is almost certainly undervaluing hitters like Batista with power and solid defense.

"Okay, you're going to have trouble finding anyone to agree with you on that point."

Just because some people don't agree with me on this point doesn't make my point any more or less wrong.  What matters is why they disagree with me and whether their reasoning is correct or not.  And so far, I've only seen arguments based on team OBP, not individual OBP, and I don't find them very convincing in the case of Tony Batista.

Regarding Koskie, I am/was a huge fan of his and appreciate everything he brought to the Twins...especially his "D."  Granted, last year's injury was caused by his slide into second.  However, for several years before he missed a lot of games due to a chronic back problem.  We don't know if that would have occurred again last year due to his missing so many games during the middle of the season with the broken finger.

For the right deal, lets bring him back.  But it has to be the right deal.

If you've got something you'd like to talk about, surely you have an opinion, so I would encourage you to write a diary entry to get us started.

He has a contract paying $5.25mm in 2006 and $5.75mm in 2007.  There is reportedly $6.5mm due in 2008 under certain circumstances.

The 2008 contract becomes guaranteed if he achieves 1,200 plate appearances.  It has been reported that these are over 2005-2007 (or 400 per year...he had 404 last year), thus, he would need 796 in the next two years.  In another article it was reported that it becomes guaranteed if he gets 1,200 over 2006 and 2007 (600 per year).  Because the 2008 year is likely a deal breaker for TRyan, the answer to this question is a major concern.

It was reported that if he makes the 1,200 plate appearances, the 2008 year is guaranteed.  In another report, it was indicated that there is a $500,000 buy-out.  Obviously, that is not fully guaranteed and would certainly change the impact of the 2008 $6.5mm.

Unfortunately, we don't have enough definitive information on the contract to do anything more than speculate.