Mike Lamb Signed

by Eric in Madison on Dec 14, 2007 5:57 PM EST

Joe C. Reporting

The Twins signed Mike Lamb for 2 years with an option for 2010. I can't say I love this following the Everett signing; it's nice to be agressive in filling holes, but they are filling them with below average players. if 3/4 of the infield is Harris, Everett, Lamb, that's not so great.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Lamb

Not a bad signing. He's a solid defensive player. Three out of the last four years he's had an OPS+ over 110. He'll be decent protection behind Delmon Young in the seven hole. He's certainly an upgrade over Punto at third.

I wonder if this means the Twins will stand pat with Santana and Nathan. They could sign Cameron and call it an offseason without trading either of their best pitchers.

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

by cmathewson on Dec 14, 2007 6:39 PM EST reply actions

I still don't think...

...they'd be terribly competitive if they keep Santana/Nathan and sign Cameron, but you never know, I guess. I think they could deal Nathan at the deadline if/when things fall apart, but I'm not so sure about Santana.

by ubelmann on Dec 14, 2007 7:28 PM EST up reply actions

Defense?

Mike Lamb is the opposite of "good defense". Why would you say that? Seriously, just asking. The guy's mostly been a 1B/PH.

Also, what happened that bad year out of the last four?

You can't dust for vomit.

by twinstalker on Dec 18, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

My mistake

He's not a solid defender. He's marginal at best.

AsS for the one bad year, it's not uncommon for good hitters to have a prolonged slump once every five years or so. If you look at the lines of a lot of good hitters, you'll see it's a common phenomenon. It could happen again, but I'd rather sign a good hitter who has one of these slumps every five years than rely a guy (Punto) who has one of these slumps every other year.

Speaking of Punto's slumps, I did a little research and found no other example of a 3 for 152 outside of pitchers in the history of the game. Now that's an historically bad slump.

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

by cmathewson on Dec 18, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

2001-2004 Twins

Looks like the Twins are going back to the formula that made the Twins successful from 2001-2004 which is a line up of solid but unspectacular hitters or arbitration inelligble and good defense.

Delmon = Hunter
Lamb = mientkewicz with more power
Everett = Blanco

In all seriousness, the Twins won more when they structured their offense after guys who would hit .280-.300 with 15-20 HR and 75-85 RBI. They are so much cheaper then players who knock in 100-110 runs....Torii= 18 million Lamb = 3.5 million

The question now becomes CF Lofton/ Pridie platoon or Patterson, or Cameron or Ellsbury in a trade with Boston for Santana.... which brings up the next ?

Do the Twins still trade Santana??? I think a fair contract offer would be to offer Santana a 5 year contract at 20 - 22 million with up to 2 1 year extentions that become automatic if he reaches 200 Innings pitched in any of the 5 seasons with a 5 million buyout clause. This way he can have his 7 year extention and we some security in case he blows his arm out after the 2nd or 3rd year.

by doofus04 on Dec 14, 2007 8:47 PM EST reply actions

Wow.... that sounds

...entirely too sensible to actually be something we'd do.

Eh, this one is okay I guess, could be better but this really means we need to the hitters we do have left (Cuddy/Morneau/Mauer) to produce as driving the people we manage to get on base becomes ever more important.

Also at this point don't trade Santana for anything less than the stars...

Dear Firpo, looks like my stock is fine.

by MNPundit on Dec 14, 2007 10:34 PM EST up reply actions