Morneau Signs

Too bad only a one year deal

by caluofmn on Jan 18, 2008 11:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Does

he have two years of arbitration after this?

by TMoney on Jan 18, 2008 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Justin will be eligible for free agency following the 2010 season.

by Jesse on Jan 18, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, The Twins are running out of arbitration years with Morneau, and thus, leverage to use in signing him to a long-term deal. It's nice that they avoided going to arbitration this year, but it doesn't really solve anything beyond a potentially frustrating hearing.

With Hunter gone, we really should have signed him to a 4-year deal. The longer we wait, the more expensive the good Doctor gets. I hope Smith realizes that looks to lock him up so soon.

-Flip

by Flip27 on Jan 18, 2008 12:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

process

Avoiding the arbitration process is a good thing. This means they don't have to go through that. They can still talk long term deal.

by SethSpeaks on Jan 18, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's still a lot

of time to sign Justin to a long-term deal. He has two more years of arbitration after '08, so if the money or the years involved in the discussion make the Twins wary, there's no need to rush it. Arbitration years are there for a reason.

For a team like the Twins, who need to spend a bit more carefully, there's no excuse to NOT take advantage of the arbitration system. It's better to wait another year or two and know what you're paying for in the long term, than dishing out now simply to avoid arbitration.

If he gets more expensive, all that means is that he's continued to build a track record of productivity...in which case the extra dollars would be worth the wait.

by Jesse on Jan 18, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

But as we have seen time and time again the same player who was worth 2-4 million (depending on the depths of the ballclub's pockets and on the eye of the general manager) in 2006 is sudeenly worth 7.5 million in 2007. Or the player who was worth 3-6 million in 2007 (or 4.325 million to be exact) is suddenly worth $12 million/year for the next four years starting in 2008.

Neither of those two players put up better numbers in their contract years than they had the previous two, three or four seasons on average. Nonetheless, in free agency they were able to leverage much higher contracts than they would have received had the home team extended their contracts for 4 years prior to free agency.

Arbitrators pay attention to that fact, and carefully consider what the market will bear. As long as Morneau continues at this level a four year extension even at $9million/year would probably be a big savings over arbitration or free agency demands.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 18, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not

arguing that we "might not have to pay more" for Justin--we'll have to pay more regardless, over the years. How much more, is the question.

For a player like Justin who's in arbitration, the question isn't "How much is he worth", the question is whether or not it makes sense to sign him to a long-term deal now...while he's eligible for arbitration throug 2010.

As for the Silva comparison (the guy who is now being paid an absurd amount of money for what he provides), if the Twins were to wait for Justin to hit free agency and someone were to offer Morneau twice what he's worth, then I'd let him walk, too. Going into his age-30 season in 2011 I wouldn't be signing Justin for $27 million a season.

But that's all speculation--keeping the question focused, the issue is whether or not the Twins should have signed Justin to a long term deal now. The answer is no, simply because if there were terms that made sense for both sides then it would have been done already. Additionally (and more importantly), because he's still arbitration eligible in '09 and '10, there's still more than enough time to work out the long-term deal. The only difference would be that 1) there will be more of a track record with which to judge how much Justin is worth and 2) instead of buying out the first year of his free agency you'd be buying out two.

If the whole point of signing Justin to a long-term contract is to save money on the back end, you'll still be doing it if you wait another year. Or another two years. All it means is that the back end of the long-term contract becomes 2012 or 2013 instead of 2011.

by Jesse on Jan 18, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One step at a time

I'll second Seth's thought's. Hopefully they continue a dialog on a long-term deal.

Long-term deals are not without risk. Remember Damian Easley? The Tigers signed him to a long-term deal pre-arbitration after his career year and they ended up eating a lot of salary.

I don't think there's much risk of something like that with Morneau. But a lot can happen in a year.

I just caution those who think long-term deals are no brainers that there is some risk involved.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2008 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

risk

signing him to a four-year deal now would only add one year to his tenure as a Twin. They'd be risking four years of salary, but only gaining one. He'd have to accept a below-market salary rate in exchange for the security in order to make that a good deal for the Twins.

At this point guaranteed money benefits him much more than the team. If he gets hurt next year, he still gets four years of money. But if he plays well, the Twins get him for three more years regardless.

Of course there's the risk that in three years he'll be worth $22 million/year, and signing him now could mean he'd be working for $11 million. But there's also a chance his production will go down and they'll be glad they waited.

What do you think is fair right now? four years for $40? (or now that he's signed for $7.4, a three year extension beyond that for $33 million, i.e salaries of 9M, 11M, and 13M? That's probably still too high, assuming his worth will nearly double in four years, while taking on all the risk. What seems fair? Four for $33M, including this year? 36M?

by by jiminy on Jan 18, 2008 3:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

also

by not signing him to a long term deal, it is Morneau's best interest to produce at his greatest potential. Whereas, if he got a four year deal, I'm not convinced he wouldn't slack off, or start his more adventurous lifestyle again.

by TMoney on Jan 18, 2008 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hmmm...

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 18, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

No such worries with Mauer. In fact, after they signed him to a three-year deal, he ran so much in the offseason, he got an injury normally found in distance runners.

Morneau, on the other hand, has a history of partying like a rink rat from Vancouver, which he is. There's just something about hockey players and cheerleaders... Brings back memories from high school. Ah, the parties we had with cheerleaders after getting our heads beaten in by Rochester Lourdes.

Sorry, just puked in my mouth thinking about a ride home on the team bus from Rochester with a bucket between my legs.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but doesn't that also mean

if he continues to produce at the top of his ability he can say when he becomes a FA "you guys had the chance to sign me and didn't so now I'm going to go get stupid money from someone else."

Seems like for the Twins you have to take the risk and sign him early or you'll never be able to afford him when he becomes a FA.

by caluofmn on Jan 18, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

But that's a long ways away. There's no hurry here.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If

he is currently producing at the best of his ability. He wouldn't be worth what he would get.

by TMoney on Jan 18, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And

He's going to have to match his 2006 numbers. After his good (but not his best) 2007, it seems logical to see if he's going to be able to do it again.

I have a feeling he's going to be somewhere between last year and his MVP year, so let's get the market price before we lock into a deal.

by Neil on Jan 19, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but even if he's somewhere between...

doesn't that mean that his price will be higher than it is now?

IMO, I can't see any way Morneau has a worse season than last season, and last season wasn't exactly terrible. He was the 2nd best 1b in the whole league.

His price is only going to go up.

Another thing that I hadn't really thought about until a mention somewhere else; Mark Teixeira could very well hit FA next year. I fully expect him to get a MONSTER deal upwards of $20 M/year. With Morneau being a decent comparison in some ways, if that happens, Morneau's price will really skyrocket.

Just as Hunter's did based on the contracts of Wells/Ichiro/Matthews/Pierre. Or Santana's has based on Zambrano/Zito.

I just don't see much reward at all in waiting, personally. At any rate, no matter what we think we should do, it seems like a virtual certainty that the Twins are going to be working on it in the immediate future, judging by the comments out there. So this is probably a moot point. We will see.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could not agree more

Lets say his next three to four years is somewhere between 2006 and 2007. He would be a steal at 9mil/year. He will get 9 mil/year in arbitration anyway. Or better.

I understand the point about waiting to get a couple more years of free agency locked up rather than doing the deal now.

But in the end, signing Morneau to a long term reasonable contract, say five yeras, is low risk for medium to high reward.

Only foolish, or extremely conservative, business people would not make that deal.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Only foolish, or extremely conservative, business people would not make that deal.

Foolish? You might need to back that one up with a little more than just your opinion. You have some good points, but it doesn't mean you're unquivocally correct.

IF the Twins were able to sign Justin at an average of $9 million per season over four or five years, then you are right, at that price he'd be a bargain. But considering he's making $7.4, in 2008, with two more years of arbitration coming, a more realistic average yearly salary on a five year would be $12-$14 million. For a player like Justin, if you want to talk a four year deal at this juncture, 4-years at $48 million is far more likely than 4-years at $36 million.

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

9 million/year was just an example that I pulled out of my behind.

And the foolish remark was not meant directly to the Morneau situation exactly. As I stated above I see your points about gaining a couple more years in the long run by waiting one or two more arbitration years.

The foolish remark is meant more toward a generic business tenet: "no risk, no reward"

these reply posts have to be abbreviated and I get frustrated when I have to go back and shorten my posts, so sometimes I just save the headache, but fail to adequately support my statement...

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

... so to continue,

I see Morneau as low risk, to very low risk, with the likelihood of a very solid reward. I think he is a solid first baseman and a good team player. He seems healthy, and he appears to be ready, now that Hunter is gone to co-lead this team with Mauer. He's got a new wife and home, he's gunna settle down and go to work. I also see his numbers being somewhere between 2006 and 2007. Very solid.

That low a risk is worth taking for the medium to high reward in securing his services for the next four to five years at first base at below market rates for his talent.

I am a fan of the conservative nature the Twins management has adopted. We HAVE to minimize risk. But Morneau seems like the right gamble to me. Low to very low risk for solid to high reward.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

...and, not to beat a dead horse, but,

remember I said "foolish, OR extremely conservative"

I'm all for conservative. Not re-signing Hunter was, in my opinion, the type of conservative decision this team has to make. I feel that at his age Hunter was a high risk for a four year contract. At the rate the Angels will pay him he is a VERY high risk. All for (at best) a medium to high reward. The Twins cannot afford high risk to high reward. And Very high risk to high reward would devastate us in the worst case scenario.

I am not in favor of extreme conservatism. I think Terry Ryan (as much as I admire the job he did overall) was bordering on extreme conservatism towards the end of his tenure. I am sure there are other legitimate business decisions involved in the one year Morneau contract, but if the driving factor is fear of any risk associated with him, I just don't see it and I would suggest that fear would be a brand of extreme conservatism.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With two more years...

...before Justin becomes a free-agent, could Mr. Smith be waiting to see which Morneau shows up. One would be the Morneau from the last half of 2006 and first few months or 2007. The other the player who struggled the remainder of those to years. If he has another year with 2-3 months of providing little productivity, he may have saved a bunch of dollars. On the other hand, if he has another MVP season it will cost a lot more. The good news is signing him next year to a four year contract gets two years of free-agency plus puts Morneau and Mauer's contracts two years apart.

by roger on Jan 18, 2008 6:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm totally in the sign-them-now camp...

Not only with Morneau, but also with Cuddyer, and even with Kubel.

I guess I just have immense faith in all 3 of those players producing, especially with the increased protection of all three of them and the additions to the offense this year of Young/Lamb/Harris.

To me the value of these 3 players will NEVER be lower. And salaries are only going to go up, and FA is only going to get weaker, as more teams have money with increased revenue in the sport. Look at the DirecTV deal, the MLB.com deal, and further new stadiums being built. I don't want to wait and make the same mistakes we have just made with Hunter/Santana. We could have had Hunter for something like 4/$48 before last year IMO, and Santana probably for a max of 4/$80. Instead, we waited, and look where we are.

I would make the following contract offers right now to all of Morneau/Cuddyer/Kubel:

Morneau-5 years/$60 M. This gives us cost certainty and also buys out 2 years of FA for him. I think that would be a reasonable deal. Ideally, we would even make it a fairly across-the-board contract (ie not backloading it) so that we can have more money down the road. Something like 9/12/13/13/13. I'd be down with that.

Cuddyer-3 years/$20 M. Same thing on cost certainty. he figures to make around $5.5 M this season, so that's not really a big jump up for him. He's getting roughly the average of what he'd figure to make in 2009 (maybe even slightly less) and we buy out FA for 1 season. I'd go as high as $24 M for him even. I say 3 years because Parmalee could well be ready by 2011, and if he is (or Benson/Martin) we could easily cut bait then, as much as I love Cuddy.

Kubel-4 years/$20 M. Same money, more years. He's the "riskiest" signing of these guys, but I would argue that the reward is the highest vs. the cost. I'd like to just get him out of the way right now. And again, we have other options coming down the pipe, so this gives us until 2012 to figures one of those out.

I would add to these; if Young and/or Liriano have good years this year, I would be talking contract with them BEFORE the end of the season. If we could lock them both up, our entire core would be intact, with cost certainty, and at relatively cheap rates.

These of course all come with risks, but to me the rewards far outweigh the risks. Sometimes with smaller-market teams, you have to take some chances, especially on longterm contracts for young players. Trust your scouts that got these talented guys to this point. Look at what Cleveland did in the 90's. That's the model for us to follow IMO.

If we don't at least get Cuddy AND Morneau signed this offseason to longer term deals, I for one will be highly disappointed.

by djskilbr on Jan 18, 2008 10:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with who you would want to signed

But I'd feel more comfortable with 4 yrs for Morneau and 3 years with Kubel.

All though with Young on the team now, what does a multi year deal for Kubel mean? (if you also sign Cuddyer to a multi yr deal)

Platooning in LF, everyday DH? What if they don't sign Cuddyer and allow Young be the everyday RF and Kubel the everyday LF?

I really like Cuddyer but I can see the Twins doing something like that save money, especially if Kubel picks up where he left off at the end of last season.

by caluofmn on Jan 19, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we trade with the Mets...

...and get Martinez in the deal, I would not sign Cuddyer to a long-term deal. Martinez projects as a corner outfielder. So with Young in right, Martinez in left, and Kubel in the hole, Cuddyer becomes trade bait.

I suppose you could trade him if he has a long-term deal. But it's easier trading an arbitration-eligible player than a guy with a long-term deal. GMs like payroll flexibility, and they like to negotiate the deals themselves rather than inheriting contracts.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2008 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would sign him anyway though....

CMath.

I think of it this way; you can always trade him, and his value would still be good.

For instance, a team like the Giants should like him. If they're after a guy like Rios, Cuddyer isn't that different. And they've always liked Cuddyer.

So perhaps you can do some big package and get a guy like Cain if the Giants really want offense, etc. Signing him longterm (and by longterm I mean 3-4 years) gives you more options, which is never a bad thing.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rios VS Cuddyer

2007 Age AB 2B HR Avg Obp Slg Cuddyer 28 547 28 16 .276 .356 .433 Rios 26 643 43 24 .297 .354 .498

ISO K% BB% LD% BABIP Cuddyer .157 17.1 10.4 17 .318 Rios .201 14.4 8.1 23 .324

RZR OOZ Cuddyer .823 38 Rios .905 43
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/best-outfield-arms-of-2007/

The article by John Walsh awarded Cuddyer the gold medal for best right field arm. So, in spite of Rios having a better Revised Zone Rating and making more plays outside of his zone (when Cuddyer had more balls in his zone), Cuddyer was the bomb at not only just gunning down runners taking an extra base but holding runners as well.

This was mostly for my own benefit originally, since you made the claim that Cuddyer and Rios were pretty similar players. But I thought I'd share what I was looking at.

Taking all things into consideration, I'd say that Rios is the better pure hitter and has more power. Rios is faster and more athletic. But Cuddyer appears to have an edge in arm strength, and he still finds a way to get on base even when his bat won't get him there. Having an OBP 80 points higher than your batting average is great.

In regards to the Giants, they might still like Rios more because he's a more typical "middle of the order" hitter than Cuddyer, but you're right. They are pretty similar performers.

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Jesse...

plus, you took his numbers from last year, right?

Last year, let's not forget, was a very off year for Cuddy because he shouldn't have even been playing the last 2 months with that thumb injury!

If you take a look at his numbers, which I just did last week, he took a HUGE dive after his injury. It sapped almost all of his power, as thumb injuries do.

So the gap is even closer than your numbers suggest.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah...

...I did forget about the thumb thing. Good point.

I'm looking forward to seeing him play this summer, hoping his production numbers can be closer to '06 than '07.

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yep...

my numbers/recap of his year is below jesse. hope that helps.

Also, I've been talking about the fact that I think we have a decent shot to lead the league in doubles this year (we were 2nd to last in the league and 79 off the lead, Boston, last year). Here's the numbers I ran for that. If we get health from Mauer/Morneau, and a step up from Kubel, I believe we'll have a good shot at it. If we improve CF as well, then we have a GREAT shot at it. Here was that projection, position by position, for doubles:

C-Mauer-only 27 last year with his missed time. I expect more like 35-40 this season. +10

1b-Morneau-only 31 last year. I expect him more in line with his 37 from 2006, with much better protection. I'll say: +5

2b-Harris-This is the big one. Castillo/Casilla/Punto COMBINED had 19 doubles last year at 2b. COMBINED. Worst in the league. Harris last year, in only 521 ab's, had 35. So from the position, I think we can expect more like 44 this year from the total position if Harris matches that production for about that many ab's or a few more. That's a huge gain: +25

SS-Everett-You'd think this would be big with Bartlett, but it's not at all. Bartlett only had 20 last year and our SS COMBINED only had 22, 2nd worst in the league. Everett's last 2 full years (2005 and 2006) he had 27 and 28 doubles, respectively. Heck he had 11 last year in just over 1/3 of a season. For all his faults as a hitter, he's always had decent doubles ability. I'd actually say over last year here, realistically: +5

3b-Lamb-His projected 2b over 500 ab's, with career averages, is around 25. Then you have whoever else for the other 150 ab's or so. Our COMBINED doubles production from 3b last year was 20, worst in the league. I'd say you can project 30 for 3b this year realistically with Lamb/whoever else. +10

RF-Cuddyer-Last year he had only 28 even with the missed time/playing with that thumb injury for the 2nd half, which sapped all power. Our RF combined had 31 last year, 2nd worst in the league. Which by the way it's really sad that our combined other RF only had 3 doubles between them. I would expect that with his return to health, he'd be more in line with his career averages/year of 2006 when he had 41. His power sap is also obviously evident in his HR drop last year. I'd pencil him in for roughly 40 doubles this year, which would mean: +10

CF-Pridie/whoever-This is the big loss, obviously, as Hunter had a monster year of 45 doubles last year. Tough to project here because we don't know who CF will be. I'd pencil either of Pridie/Gomez in for around 25 with full ab's. If it was Ellsbury, I'd say closer to 40 with his speed. Since we don't know, I'll take the low end, 25 number. -20

LF-Young-Last year total we had 27 doubles from LF. Once again, 2nd worst in the league. Young had 38 doubles last year. With one more year of experience plus better protection, I'd pencil him in for 40, just a 2 double jump, conservatively. Plus a few random games by someone else for 2 more. So let's say: +15

DH-Our DH production overall last year was very good actually, 2nd in the league at 37. I was stunned by this, but then I figured it that a lot of those were Kubel/Morneau/Mauer. I still think it's wrong overall though because it still doesn't add up, even with Ford/Jones/Rondell/Tyner/Redmond added in. Who the heck am I missing? Either way, I'm not counting some of those because I calculated Morneau/Mauer/now Kubel into their totals already. For instance, I didn't count Redmond into a "C" total. I simply put Mauer's in, figuring Redmond's will be reasonably close to the same, which I think is fair. So I'd say our "real" production last year at DH was something like 25, not 37, when you calculate those in. Kubel hit 31 total last year in just over 400 ab's, with inconsistent playing time, and with finding his stroke in the 2nd half. I firmly believe he will be our best doubles hitter efficiency-wise this year and hit around 40 if given 500 ab's. Couple that with some sprinkled in from Monroe against lefties, and I think we can say close to 50 doubles this year from DH. A big number I know, but I honestly feel realistic. +20-25

Bench-Didn't want to go in-depth on this, but I would think just with Monroe alone and no Tyner/Ford/LRod, we can expect something like 10 more TOTAL. Especially if Pridie is the backup CF instead of the starter. +10

That total cumulative is anywhere from 90-95 more doubles vs. last year if those things happen, mainly average production from everyone (plus a step up from Kubel) and returns to health from Mauer/Cuddyer. Obviously we can't bank on injuries to anyone. Who knows then. The key big pluses are obviously 2b/DH/LF. And the key minus is in CF.

And this does also depend on CF largely. If Ellsbury is the CF, for example, I would expect at least 10 more doubles than I projected for CF, plus you get a few extra from the backup OF spot in all likelihood. If he's not, then I'd still say 25 from CF is reasonable. Heck, 25 from CF last year would have placed us 3rd worst in the AL. Anyway, even if some of those things don't happen, there is room for about 10-15 doubles off from those projections. If Ellsbury is in CF and the rest happens though, we actually could be looking at 100+ doubles improvement over last year.

This was really a fun exercise though, because man, it kind of startled me a bit to think; hey, we were right. The big key lack of production from our offense last year was gap power. When you're 2nd worst in the league in a category like doubles (we were in HR's as well, it should be noted), including 2nd to last or last at all of the positions of 2b/SS/3b/RF/LF, that's going to do an offense in. Judging by this, again, if we meet averages for most people, I think there is a TON of room for optimism here.

By the way, we have not been in the top half of the league in doubles since 2005. That might have been the key to those division winning teams. We were "only" 6th in the league in doubles in 2005, but we were top 4 in ALL of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. If we can return to that, that should help out a lot.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice

I hope you're right! The offense needs a boost, and if help won't come in abundance from the HR department, more doubles would do a world of good. Hopefully we'll just have people on base when they occur.

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya...

I've been looking at doubles for a while now because ever since that Marlins world series team, I've always felt that the scariest lineup isn't necessarily a HR lineup, but one with speed and lots of gap power. I think our team will have that this year. Maybe not too much speed, but LOTS of gap power.

I'm excited to get back to that.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

how did you pull off such a lengthy reply post?

Has the site changed recently? Every time I used to post a lengthy reply the system would refuse to post it becuase it told me that the max was 50 characters, or something like that. I would get so frustrated trying to go back and edit for extraneous words that I would end up abandoning my replies!

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No idea...

I've never had a problem with that.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's bizarre

I've checked the settings on your profile, and you have the same options as everyone else. I don't know why your replies are being restricted. You should try looking at your user settings and see if there's something you can change that I can't do for you.

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll do that...

but I'll always wonder if there isn't some Montana based prejudicy going on here......... :)

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, quiet...

just go back to your sheep.

:)

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Projecting Cuddyer

I'd split the difference between his 2006 and 2007 numbers.

2006 27 634 PA5 41 2B 5 3B 24 HR .284/.358/.504/.862
2007 28 624 PAs 28 2B 5 3B 16 HR .276/.356/.433./789

Besides the thumb, there are some deep numbers to consider. His BABIP went from .333 to .318. But I think the thumb just sapped his power. His ISO went from .220 to .157.

But his ISO was down all year, with the exception of May. So I don't know if his struggles in August were only because of the thumb. I think it had at least as much to do with moving out of the clean-up spot between Mauer and Morneau and into a 6th spot. That clean-up spot is one of the most favored spots in any line-up, which is one reason why Hunter's numbers got better after Gardy made the switch.

If Cuddy goes back to the clean-up spot, I expect him to hit better. But I don't think he'll duplicate the 2006 year. I say that was a career year for him at his age.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe so...

but I still think you can almost throw out the numbers post-injury in 2007. He clearly regressed in a BIG way following that injury. And again, his last 2 months have traditionally been his 2nd and 3rd best months offensively. Pretty unfair to extrapolate from those. As I said, I would use his .823 OPS before the thumb injury as an absolute base for his performance this year.

If he hits exactly halfway between that and his 2006, we have a .845 OPS RF, which would be in the top 4 in the league. I think that is a very fair projection.

His full-year stats from 2006 are not, IMO, especially with Vavra's comments last year that he shouldn't have even been playing after that injury.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

If he hits exactly halfway between that and his 2006, we have a .845 OPS RF, which would be in the top 4 in the league. I think that is a very fair projection.

That's how I'm projecting him, especially if they keep Delmon in the 6 hole and Cuddy in the 4 hole. I agree, that's pretty darn good.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya...

I do see Cuddy in the 4 hole to start (ie at least April, maybe May too) but once Young really gets going, I think they'll swap. That should help Young's patience at the plate as well.

As currently constructed, this would be my ideal lineup:

Pridie
Kubel
Mauer
Cuddyer
Morneau
Young
Lamb
Harris
Everett

I realize that we're LH heavy at the top, but I think Kubel/Mauer will do okay against lefties, and those will be our best 2 OBP producers IMO. Plus, Kubel hits much better in the #2 slot, statistics show. And the rest of the lineup after those first 3 would be very well balanced.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One addition

Gomez platooning with Pridie at the top. Otherwise, right on.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 20, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right...

obviously if Gomez or Ellsbury are acquired (I just pray no to Melky; you guys know my feelings on him) then the leadoff spot changes.

by djskilbr on Jan 20, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

as noted, if Ellsbury is acquired, I do pencil him in for around 40 doubles next year. And note that I was fairly conservative on Pridie. So if it was Ellsbury, I'd project us to have about 100 more doubles next year than we did in 2007, assuming health and a step up from Kubel.

That is a HUGE improvement.

by djskilbr on Jan 20, 2008 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To expand on that...

here's a writeup I did of Cuddy's year last year on another site:

April-Started out decently, but a little sluggish, as usual. In April he had a .290/.333/.450/.783 line with 2 HR's, 8 doubles, a triple, and 17 rbi's. Not a great month, but pretty decent. And as I said, he usually starts off slow.

May-Usually a better month for him. Really got cranking and had a line of .317/.430/.524/.954 line. 5 HR's, 2 doubles, 20 RBI's. But it should also be noted that he missed some time this month. Missed a 5 game stretch. This might have been the helmet in the back incident if I recall correctly. But still, he was really on this month.

June-usually not quite as good of a month for him. A .262/.364/.408/.772 line with 2 HR's, 5 doubles, 2 triples, 13 RBI's. Basically about on par with his April. Usual Cuddyer.

July-Started to get cranking a bit again, but this is when the injury occurred. A .298/.369/.421/.790 line with only 1 HR, 1 triple, and 2 doubles, 6 RBI's, but he missed half the month. When he went down he had a line of .289/.373/.450/.823.

August-Terrible, terrible month for him coming back from thum injury. Line of .252/.308/.421/.728 with 3 HR's, 1 triple, 7 doubles, and 16 RBI's. This was EASILY his worst month of the year. By about 50 points in OPS. As you can see, his slugging actually wasn't any different from in July, but his OBP/AVG took HUGE drops so he might have been really trying to crush the ball instead of hit when he returned.

September-Got back into a bit more patient approach, but power really disappeared. Worst power of the year. Overall line of .255/.348/.388/.736. 3 HR's, 4 doubles, and 9 rbi's for the month. Easily his 2nd worst month, after August.

As I noted above, his line before the injury was .289/.373/.450/.823. His line for the year, however, was .276/.356/.433/.790. That's a pretty huge jump down. That means he lost something like 70-80 points in OPS from before his injury to after it to get that line for the year.

His line for 2006 was .284/.362/.504/.866. So his slugging did drop off some before the injury, but it really wasn't out of his career norms. In fact, if you look at his career, easily his 2 best months (besides May, which he lived up to in 2007) have been August and September. Essentially Cuddyer was robbed of those 2 months by way of his injury last year.

I think we'll see a big return to norm. And even if, worst case, he puts up something like the .823 OPS line he did before his injury, I'd gladly take that. Even that would put him in the top half of AL RF's. If he hits in between that line and 2006 even, that puts him at .845, which would have made him the 4th best RF in the league last year. Either way, I have little problem with Cuddyer. He just can't have a thumb injury like that again.

What's also interesting to note, and I didn't realize this, was that Cuddyer did not get a SINGLE day off from the time he came back from his thumb injury. Not one. He played every game for the rest of the season. Stupid Gardy.

by djskilbr on Jan 19, 2008 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs