Friday Polling: Rating Bill Smith

I was generous...

and gave BS a 9. I couldn't give him a 10 as no one's perfect (see Livan signing) but otherwise, I really think he's done the best possible job he could do this offseason.

by djskilbr on Feb 15, 2008 1:07 PM EST reply actions

Yes, he's been good, but Livan was a mistake. Not a 'think LeCroy is better than Ortiz' mistake, but still an unecessary move. I'm also on the fence about Monroe. I see why they made the trade (no risk), but not why they actually signed him. They just don't need him.

But, the Delmon Young trade was EXCELLENT. I know some people are happy, and some miss Garza, but Garza has the chance to be a very good pitcher, while Young has true STAR potential, and has already proven that he is marching along that path (in other words, he played well so far, to go with his ridiculous expectations).

So I said 7 overall. But, he gets a 10 if he can package some AAA starters for anyone with a high ceiling at any level and any position.

by snolls on Feb 15, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

i like Kool-Aid

We traded arguably the best pitcher in baseball and we didn't even get their best prospect. Will you still rate him a 9 when Adam Everett is hitting .258 and Livian is 8-14?

by JBrown2818 on Feb 16, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

Your point is very arguable...

that we didn't get their best prospect. I'm actually with CMath on this one; I think Gomez is their best prospect, not Martinez, especially given what we need.

Martinez is a ways off, and his upside isn't much higher than Gomez, especially considering position/defense. IMO, he'd be lucky to even crack our corner OF spots in a few years. Our corner OF is as well stocked as anyone with Young/Cuddyer/Kubel, plus Parmelee/Benson down the road (who knows on them, just like FMart). So ya, I'd take Gomez, who has 60 SB potential and very well could be Carl Crawford as a CF, with great defense.

And since the details have come out, BS basically had his hands tied in a trade. He did more than fine given his options.

As for Everett, he's not special, but he figures to be an upgrade over what we had last season at SS for production. The same bad offense as we had last year (.657 OPS vs. his career .656 OPS) but with amazing defense, the best since Ozzie Smith at the position. He was the best SS on the market and BS got him for less than $3 million on a 1-year deal. I'd call that solid.

Mike Lamb was also the best 3b on the market (our biggest position of need) as Lowell/ARod weren't really "on the market." And he got him cheap too.

Livan, I can't/won't defend personally, but I'll take one "bad" move out of what was otherwise a tremendous offseason.

by djskilbr on Feb 17, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions

tremendous?

Everyone I talk to here in NY says the same thing-that we got hosed on the deal, and that we were stupid not to get Martinez because he is going to be a special player.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 17, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

You expect...

Met's fans to say something different?

Of course they're going to be high on the deal. They're homers just like we are.

Hell, talk to some of them about FMart. Half of them seem to expect him to be Manny Ramirez as a hitter, which is just completely unbelievable/unrealistic.

by djskilbr on Feb 17, 2008 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah

On another thread, we had a Mets fan who compared Martinez to Manny Ramirez. Of course, Manny is a future first ballot Hall of Famer. So I asked him if, perhaps, it's a little early to dub an 18 year old with two years of pro ball under his belt as a future Hall of Famer.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 17, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions

Gomez

but then again I keep reading about how Gomez is the second coming of Rickey Henderson-if he can learn how to hit.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 18, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions

I'm a homer too

but even I have trouble polishing this turd. Even if FMart is their #2 prospect behind Gomez we still should have gotten both.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 18, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

That's easy to say

And hard to do. Smith held out for Martinez until the bitter end, but then Santana set a deadline, and he was forced to take the Mets offer on the table at the time. Kind of like the Knoblauch trade, only one team was rich enough to make the deal, and the Twins were forced to take what they could from a New York team. If this one turns out like that one, you'll have one shiny turd.

Even if you don't value Gomez as highly as I do (I think he will be like Reyes offensively and Hunter defensively), it's still better than a year of Santana and two draft picks, imo.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 9:07 PM EST up reply actions

Santana isn't the GM

so why blame him? He screwed up this trade period. He got us a bunch of prospects, gave us a guy who doesn't give us 35 errors at SS, a usable 3B, and a guy who might become a superstar. But because we didn't get any serviceable parts for this years team from the Santana trade or elsewhere, I think that our chances of winning are a bit slim.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 18, 2008 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

I don't blame Santana

I only point out a simple fact: Bill Smith was faced with a choice between a year of Santana and two draft picks or four of the Mets' top seven prospects. Faced with the same choice, I would have chosen the same way.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 19, 2008 12:50 AM EST up reply actions

Schilling is injured

Looks like the Red Sox might need a pitcher. Too bad we already traded Santana.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 19, 2008 4:49 AM EST up reply actions

Actually...

I'm with you that people are generally overrating the job Smith did (I'm in the "acceptable but not great" camp), but really, no one expects Everett to hit any better than that. He's the classic good-field-no-hit shortstop, and I think the Twins would consider anything over about .250 a bonus.

by BeefMaster on Feb 18, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

Everett

I agree, if he can hit around .250/.300/.330, it's a bonus.

A couple of years ago, Twins brass gave the following lreasoning about keeping Juan Castro in favor of Jason Bartlett: He's a gold glove shortstop. Anything he gives us on offense is a bonus. I didn't buy the argument for two reasons:

Juan Castro was nobody's idea of a gold glove shortstop, outside of a few in the front office.
You need some offensive production out of your shortstop, even if he's a great glove. An OPS of 600 is my cut-off for the best glove you can get. Below that and he's hindering you. Juan Castro's OPS was destined to be below 600 (he had a 562 OPS before the Twins shipped him to the Reds).

In contrast to Castro, Everett is the best glove in the game at his position, whether he wins the award or not. And his OPS has consistently been well above 600 for his career.

Last year it dipped to 599. But last season he had a bad slump in May and then was injured so he could not overcome the slump before he was shut down. He came close though. His OPS for June was 696. A few more days at that rate and he would have made it over the hump.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

Offensive production from SS

I don't buy the argument either. In the AL, a team really cannot afford a 600 OPS offensive sink, no matter what defense he provides. In the NL, I suspect that many of the #8 batters are around 600, with the pitcher much lower.

Put it this way, when's the last AL playoff team to have a regular (500+ ABs) with around a 600 OPS? I'd do the research myself, but don't have the patience to do this today.

As far as how Everett will do this year, it's been discussed elsewhere. Over the last three years, he's had a significant gap in OPS at home (680) versus away (602) from Minute Maid Park. What reason do I have to believe he will be above 600 this year in a below average hitters ballpark against AL pitching (presumedly better than NL pitchers)?

That said, for a team looking to get young pitchers a lot of experience, I like the idea of Everett at SS, even with a 600 OPS. Hopefully he can balance the negative effect of Lamb and Harris' fielding...

by Adam Peterson on Feb 18, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Lugo

when's the last AL playoff team to have a regular (500+ ABs) with around a 600 OPS?

Julio Lugo had an OPS of 640 last year for the World Champion Red Sox. And his defense was just average.

Bobby Crosby had an OPS of 633 for Oakland in 2006, and his defense was well below average.

It can be done. Everett's career OPS average, 656, is plenty good on a contending team, considering his vastly superior glove to any other contender in the AL. The Angels traded their good fielding shortstop. The Red Sox are are average at best at short, as are the Tigers. The Rangers, Mariners, Indians, and Yankees are the bottom four teams in the league in shortstop defense.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

I should have clarified...

I would consider Lugo and Crosby's OPS to be a bit higher than I was questioning (600 OPS, not in the 600s), and that was for any position, not just SS. I bet there are a few out there, but I don't know for sure.

I understand your point that these teams won with poor SS OPS from players vastly inferior defensively to Everett.

If Everett goes for his career average, I'd be happy. The problem is, I expect him to be around 50 points below that moving out of Minute Maid Park. Is Everett still worth it at a 600, rather than 650 OPS? Assuming we were planning to win in 2008, of course.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 18, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Minute Maid

I should think the park will help right handed hitters' ISO, but little else. It was great for dead-pull fly ball hitters like they had when Gaetti was hitting coach. But I'm not so sure about slap hitter like Everett.

Sure enough, his career home OPS is 711, whereas it's 604 on the road. Most of that is not in homers, however. For some reason, he walked more and struck out less at home. He also hit a lot more singles at home. I'm not sure those things can be put on the park. It's just one of those unexplainable things. Home cooking or something.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions

Everett ISO

My initial breakdown of Everett's home-away 3-year splits only looked at OPS.

Breaking it down further:
Home: .118 ISO, .181 1B%, .060 BB%
Away: .103 ISO, .157 1B%, .056 BB%

There's definitely a difference in home/away ISO, corresponding to a 23 point difference in SLG. You're right, he hits more singles and walks more at home, corresponding to an additional 28 point difference in OBP.

IOW, Everett's 78 point home-away split in OPS can roughly be attributed to:
ISO: 23 points
1B: 48 points (affects both SLG and OBP)
BB: 4 points
Unaccounted: 3 points.

Since MM is known to improve ISO, but not 1B/BB, perhaps we can chalk up much of his home-away split to home cooking. Now it seems more reasonable to me to expect around a 620-630 OPS.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 18, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

Hands off BS

Since this is Bill Smith's first year, I am going to wait and see.

With that said, I was neutral on the Garza trade. I didn't like the Santana deal (we screwed around far too long). And absolutely loved the Mike Lamb signing.

Mike Lamb is one tough hombre. That we picked him up for a song is unbelievable. Play him every day. He has been an EXCELLENT hitter with men on base, and although his range is not fantastic, he is steady. He makes the plays he is supposed to make. For this move alone, I gave BS a 7. The other moves, I am indifferent about.

by Skippy tastes better than Jiff on Feb 25, 2008 3:17 AM EST up reply actions

Hernandez

I don't know why so many people are so down on the Livan Hernandez signing. Without Santana or Silva, we had exactly one pitcher who has started a full season at the Major League level: Boof Bonser. Boof had a 5.10 ERA last season and remains as much of a question mark as any of the unproven youngsters.

Even with Livan, we're going to be asking for 600 innings from a great young pitcher coming off major surgery and a bunch of kids still getting their feet wet in the MLB. Yes, at least one pitcher will step up and cement a permanent place in the rotation with a solid season (Banker, Liriano), but at least one pitcher will really struggle as well. Some young pitchers are going to have to be sent back down to work on things.

I'd much rather have 1-2 ever-changing rotation spots all season then 2-3, and I'd much rather have struggling pitchers learning in AAA then failing in the Majors.

-Flip

by Flip27 on Feb 15, 2008 2:07 PM EST reply actions

When Livan...

...actually shows he can succeed in the AL after striking out fewer than 4 hitters per 9 innings last year in the NL, I'll believe that he can be a reliable presence in the rotation.

by ubelmann on Feb 15, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

He doesn't have to be stellar...

In fact, he doesn't even have to be anything more then stopgap. In my opinion, he'll fill the role of stopgap 4th or 5th starter just fine.

Yeah, he was a little overpriced. -But we can afford an overpriced 1-year deal. He signed for a $5 mil deal. Incentives can bring it as high as $7 mil, but if he meets incentive requirements, it'll only be a better situation.

I really don't have any problem with this move. The alternative of not making such a move would have been worse.

-Flip

by Flip27 on Feb 15, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

Pitchers who get that few strikeouts...

...without having stellar control (and Livan doesn't have stellar control) or getting a lot of ground balls (and Livan hasn't been getting a lot of ground balls) have trouble getting outs. If he can't get hitters out, he can't rack up innings--even low-quality innings.

The alternative of not making such a move would have been worse.

"Such a move" in the abstract, would have been okay with me, but I don't like Livan in particular considering that I think he's overpriced given the gap between his ERA and his peripherals. It's not like it's going to kill the organization, and Livan seems like a guy I'd like to cheer for, I just don't like the odds of this working out the way the Twins are planning on it working out.

by ubelmann on Feb 15, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions

Ergo

If he can't get hitters out, he can't rack up innings--even low-quality innings.

The converse is also true. If he chalks up innings year after year, he can get hitters out, despite his nibbling, fly-ball, soft-tossing ways. Perhaps he's an outlier to the xFIP norm.

I am concerned about the trends though. Three years ago, this would be a steal. This year, it's a marginal deal.

But the only downside is wasting $5 million for a bust. That still leaves $17 million more than we had last year in the kitty for draft picks and international signings. So I can't get too worked up about it.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions

Outliers...

I remember some people talking about Barry Zito as an outlier to the xFIP norm (3.83 ERA in 2007 with a 5.46 xFIP in 2007), he got paid like an ace pitcher, and then last year he put up a 4.53 ERA in a pitcher's park in the NL. I'm not someone who likes to put money down on outliers.

I could buy Livan as a bit of an outlier because you can't find too many pitchers who have had a career like he's had. However, even the positive things that people say about him concern me. Basically, they talk about Livan's pitching the way someone might talk about an ugly girl if he's trying to convince you to go on a blind date with her. (Yeah, she's interesting. And you have sooo much in common.) As long as they continue to avoid mentioning how she looks, you start to wonder just how ugly she is. I've heard a lot about how Livan is a competitor and a veteran, but not any positive things about what he can actually throw when he's on the mound.

We'll see. Like I said, he seems like I guy I'd like to cheer for, so it's not like I'm going to stop following the team or anything over a minor move like this, but it's not the sort of risk I'd like to see the team make, and it seems like a rather unremarkable move that many GMs would make. A very "by-the-book" move, you could say. I don't think the Twins can go strictly by the book and build a consistent winner with a mid-range payroll, though, so I can't say I'm too excited with how the offseason has gone.

by ubelmann on Feb 15, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

then swap the young ones

I agree about the number of innings we're asking out of the young pitcher, and I agree that some will struggle. I'm saying that I'd rather have a revolving door policy towards the young pitchers. Put as many of them on the MLB team right away as you can. When one struggles, and needs more AAA experience, bring up the next most ready AAA pitcher.

by snolls on Feb 15, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions

Revolving Door

I'm pretty sure that's going to happen even with Livan in the rotation. There's still going to be 2 question marks in the rotation (not counting Boof) when the team heads north.

I see Livan as insurance that we won't have a young pitcher getting shelled in the rotation that really should be fixing things in AAA.

-Flip

by Flip27 on Feb 15, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

He hasn't done...

...anything that any other GM could do. Most analysts felt that the Delmon deal was even for both sides, and there was nothing special about the haul he got for Santana. Signing players like Cuddyer and Morneau to long-term contracts is something that nearly every GM does these days. Lamb was a decent pick-up, but he didn't get him at a special price. I think Everett was a good value, but I don't think that Livan was a good value.

The Twins will hit more than they did last year, but they're also going to allow more runs, and overall they'll be lucky to win more games. Long-term, he acquired some players with good upside, but a lot of risk, too.

So not bad, but not really good either.

by ubelmann on Feb 15, 2008 3:14 PM EST reply actions

I agree

and therefore gave him a 6. Just slightly better than even because, while I believe Young trade was a fair one that anyone COULD have made, this new GM did it, where our past regimes would have been too conservative.

I think Delmon Young will bring a little bit of excitement to the team.

And, while I firmly believe that Santana ultimately backed Smith into a difficult corner, I also believe that Smith had a month or more to work with before that happened, and in that month he let the two best offers slip away. It was a gamble, I don't fault him. I think he ended up turning lemons into sour lemonade, when had he acted more decisively he could have turned the lemons into lynchburg lemonade - which would have been a little more satisfying.

by montanatwinsfan on Feb 15, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

Posted at Seth and Sickels

I posted this at Seth's site and someone reposted it at Sickels. If you take the two trades together, you get this:

Harris = Bartlett
Harris is a better hitter, Bartlet a better defender
Humber + Guerra = Garza + Morlan
Garza > Humber, Guerra > Morlan so these cancel each other out.
Young + Gomez + Pridie + Mulvey >> Santana

You can see the discussion over at Sickle's site.

Suffice it to say, I think Smith did well in the two trades. And he did especially well considering all that surrounded the Santana trade. I don't agree, ubelmann, that any GM would do the Young trade. I'm pretty sure Ryan would not do that trade. I also don't agree that it was even. As the above shows, the Twins came away very well in the Young trade, considering that they got handed a bill of goods in the Santana trade but still came out on top overall. I give him an 8 for those two.

I don't rate the free agent signings as highly, though I rate the Lamb and Everett signings highly. Smith got the best available guy at each position for a reasonable cost IMO. Lamb, especially, was the best guy and cost less than Pedro Feliz, the next best guy. I give him a 9 for those two.

I think the Monroe deal is a bad deal, considering the other options on the market and the relative cost. I give him a 2 for that one.

I'm ambivalent about Hernandez. He was the best available option all things considered. But there likely are better options in the rotation already. On the other hand, he is a known commodity who can take pressure off the young starters and bullpen, at least on an interim basis. And I like the way the contract is structured: kind of a pay-as-you-go model ($160,000 per five innings) after 160 innings. And I like the fact that they should get some value in trade or free agency for their initial investment. I give him a 7 for this one.

Not all these deals are wighted the same. The Monroe deal stinks, for example. But it is only a bench bat and only $600,000 of the money is guaranteed. Giving him an 8 for the two trades, on the other hand, is weighted very strongly. And giving him a 9 for two starters is wighted more than double the Monroe deal.

Overall I give him an 8. That's up from the 2 I would give Ryan for last year, and the 3 I would give him for the year before.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 4:09 PM EST reply actions

Really?

Humber + Guerra = Garza + Morlan Garza > Humber, Guerra > Morlan so these cancel each other out.

I guess I can agree on the second part, but you really think the overall value between the two pairs is equal? I'd love to hear rationale on that; it doesn't really add up in my mind as Garza has had waaaaaaaaay more success than Humber over the last two years and Guerra still has so far to go to turn is talent into major-league value.

by ravenfly on Feb 15, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions

Well, it's complicated

The question is, where do you pin the value? Meaning, do you pin it on this year or even next year? Or do you pin the value on 2010, or even later? Depending on how you answer that question, the equation swings one way or another.

Better yet, how about solving for value regardless of when it will affect your team. That is the spirit in which I made that statement. When all is said and done, Humber and Guerra will have better careers than Garza and Morlan, imo.

Making that argument is difficult, because it involves a lot of projecting and it depends on variables that have a lot of uncertainty attached to them.

For example, I think Humber has a good chance to return to his former self when he fully recovers from his TJ surgery, which was the first pitcher taken in the 2005 draft. If you think that, Garza is a better prospect overall than Humber, but not that much better. Garza has number 2 starter upside and number 3 starter downside. Whereas Humber has number 2 starter upside and number starter downside.

Also, I believe Guerra as ace upside and closer downside, whereas I believe Morlan has closer upside and set-up guy downside. Morlan will have an impact in Tampa before Guerra has an impact ont he Twins, but his impact will be less. So I think Guerra is the better prospect.

The riskiest statement is that the difference between Garza and Humber equals the difference between Morlan and Guerra. It's pretty speculative, I admit. But it's fun to consider. And that was the spirit of the thought experiment.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 17, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

Hunter < ?

Missing one

Hunter < ?

by doofus04 on Feb 17, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

Only the trades

It appears that only the two trades are taken into consideration, hence no Silva or Hunter. IMO, I would not have been willing to sign either to the contracts they signed with LA and Seattle, respectively, even if I were the NY GM.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 17, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

I gave

I gave him a 6. The Young trade was good, but not fantastic. Signing Monroe for the amount he cost was an inexplicable oversight. I'm personally opposed to the Livan signing, even though I'll think he'll be ok in the AL this year. HE was left with a bum situation with Santana, but he had better offers on the table than he ended up getting.

All his work isn't done either. We'll see how the roster decisions go out of spring, that can make a big difference.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 15, 2008 4:21 PM EST reply actions

Two Items:

One, I always wondered: If the Twins were trading for Johan from the Mets, what would they give as a comparable apckge to what they received...not counting any of the Mets players in the deal.

And, let's look at 2007 comapred to 2008.

The Twins subtracted:

Santana
Silva
Durbin
Garza
Ortiz
Smit
Heintz
Simonitsch
Bartlett
Castillo
Cirillo
Rodriguez
Ford
Hunter
Tyner
White
Ponson
LeCroy
Rabe

from last year's 40-man+ (not counting the invitees who never playerd)

They have added:
Buscher
McDonald
Everett
Lamb
Young
Pridie
Gomez
Monroe
Harris
Blackburn
Hernandez
Humber

plus prospects
Huerra
Mulvey

and a host of minor league guys who may/may not pan out in reserve.

Plus, the changes will allow chances for:
Slowey
Perkins
Cali
DePaula
Morales
Span
Macri
Macahdo

to play a part in 2008.

And the Twins have saved $10-12 million or so, even more if you count the signing bonus money, to invest in "the future."

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Feb 15, 2008 4:38 PM EST reply actions

I gave him a 5

and can't understand the 7-8s. He was OK. The Young deal was alright; not a steal, but it showed some needed moxie. But other than that:

The Santana deal was not good. He clearly had better options earlier, and misread the situation. While many people applauded him for waiting after the winter meetings, and thus seem to feel he shouldn't be criticized for it not working out, I say screw that. He's paid to get this stuff right, and he didn't.
He has failed utterly to use the budget to maximum effect. He is left with a team that has significant weaknesses and a lot of unspent money. That's not good.
What's more, there is no reason to think that money will be reinvested either in future years or in international signings/draft bonuses; we'll see.
The Hernandez deal strikes me as not particularly positive, though its probably not really a negative either.
While he waited on Santana and it hurt him, he acted quickly on Craig Monroe, and overpaid when there were options just as good available cheaper as the winter wore on. Not a major issue, but not a positive either.
Signing Lamb and Everett is reasonably useful.

I don't know, it adds up to a 5 to me. I can't see how he gets an 8. An 8 should be for excellence. What happened with Santana alone precludes an 8 in my view.

by Eric in Madison on Feb 15, 2008 5:25 PM EST reply actions

Ok??

1. the deal was good....Smith called all Major-league clubs that were interested in Santana, and the Mets had the best offer.

Bosox final offer: Lester, Crisp, +1 unknown
Yankees final offer: not interested
Mets: Gomez, Mulvey, Humber and Guerra

Smith chose the Mets offer as the Red Sox were losing interest and the Yanks already had lost interest...plus a bonus: Santana is in NL!

umm, He signed Morneau and Cuddyer to long term contracts spending 104 million on their contracts...and you call that failure in budget management? team with significant weaknesses? umm, best offense we have had for about a decade maybe more...
Smith will use the money for future FA signings and such...guaranteed
Hernandez = veteran, innings eater
umm, Monroe wont be a Twin unless he breaks Spring Training Camp with them...that was the deal. Plus, Monroe will bounce back from last year, he is no Rondell White. I hate how all of you guys have to pick on one person...2005=stewart; 2006=White; 2007=Morneau; 2008=Monroe?
Everett boosts the defensive side of players (Gold Glove SS)...Lamb boosts offensive side of players (first HR hitting 3B since Koskie). Everett might not be a great hitter but Lamb will cover up for him; Lamb might not be the greatest fielding 3B, but Everett will cover up for him, and he is better than he is given credit for.

Lay off Billy Smith, he has done the best he can with this ballclub for the moment. Watch, if the Twins should go to the World Series before 2010, you guys will be praising him to the skies with how well he has done as GM...would you rather have TR???

by BCTwins on Feb 15, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions

Its not about the individual deals,

That's the TR method of thinking which got him into this mess. It's about the sum of all deals.

last year our offense and bench sucked.
He made the Young and Harris trade. Signed Lamb, traded for Monroe, Lost our top 2 or 3 hitter in Hunter to FA and the continued development of Kubel. And hopefully Gomez can get on base and run.

The Young and Harris trade may be even at best, but add in the other moves and we have an above average offense even with the loss of Hunter.

Trading Johan sucked and shouldn't be forgiven but we do have lots of prospectsand a great bullpen and lots of depth to cover in case of injuries. The longterm contracts are fine.... gees bitch cause we lose a player to FA...then bitch cause we sign one to a long term contract. Where's Johan's money?

by doofus04 on Feb 17, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure about that one

He has failed utterly to use the budget to maximum effect. He is left with a team that has significant weaknesses and a lot of unspent money.

You assume that he had options available to him to spend the money. I suppose he could have signed Hunter, Silva, Rowand, Jones, Santana or Lohse. But I don't think signing those guys for inflated contracts is a good idea. Outside of them, the free agent market sucked.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 5:39 PM EST reply actions

Well

I'm not sure I'm making the assumption that he should have bought free agents, though the CF market was pretty strong and I'm not sold on any of the young CFs.

There are, however, other ways to spend--notably by trading for players who make more money than what you trade away. Were there options? I'm sure I couldn't say, but again, it's his job to create and capitalize on opportunities.

Thus I gave him a 5. I'm not suggesting he ought to be fired--this was a tough off-season to segue into the job--but I can't justify a 7 or 8.

by Eric in Madison on Feb 15, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

Makin the grade

The Young swap while even on paper takes our strength of starting pitching and filled our biggest weakness (the loss of offense from Hunter)
Signing of Lamb and Everett inexpensive up grades. Fixes a huge offensive hole at 3b. SS now an offensive hole.
Back to the Young trade, Harris also upgrades offense at 2nd and puts Punto where he is most valuable, utility player (that has added value too)
Monroe signing is better than Ford/ White but 3.82 million is a little pricey. there are comparative players that are cheaper, but that is getting nitpicky. I'm not going to complain about overpaying someone by a million or 2 on a 1 year contract. now a 3 year contract thats different.
Livian is a fair signing in my book. Good price, Silva Lite. As long as he gets over 200 innings or we get a decent prospect for him at some point this year.
Signing Morneau and Cuddyer long term = good. what more do I have to say about that.
I also wanted to comment on the depth. This doesn't get much press but have you guys noticed how much depth we have at each position now?

We have at least 10 pitchers competing for a spot in spring training.

Corner OF: Young, Cuddyer, Kubel, Monroe
CF: Gomez, Pridie, Span, Monroe (in a pinch)
3B: Lamb, Harris, Punto, Buscher
SS: Everett, Punto, Casilla (area of least depth)
2b: Harris, Punto, Casilla
other MI Tolbert, Watkins, Machado, Plouffe down the road
1b: Morneau, Cuddyer, Mauer
C: Mauer, Redmond, Morales

A boat load of relievers too.

We are in a position to handle an injury to any player without missing too much. Or at least not like last year when there were no real backups...Ford, White, Ponson.....The press says there are a lot of position battles this spring but what gets failed to mention is that the battles are between solid major leaguers not necessarily rookies.

The only hiccup is the Santana situation, I just don't agree with the trade and I don't agree that there wasn't enough money, and I don't agree that he just had to be traded either. And with what Smith ended up with, he should have kept Santana...remember that was Johan freaking Santana the best pitcher in baseball! We could have signed Lofton at CF and kept Santana. This just about ruins the whole offseason in my book. Giving up on a season is ludicrious. Here's to hoping that Gomez is ready to go now and have a .360+ obp with 60+ steals.

by doofus04 on Feb 15, 2008 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

World Series here we come!!!!

So are you saying that we won't lose 85-90 games this year? The Young trade may have replaced Hunters offence but we lost our top pitching prospect and now we have a guy who hits .235 playing SS. Our depth doesn't get any attention because most of the guys on our depth chart aren't proven yet-Gomez, Pridie, SPan, harris, Casilla-or not very good-Punto, Buscher.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 17, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

yep

That's exactly what I'm saying. our offense is way better than last years. Our only real weakness is SS. 2nd base and CF have the potential to be below average.

Our bullpen will be one of the best in the league.

Our defense will be above average.

Starting rotation is the huge question mark. I have a feeling that it will at least be league average overall and depending on Liriano has the potential to be moderately above average.

To me that means we should be atleast an 80-85 really an 82-87 win team (My prediction). If something goes wrong there are good options to fix it, and if something goes right then all the better.

I reserve the right to be wrong and could watch our team lose 85 - 90 games. I just don't see it and I don't feel like I'm drinkin the Kool-Aid of spring optimism here either.

by doofus04 on Feb 18, 2008 9:16 AM EST up reply actions

Cleaning up...

I think what's lost in the analysis of Bill Smith's tenure is the job he's done cleaning out unnecessary players on the Twins. Tyner, Ford, LRod, and Heintz have all finally been jettisoned to improve the roster.

Now you can say that "any GM would do that" but Bill Smith did. His predecessor didn't.

I really think Smith did a fabulous job and as such I would rate him an 8 or a 9.

by djskilbr on Feb 16, 2008 4:41 PM EST reply actions

I Agree

The steps he took to clean up the mess left him have left the Twins a better team than he inherited. He has shown me that he won't be afraid to trade from strength to fill holes. Also, I feel he is much more likely to go out in July and make a deal - not all of which are always good but usually is appreciated for at least trying - which we didn't do the last two years! I gave him an 8 because at least he was proactive in making moves - time will tell how many were good and how many were not.

by CCTwinsFan on Feb 16, 2008 10:48 PM EST reply actions

regarding Smith's rating

I gave him an 8. If he would have resigned Santana I would have given him a 10.

He got the best available 3b the best defensive SS, a bench bat (Monroe) which could have come cheaper, Hernandez at a reasonable deal (best FA starting pitcher) traded for a hitter with big time upside. We have tons of depth, If we still had Santana I would call us serious contenders. As it stands now we are not far off. And it all comes down to the quality of our new starters.

by doofus04 on Feb 18, 2008 9:24 AM EST reply actions

For how much money?

If he had signed Santana to a 4 year extention for $86 million (making it a 5 year $100 million contract in total), I agree, I would have given him a 10.

What would you have given him if:

A) He had signed Santana for 5 years total, $115 million?
B) Signed Santana for the contract given to him by the Mets?
C) Signed him for 8 years $200 million dollars?
D) Traded him for Gomez, Martinez, Guerra, Humber, Mulvey, and Pelfrey
E) Traded him for Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain and Melky?

I don't think its so simple as to say Smith did a poor job because he didn't sign Santana. I think you have to rate him against what he (or someone else) could have done in the same position. I think he did fine. Nothing exceptional, but fine.

by snolls on Feb 18, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

He did fine. Could have potentially done better by accepting the initial rumored NY or Boston offers, but at the time I totally agreed with Smith waiting for better offers.

A) I seem to remember that we offered Santana a 5/100 extension on top of his existing contract, he did not accept. Doesn't matter who's the GM, if the player does not accept the offer.
B) or C) Would not affect my view of Smith. I'd be optimistic about ownership, but I do not feel that $150M is smart for any pitcher, and we cannot afford to be paying for relatively unproductive years on the back end of a huge deal.
D) or E) I would put Smith at an 11 or 12 if he got any of these deals. None were realistic, especially E). I would probably have had to change my pants if we got that deal.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 18, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

Basically

Santana got a contract for 6 years and around 21.5 million if I remember with an option that is reachable as long as he is healthy a few years from now. That was a reasonable contract. A little high but it is ok to overpay sometimes for great talent. Signing Santana would have made us a strong contender this year IMO.

by doofus04 on Feb 18, 2008 7:10 PM EST up reply actions

Too rich for my blood

From Cot's contracts:

# 08:$19M, 09:$20M, 10:$21M, 11:$22.5M, 12:$24M, 13:$25.5M,
14:$25M club option ($5.5M buyout)
# full no-trade clause
# 2014 club option becomes player option if Santana:
* wins Cy Young award from 2008-13 and finishes second or third in the Cy Young vote in one other season
* ranks second or third in Cy Young vote in any 3 seasons, 2008-13
* is on the active roster for the final 30 days of 2013 season, and:
o pitches 215 innings in 2013, or
o pitches 420 innings in 2012-13, or
o pitches 630 innings in 2011-13

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

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions

Overpaying

is fine for a year, but this contract has the real potential for multiple years and $60M+ down the drain. Much too rich for my blood.

Yes, signing Santana would have made us a contender, but we would still expect to be around the 3rd place team in the Central. A chance to win, but much more of a chance of finishing out of the playoffs.

by Adam Peterson on Feb 18, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

As usual...

I agree with both of you guys.

7 years and an option for Johan is just way, way too much for my liking.

by djskilbr on Feb 19, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions

still

Its not my money so I don't mind spending it. Sometimes you just have to go for it. I still don't think that the talent gap is too insurmountable to catch the Tigers. We don't have to have the same offense as they do to win the same games. With our bullpen and Santana and Liriano at the top of the rotation and if Baker is avaerage....We would just need one of Slowey or Bonser to put up an average season to be in the mix. not out of the question.

by doofus04 on Feb 19, 2008 8:50 AM EST reply actions

Budget

Well, you can say the budget doesn't matter. But it does. This salary would be consistently 25% or more of the team budget for the next seven years.

How does that affect other budget decisions you have down the road? Can you afford to resign Mauer in 2011? What about Young? Or Baker? Or Liriano? If you do the math, you will know that giving 25% to one player leaves perhaps enough for four other stars plus 20 or so surfs. That was the formula we had last year. And we know that it will not get it done in this market.

If you can spread the money around and give 10-15% to seven or eight players and have the rest for serfs, you have a much better chance to compete long-term.

You also have risk to consider. When you put all your eggs in one basket, that better be a pretty darn good basket. And as good as Santana is, there are indications that he will not be this good for the life of the contract. He has chronic blister problems that turn a dominant three-pitch mix into a solid two-pitch mix. He is susceptible to leg fatigue that has plagued him every time he extends into the playoffs. People I trust who know mechanics claim it's only a matter of time before he has a major breakdown.

I agree that it gives you an opportunity to contend this year. But you don't play it year to year. You have to watch the long-term. I might be more apt to do something like this if I could trade him later, but he insisted on a no-trade clause, and that's a deal breaker. We know first hand how a player can use that to force you into a corner.

If you find that you have a situation that prevents you from contending because you only have one star and a bunch of stiffs, you have to trade that guy to spread the talent around. If you can't do that contractually, you're stuck with a losing team with one star, like the Steve Carlton Phillies.

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

by cmathewson on Feb 19, 2008 9:58 AM EST up reply actions