Take the poster child for "classic bad pitching contract," Barry Zito. 7 years, 126 million. He's in the final year of it now, and earning less in terms of AAV than Buehrle and Santana. But he was signed a year earlier, and got locked into 2006 salaries and projections instead of 2008 or 2012 salaries and projections. It should go without sayin but those things tend to go up pretty fast in baseball.
Which is why I think this aversion to long-term contracts is overblown. Even if your guy turns into a Zito, a team can still be a consistent contender as the Giants have shown.
I like the longitudinal approach here but I think you should compare how much the guys who have been piecemealed onto contracts over that span have earned and produced, as compared to the guys who were locked up to big deals early. Carlos Silva earned 45 million between 2 separate 2-year contracts after leaving the Twins while posting a 6.77 ERA in under 200 innings. Nowhere near as bad as Zito's in retrospect. Heck, even Meche managed to post two 200+ inning seasons of sub-4 ERA ball in his 5-year, 55 million/deal. A bad contract but hardly an albatross in 2012 money, the final year of his deal.
*edited for clarity
Since you would have to outbid Detroit the question should be do you sign Sanchez at 5 and 90.
No idea whether BBF is the source for that hideously ugly photoshoop or if they just stole it fair and square like I did.
kinda like ;Bastard Boy Floyd' one
Thanks. Some players seem to attract many negative anagrams - Florimon as you noted seemed to result in nothing but bad ones, and Tyler Robertson likewise had more than a fair share. Is there a correlation to on-field talent? Not on purpose, but maybe it's fate. Doesn't bode well for Brian Duensing, in that case. The uncensored version is at:
I welcome any additions someone comes up with.
These are bizarre and wonderful. I missed them the first time around; my favorites between both lists are:
Pedro Florimon: Implode For Ron
Darin Mastroianni: Indiana Rainstorm
Pedro Hernandez: End Red Porn Haze
Fun stuff. Thank you ashburyjohn.
The aim to bring a business mentality to every aspect of life would be shocking even to the Mad Men of the 50s-60s. And this trial balloon by the Twins touches some of us in this way.
Maybe, Jim Pohlad's real passion is golf? Or RC flying, or dominatrix roleplay. Maybe its (gasp) not baseball, like it is for you and me. Maybe he leaves the office at 5 o'clock and tries to forget about what he did at the office that day just like every other schmuck.
I put the uncensored list on the web at http://www.skypoint.com/members/ashbury/anagrams
Starting pitching is so difficult to find. The Twins should be interested.
John, this is one of those decisions where makeup and scrappiness might actually mean something (in addition to his FIP ). I would strongly consider the trade with a good signoff from my scouts, if he has a real willingness to put in the time, and if we could get him for a light trade-off (middling prospect(s) in the Minors). That being said, he would be a Twin till 2016 you say, but would this give us many years of him being good. All told, I can't imagine the Tigers would trade him for what I would offer, but it's worth a shot to make a call.
Yeah, it doesn't really make sense. But they got another year of him in the system by not 40-manning him, something similar to what they did with Kyle Waldrop and, also, Cole DeVries. Be interesting to see if they try it with Carlos Gutierrez this fall.
Slama's 28 years old, right? Not wasting a year on the 40-man thus prevents his prematurely reaching the free-agent market when he's, what, 32, 33, 34? I'm never sure.
The Twins may actually be waiting to add Slama as a 40-man guy for the 2013 season rather than waste a year by adding him this year. So that might be good news. Again, anyone added in November can't be cut until after spring training, so you need some dead bodies to cut if you add free agents.
I believe several of the mentioned above players will be outrighted at the end of the season, Manship, Carson, Butera, maybe Walters and De Vires. My guess is the roster will have to be cleared to add players that will need to be protected from the Rule 5 draft.
Have not had time to research the players that need to be added(sorry), but have seen a couple of lists in prior posts. Also add Casilla to the list of probably will be outrighted as he has been given 3 chances to take the position and is 0 - 3.
And so many of the guys, starting with the already demoted Thomas, Gray and Maloney, and adding such folks as Walters, Perdumo, let's throw in Butera, Carson, Manship, the injured Gutierrez and Oliveros -- to name but a few would be unclaimed and available again, or easily replaceable by other ilk in the systems. And why not give recognition and expsoure to guys IN your system that you have promoted and supposedly believed in -- Guerra, Slama, Bigley even.
I agree. It certainly seems necessary this weekend after the burden handed the pen by Blackburn and Hendriks. I also think that some team will better figure out how to use their pitching staff.
I recall the 1969 Twins and a 10 man staff. Tom Tischinski was the 3rd catcher on the team. After playing the full season in the majors, he ended the season with 56 plate appearance and 12 starts. They had the left/right pinch hitting tandem of Charlie Manuel and Rick Renick. Both entered games more often from the bench. Frank Quilici was primarily a defensive sub for Harmon Killebrew at 3B. George Mitterwald was the back up catcher starting mostly lefties in a platoon with John Roseboro. There was still a spot on the bench and role for Bob Allison finishing his career and a young Graig Nettles. Imagine the options for Billy Martin with this 7 man bench. Weaver and Stengel were often credited with their ability to build successful platoon combinations. That's a lot easier to do when your carrying a bench with 7 players.
It's only a start to what would be a more solid analysis (say, looking a little harder for trades of lesser magnitude that still brought 2 or more legitimate prospects), but points in the direction that I think is a true conclusion, namely that we're looking at a summer of one-for-one trades of any significant talent that may have various spare parts included for any of a number of reasons.
Shoot! I forgot a trade candidate, even though he stares me right in the face in the first list of trades:
Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 0.6 Prev WAR: 0.8 Career WAR: 6.2
These numbers don't stack up any better to the list of big-time trading chips than the rest of the Twins' candidates (and it's not as if WAR is systematically prejudiced against closers, since Nathan regularly had seasonal WAR in the 2-3 range and Rivera goes even higher). What we need is a trading partner who'll do a swap similar to the Ramos deal; can we get Bill Smith planted as a mole in some team's organization?
Got it, thanks. It's a good analysis of WAR and what you can get in terms of prospects. Thanks for writing it.
> Is the WAR of the player, or the players returned?
Of the veteran player only. Unless I made typos.
> Because isn't that part of the question, how much WAR did you give up to get what WAR in return?
It's part of "a" question, I guess. But my purpose here was more modest: to try and line up current Twins assets to assets that have been used in big trades from the past. In the case of several of these trades, it's too soon to know the WAR gotten in return anyway (or also how much WAR was ultimately traded away in future years' production).
Again, I wasn't trying to assess the success of the trades; it's certainly an interesting question to wonder how much is received in return for a player with a certain profile of WAR numbers past and present, but when trading for prospects you don't know for sure what you'll get anyway, and looking after-the-fact at WAR is almost exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do, which is to look at the trades from the perspective of the moment they were transacted. You need something other than WAR (of the later years) to measure what a prospect's value was thought *at the time* to be.
Not every player in a 5-player package is a blue-chipper, but in the trades listed, the packages weren't typically just one stud with 4 fillers. So, it seemed enough to just group these trades generally, looking for a pattern of what was being traded away. And the pattern I think I see is that the Twins have absolutely no one on the roster who is likely to pull more than a single can't-miss prospect, paired maybe with a second good but unproven player. And IMO trading at that rate of speed means treading water, with a sub-.500 club, indefinitely.
That doesn't mean no trades are possible, or in the Twins' interest. But I'm convinced more than before that trading alone isn't going to restock the system in one stroke. Maybe I'm setting up a straw man argument here that no one was actually arguing to be the case.
> Also, if your team as currently constructed utterly stinks, but you think you have 2-4 starters in the minors ready in, say, 2015, wouldn't you want to trade your current players and get 1-4 more guys that will be ready in 2015? It can be done, but it's hard to do well.
It's true, a strategy of trading veterans for prospects is quite a lot more complicated than just backing up the truck and loading the merchandise. My aim here was much humbler, to assess how big of a truck might be needed. Looks like a U-Haul trailer is enough.