Thread: Scott Baker Signs with Chicago Cubs

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

It's Epstein not Einstein, and don't forget the bottomless pit of cash factor.

So payroll guarantees not only regular season wins but playoff success? Good to know; seems I've read a bunch on this site and elsewhere that was wrong about those things.

Originally Posted by joeboo_22

The Cubs can afford to make this gamble, the Twins can't. Its just as simple as that, if the Twins spend $5.5 and has problems and pitches less then 50 innings it has a much larger impact on the Twins then it does on the Cubs. The Cubs need pitching and have the money to gamble on guys like Baker, the Twins don't have that luxury. Wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs traded him if he is having a decent season when the deadline happens.

Exactly. The Cubs didn't bring in Epstein just for a long, slow, bare-bones rebuilding project. He should have the kind of payroll flexibility that allows him to take a flyer on a guy like Baker and then, like you suggested, potentially flip him at the deadline if.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

The only team he was competing with for the successful part of his tenure was the Yankees who won it 9 straight years: 98-06. The rest of the division was really pathetic and easy wins for them. Then there is the random playoff winner/World Series that follows.

Actually that's two "RANDOM" World Series wins in his first five seasons as GM, sunshine. Maybe the Twins can find a lucky GM like that too someday. And if you think the AL East was a cakewalk during his best seasons, I think you're in the minority.

I never hinted at how many there were from what I wrote and I know the R. Sox won two, DUH. Calm down sweetheart, I could do without the derogatory nicknames. I don't see what I've said that's anger provoking at all. You should go ahead and read The Twins Binary article posted today if you want some facts about the playoffs. Like: being a 95 game winner versus an 85 game winner – affords a team almost no advantage in terms of advancing in the playoffs." coming from the .07 correlation of regular season wins to playoff ones. Get into the playoffs and you have just as good a shot as anyone to win the WS. The Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays also had some of their worst seasons during the early 2000s and they had no where near the payroll as the Red Sox.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

It's Epstein not Einstein, and don't forget the bottomless pit of cash factor.

So payroll guarantees not only regular season wins but playoff success? Good to know; seems I've read a bunch on this site and elsewhere that was wrong about those things.

Generally, the more money spent on something, the better it is. It may not always be true if the cheap end of totem pole spent the money more wisely. If I go to the store and want to buy a camera. A $199 one would have more capabilities than a $79 one would; therefore, it would be better. Same holds true for baseball. I pay a player more money because he will do a better job. Common sense.

And where is the "guarantee" in twinsnorth49's quote. Seems like you are twisting his words...

There are reasonable posters on TD and then there are unreasonable ones. Guess where you belong?

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

I never hinted at how many there were from what I wrote and I know the R. Sox won two, DUH. Calm down sweetheart, I could do without the derogatory nicknames. I don't see what I've said that's anger provoking at all.

So you know he won two in five years. And it's still "random", as it pertains to his abilities as GM? Ok. Agree to disagree. And I apologize to you and all the other posters from the bottom of my heart for calling you sunshine.

I've read the Binary thread, and although I always respect John's takes on baseball, I disagreed with him and others in it. 85 wins doesn't get you $#!^, either getting to or winning in the playoffs the past 10 seasons.

Going back to the point of the thread, Epstein certainly has his work cut out for him with the Cubs. But if Cubs ownership is willing to accelerate the process with more payroll for gambles like Baker, Theo may return the Cubs to respectability sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

The only team he was competing with for the successful part of his tenure was the Yankees who won it 9 straight years: 98-06. The rest of the division was really pathetic and easy wins for them. Then there is the random playoff winner/World Series that follows.

Actually that's two "random" World Series wins in his first five seasons as GM, sunshine. Maybe the Twins can find a lucky GM like that too someday. And if you think the AL East was a cakewalk during his best seasons, I think you're in the minority.

Well, from 03-05 the AL East only had two teams with winning records and each year it was NY and Bos. In 06 & 07, Toronto joined them. Boston fell to third in 06 and won it all in 07. After Tampa made the playoffs in 08, Boston only made the playoffs once. Boston spent more money than anyone except NY and had a lot of players associated with PEDs. Epstein tended to get too much credit and too much blame for what happened in Bos. He had resources that let him sign top free agents and create a strong draft/scouting group. He was able to offer arbitration to players going away so he got extra draft picks which gave him some great drafts (05) and not so great (06-07).

I find it comical that people would try and compare the 03-11 Red Sox with the Twins. The Twins had a far harder time making the post season, despite playing the Yankees 12 fewer times a year. Ryan was hamstrung by payroll for both the ML roster but also in the draft. Bad contracts were significant problems that he couldn't outspend. Chicago and Detroit had massive payroll advantages over us.

The Cubs must think he'll have some trade value by midseason, otherwise I don't really get it from their end. 5.5 guaranteed is excessive. The lack of option years is troubling. If this is the deal the Twins gave Baker, I'd hoped we'd be pretty upset.

Cubs signed RHP Scott Baker to a one-year, $5.5 million contract.

Patrick Mooney of CSNChicago.com passed along the contract details and adds that Baker could make an additional $1.5 million with incentives. It's a nice buy-low opportunity for Theo Epstein and company, as Baker is coming off Tommy John surgery and has enjoyed success in the past. The 31-year-old right-hander should be ready around the early part of the 2013 season if he can avoid setbacks. He could be an excellent trade chip for the Cubbies if he bounces back.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

I never hinted at how many there were from what I wrote and I know the R. Sox won two, DUH. Calm down sweetheart, I could do without the derogatory nicknames. I don't see what I've said that's anger provoking at all.

So you know he won two in five years. And it's still "random", as it pertains to his abilities as GM? Ok. Agree to disagree. And I apologize to you and all the other posters from the bottom of my heart for calling you sunshine.

I've read the Binary thread, and although I always respect John's takes on baseball, I disagreed with him and others in it. 85 wins doesn't get you $#!^, either getting to or winning in the playoffs the past 10 seasons.

Going back to the point of the thread, Epstein certainly has his work cut out for him with the Cubs. But if Cubs ownership is willing to accelerate the process with more payroll for gambles like Baker, Theo may return the Cubs to respectability sooner rather than later.

I thought it wasn't about money?

Money doesn't buy championships, granted, but it sure helps to put a competitive team on the field that gives you a pretty good chance. GM's build/buy teams that can make the playoffs, whatever happens after that has very little to do with them or any other single factor.

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Originally Posted by Parker Hageman

But wait. I thought the Twins had already signed him to a three-year deal?

Evidently the Cubs didn't check with thrylos98's source.

I heard talks broke down when Baker got wind of thrylos leaking inside information.

Seriously though, I'm bummed to hear that Baker left and even more bummed to hear that this is the going rate for pitching.

I don't think this is going to be the conventional thing we'll see. One has to think the Cubs overpaid quite a bit to pry him away from the Twins, seeing as how much he liked it here. I really don't mind losing him. He's a huge question mark after TJ and the Twins are not in a position to gamble rotation wise.

i read this as scott baker believes he has a better chance in 2013 to go to the playoffs with the cubs then with the twins, you see a patteren? nathan cuddy,kubel,thome,baker....the home town heros are bailing on this sinking ship.....

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by luckylager

There's a reason why the Cubs remain "the Cubs". Good luck to Scott Baker.

Theo Epstein is very likely smarter than anyone we have in our upper management...I have little doubt he'll turn that mess around

we can only dream of a front office as good as theo...instead we sit with the 3 stooges....

Originally Posted by Please

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by luckylager

There's a reason why the Cubs remain "the Cubs". Good luck to Scott Baker.

Theo Epstein is very likely smarter than anyone we have in our upper management...I have little doubt he'll turn that mess around

He did sign Lackey and Crawford ....

and Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Julio Lugo and Renteria.

look , your each complaining he signed several players...who did the twins sign....if you dont swing you dont hit a home run ....its better to have tried and lost then just sit on your thumbs hoping to recieve a bonus for reducing payroll...

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Originally Posted by Parker Hageman

But wait. I thought the Twins had already signed him to a three-year deal?

Evidently the Cubs didn't check with thrylos98's source.

I heard talks broke down when Baker got wind of thrylos leaking inside information.

Seriously though, I'm bummed to hear that Baker left and even more bummed to hear that this is the going rate for pitching.

I don't think this is going to be the conventional thing we'll see. One has to think the Cubs overpaid quite a bit to pry him away from the Twins, seeing as how much he liked it here. I really don't mind losing him. He's a huge question mark after TJ and the Twins are not in a position to gamble rotation wise.

i read this as scott baker believes he has a better chance in 2013 to go to the playoffs with the cubs then with the twins, you see a patteren? nathan cuddy,kubel,thome,baker....the home town heros are bailing on this sinking ship.....

sinking?...you mean, sunken

gunnarthor- Come for the Baker signing discussion, stay for the Theo Epstein debate! We're not going to see eye to eye on Epstein, I think. You made some good points, as have others, about payroll and existing talent in Boston. But I still see a guy who GM'ed two World Series wins while still ten years younger or more than most rookie GM's. Pretty exceptional in my book, and I don't even like the Red Sox except when they're beating the Yankees or the Black Sox.

Back to Baker, sorry to see him go, but that seems spendy for such a high risk guy who figures to not even be ready until well into the season. But Epstein is probably getting more payroll to achieve faster results than Ryan will in Minnesota. As far as Baker the pitcher, I hope he can succeed enough in Chicago and elsewhere that he gives Twins fans reason to engage in yet another round of What Might Have Been.

On the other hand, Lohse has done well for himself in StL, and I still don't miss that guy....

in ever assuming that at least one team wouldn't offer Baker gobs of money? The Twins need to start almost from scratch. Tying up more than $1million on a chronically injured pitcher would have been crazy.

I do not think Baker signing with the Cubs was about the Twins or winning chances. It was about the money and the ability to market himself next year. Twins may have to move faster and spend more than they want to improve for next year. Other clubs seem to be doing this.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

No surprise. And the chorus begins in justification of the twins not signing him. That chorus will be repeated player after player. To sign a legit free agent, you need to overpay.

No surprise you commenting on the other commenters rather than the actual article itself. So predictable. Why don't you tell us if you would have paid more for Baker. Personally, I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

The only team he was competing with for the successful part of his tenure was the Yankees who won it 9 straight years: 98-06. The rest of the division was really pathetic and easy wins for them. Then there is the random playoff winner/World Series that follows.

Actually that's two "random" World Series wins in his first five seasons as GM, sunshine. Maybe the Twins can find a lucky GM like that too someday. And if you think the AL East was a cakewalk during his best seasons, I think you're in the minority.

Well, from 03-05 the AL East only had two teams with winning records and each year it was NY and Bos. In 06 & 07, Toronto joined them. Boston fell to third in 06 and won it all in 07. After Tampa made the playoffs in 08, Boston only made the playoffs once. Boston spent more money than anyone except NY and had a lot of players associated with PEDs. Epstein tended to get too much credit and too much blame for what happened in Bos. He had resources that let him sign top free agents and create a strong draft/scouting group. He was able to offer arbitration to players going away so he got extra draft picks which gave him some great drafts (05) and not so great (06-07).

I find it comical that people would try and compare the 03-11 Red Sox with the Twins. The Twins had a far harder time making the post season, despite playing the Yankees 12 fewer times a year. Ryan was hamstrung by payroll for both the ML roster but also in the draft. Bad contracts were significant problems that he couldn't outspend. Chicago and Detroit had massive payroll advantages over us.

So what you're saying is, you think we have people in our front office smarter than Epstein?

I think it was a huge mistake for this team to release Nathan, Liriano and now Baker. We got virtually nothing for these guys. Wouldn't it make sense to sign them to three year contracts instead of declining their option (or trading Liriano at his lowest trade value point). Then trade them if you don't think they are showing enough value to deserve what you are paying them. At least we either get value out of them or trade for value. We are DESPERATE for pitching and Ryan is too cheap to get front line starters. We now need 1, 2, 4 & 5 starters (assuming Diamond is a 3). Big mistake letting these three go in my opinion. Ryan will never sign or trade for 4 starters. Baker could come back as a #2 but count on him as #4 or #5 for this year, Liriano could be a #4 or 5 and Nathan could be the closer if he wasn't already gone to TX. Perkins is a good set up guy but he is not a closer. Too many home runs in critical situations. Ryan could then get a #1 and a #2 starter and he is done. Bottom line: TR needs to step up and sign Greinke to a long term deal. Over pay for him but tell every other free agent player that the Twins are serious about building a starting rotation that can win plus a team that could go worst to first. I am tired of hearing about the payroll. We built them the stadium and their part of the deal is to build a winner. It was not to build the best team on a budget, it is the best team period. The Pohlad's have plenty of money and I have never heard them say (in public anyway) that there is a limit on what Ryan can spend. He puts that on himself.

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

i read this as scott baker believes he has a better chance in 2013 to go to the playoffs with the cubs then with the twins, you see a patteren? nathan cuddy,kubel,thome,baker....the home town heros are bailing on this sinking ship.....

It's no surprise that you would "read" Baker not signing with the Twins as part of the narrative you continue to promote: that Twins are awful. No one's surprised or impressed with your "reading." Baker probably went after the money. If he was concerned about winning, he'd have signed somewhere other than with the Cubs. Obviously.