Thread: Scott Baker Signs with Chicago Cubs

I would have been happy to have 'Shake n Bake' back, but not at that price. Bill Smith might have spent $5-6 million to bring back Baker, but I think we are seeing a return to the Shrewdinator (aka Terry Ryan), who will pass on bad deals in favor of more club friendly ones. If we have another off season like last one, only this time with the focus on starting pitching, we will be a pretty decent ball club.

Nice article by Phil Mackey about the Baker signing/loss: http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/M..._to_pass111312

First, let me say, I didn't care if Baker signed with us or not...not one bit.

Having said that, we need starters...we need three good-great starters....they cost money/good players (or both). Ryan isn't gonna 'break the bank' for pitching. So, we're looking at dumpster diving free agent SPs (as is the norm or us), or couple trades...

...cause he's not gonna spend big, he's just not.

Originally Posted by nokomismod

I would have been happy to have 'Shake n Bake' back, but not at that price. Bill Smith might have spent $5-6 million to bring back Baker, but I think we are seeing a return to the Shrewdinator (aka Terry Ryan), who will pass on bad deals in favor of more club friendly ones. If we have another off season like last one, only this time with the focus on starting pitching, we will be a pretty decent ball club.

I would hope that is always his intention, however the problem arises when the other 29 teams also get pitcher fever and there are no more team friendly deals for useful free agent starters.

I had previously posted I would sign Baker to a two year, incentive laden deal. Btw, fair criticism of my post, but it was not aimed at the posters here, that is the consensus I read or heard elsewhere also, but it did come across wrong. Apologies.

I think the Cubs overpaid, but I also believe the only way to sign the better players is to overpay. Baseball owners know this, so if they will not do that, why buy a team? Most every free agent that is likely to be good will be overpaid.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

I had previously posted I would sign Baker to a two year, incentive laden deal. Btw, fair criticism of my post, but it was not aimed at the posters here, that is the consensus I read or heard elsewhere also, but it did come across wrong. Apologies.

I think the Cubs overpaid, but I also believe the only way to sign the better players is to overpay. Baseball owners know this, so if they will not do that, why buy a team? Most every free agent that is likely to be good will be overpaid.

I agree with this... Overpay on someone else is my thinking?

Twins will have to overpay to get pitching. Shawn Marcum, Anibel Sanchez, and others are better bets. Do not think Sanchez will want to come here, but there are other options, issue is you either have to make trades or sign the other options. Clubs do not seem to be waiting for the market to shake out or see who will not be tendered a contract. I believe the Twins have to sign(and probably overpay) a decent pitcher to come here or the market will pass the Twins by as being illrelevent. Then they will really have to overpay to get a player or pitcher to come here. Is this uncomfortable, yes, but doing nothing is not an option if TR wants to fill seats next year. Trading Span and others for pitching prospects may be the better way to go, but that might be one step back before moving forward. That could cripple the Twins payroll for years after 2014 and the hype of the All Star Game has worn off. Best line is to sign some pitchers and then flip them at the deadline for prospects if it does not work out. Playroll may have to go back to about $100 million for this to work, but I now feel the numbers in the Twins Handbook may be low for pitchers, I hope not, but that is the way it is trending. In this case you may have to spend money to make money.

I'm optimistic for 2014, 2015 time frame with the young guys coming up...

I'm just not sold on the Twins (meaning ownership, the FO and so on) being interested in putting a true WS contending team together. For the last decade and change, all they've ever seemed interested in is building a team to be competitive within the division....and the couple seasons where they were truly very good (2006 and 2010) were followed up with offseasons not worked to put us over the the hump, but worked to downgrade us because, hey, we were SO good, we can afford to downgrade some while still being competitive in the division.


Didn't work either time...

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.....

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

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

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

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...

Gaze at the power of the multi-quote, a useful too that allows you to respond to multiple points without spamming the board with multiple posts on your part.

PS- People might take you more seriously if you at least attempted to follow conventions of the English language. Things such as capitalization, punctuation and grammar count, even on the web.

The article today from Mackey, who is usually very good, was just ridiculous. Here is his evaluation from today:

"Baker will be guaranteed $5.5 million with a chance to earn an extra $1.5 million in performance incentives. ...
Passing on Baker was probably the right decision for the Twins"

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/M..._to_pass111312

Here is his recommendation from his OWN plan to fix the Twins just 2 weeks ago:

"Bring back Scott Baker on an incentive-laden deal. Baker ... perhaps $3-4 million base with an extra $4 million in incentives."

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/H...ade_fits103112

P-Mac says it is a great idea to sign him to a minimum $4 million, maximum $8 million contract but suddenly it is a bad idea to sign him to a minimum $5.5 million, maximum $7 million contract? This is effectively the same contract with a little more risk on the downside and a little more return on the upside.

Next P-Mac said the following:

"Baker's departure should not come as much of a shock."

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/M...wise_to_pass11

Baker said in September he would like to be back. Ryan said in October they would like ot have him back. After they declined his option they still said they wanted him back. P-Mac and virtually every offseason blueprint I have seen this in the past month have pretty much assumed a 1 year deal with incentives. To say that Baker not being on this team in 2013 is not a shock is just not a credible statement.

Honest question, is Terry Ryan doing anything right now to improve this team? My impression is that he is just scanning the waiver wire looking for the next marque player. I get it folks, it's early in the offseason, but let's face the facts Terry Ryan, we have lost 90+ games 2 straight years now, MAKE SOME FRICKIN WAVES already.

Well hopefully this ends the insane speculation that you can go out and sign 3 good starters in the offseason to magically become a contender.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Well hopefully this ends the insane speculation that you can go out and sign 3 good starters in the offseason to magically become a contender.

while doing it on the cheap as well...

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

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.

You never know---Maybe the Cubs will rise from the dust! I think Cuddyer wanted to win and left the Twins to do that. Look how well that worked out for him! It's almost always about the money.

Originally Posted by spideyo

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

He spent a lot of money and had a great manager. Not saying he didn't do a good job, but he isn't some sort of wizard. I've held on to my doubts about him turning the Cubs around.

Rubbish. He competed in a division where you win 95 games and cross your fingers for a wildcard berth, and won his second World Series at age 33.

I don't care how good he is. It's still the Cubs. You pretty much have to be a wizard to make that team decent

Weren't the Cubs within 1 out (the famous foul popfly) of making it to the WS in 2003? A good deal closer than the Twins have been to the WS during Ryan's tenure.

This tells me that Theo is willing to gamble a million or so more for a draft pick. I'm surprised Baker got 5.5. I figured it would be closer to 3, maybe 4 + incentives. Theo has the ability to trade Baker if he's really strong come the deadline or he can give him a QO which will get turned down if Baker is anything like his old self come August/September. It isn't a bad move.

I would have liked for Baker to re-sign with the Twins, but this a business for both parties--I wish him well. I am forming the opinion that the FO underestimated the difficulty/expense of three starting pitchers. The emergence of a "new" LA Dodgers only bodes to drive player salaries even higher in the near future. I fear the Twins will have to re-examine their goal of three new SPs and spend their entire (for the three) on one new SP just to ensure that somebody new (and decent) signs for 2013. Others have posted about trades, especially established ML Twins for MiL prospect(s), and Yes, I must agree with them. I fully expect 2013 season to be a rough one as the Twins will likely only be able to incrementally improve through acquisitions.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Well hopefully this ends the insane speculation that you can go out and sign 3 good starters in the offseason to magically become a contender.

Well, if that insanity included Baker as one of the "good" three starters....

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Well, if that insanity included Baker as one of the "good" three starters....

Missed the point bud. Most of this thread is saying "I can't believe they paid him that!" Welcome to free agency. Hence why the idea of solving this team's pitching woes there was ridiculous from the start.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

I'm optimistic for 2014, 2015 time frame with the young guys coming up...

I'm just not sold on the Twins (meaning ownership, the FO and so on) being interested in putting a true WS contending team together. For the last decade and change, all they've ever seemed interested in is building a team to be competitive within the division....and the couple seasons where they were truly very good (2006 and 2010) were followed up with offseasons not worked to put us over the the hump, but worked to downgrade us because, hey, we were SO good, we can afford to downgrade some while still being competitive in the division.


Didn't work either time...

I agree with this, except I think that it may take until 2016 for enough young pitchers to make it through the system to allow the Twins to compete. I suspect that the Twins will continue to shop the bargain bin of free agents and will need to get very lucky to contend anytime soon.