Thread: Scott Baker Signs with Chicago Cubs

Since most FAs sign with the team that offers the most money, in pretty much every case that means that every other team thinks the team that signed the guy "overpaid" and the only way to avoid doing so is to pick over the bones of the leftovers in February. So, sure, Baker got "overpaid" according to the Twins' views and those of every other team besides the Cubs. It's fine that the Twins didn't re-sign him if, in fact, they go on to fill out their rotation with better pitchers. But I don't see them doing that if they're going to refuse to ever "overpay" because if avoiding overpaying is your priority, you won't sign anyone with any talent. And if it turns out that they still have a gaping hole in the middle of their rotation all because they didn't want to overpay Baker or because he wouldn't give them a team-friendly 2014 option, that would just prove to me that Terry Ryan's doing nothing but blowing smoke up our collective butts about how serious he is about improving the rotation.

Originally Posted by Jim Crikket

Since most FAs sign with the team that offers the most money, in pretty much every case that means that every other team thinks the team that signed the guy "overpaid" and the only way to avoid doing so is to pick over the bones of the leftovers in February. So, sure, Baker got "overpaid" according to the Twins' views and those of every other team besides the Cubs. It's fine that the Twins didn't re-sign him if, in fact, they go on to fill out their rotation with better pitchers. But I don't see them doing that if they're going to refuse to ever "overpay" because if avoiding overpaying is your priority, you won't sign anyone with any talent. And if it turns out that they still have a gaping hole in the middle of their rotation all because they didn't want to overpay Baker or because he wouldn't give them a team-friendly 2014 option, that would just prove to me that Terry Ryan's doing nothing but blowing smoke up our collective butts about how serious he is about improving the rotation.

Nice Post Jim... I Agree completely... I'm hoping that TR will be willing to overpay for someone else. I'm ok with it not being Baker. Jeez... The Off Season Moves slow when you are waiting for something positive.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

And before you half-cock your snippy response again, check the offseason blueprints as a starter.

You seem confused. The blueprints are perspectives on what the Twins should do, not predictions of what they will do. Yes, a lot of people believe the Twins should take advantage of this robust pitching market and spend some money to improve on their extraordinary weakness in that department.

I don't think many folks around here have ridiculous illusions about what pitchers are going to sign for this winter. The fact that Baker got a couple extra million more than we expected from a team that clearly valued him highly doesn't really have any bearing on what guys like Jackson, Marcum and Dempster will get. If the Twins are serious about keeping payroll steady, they could afford a guy like that and then some, but of course what they will do is another story. Again, I think you're mixing up people's wishes with their expectations.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I don't think many folks around here have ridiculous illusions about what pitchers are going to sign for this winter. The fact that Baker got a couple extra million more than we expected from a team that clearly valued him highly doesn't really have any bearing on what guys like Jackson, Marcum and Dempster will get. If the Twins are serious about keeping payroll steady, they could afford a guy like that and then some, but of course what they will do is another story. Again, I think you're mixing up people's wishes with their expectations.

So, basically you're saying the forum has been without substantive analysis for the last month or more and should be seen as nothing more than a series of 6 year old-esque Santa wishlists that shouldn't be taken seriously?

In that case, we're in total agreement - thank you for making my initial point about how ridiculous those hopes were.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I don't think many folks around here have ridiculous illusions about what pitchers are going to sign for this winter. The fact that Baker got a couple extra million more than we expected from a team that clearly valued him highly doesn't really have any bearing on what guys like Jackson, Marcum and Dempster will get. If the Twins are serious about keeping payroll steady, they could afford a guy like that and then some, but of course what they will do is another story. Again, I think you're mixing up people's wishes with their expectations.

So, basically you're saying the forum has been without substantive analysis for the last month or more and should be seen as nothing more than a series of 6 year old-esque Santa wishlists that shouldn't be taken seriously?

In that case, we're in total agreement - thank you for making my initial point about how ridiculous those hopes were.

This post is excessively douchey, even for you.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

This post is excessively douchey, even for you.

Absolutely intentional. It takes a lot of smug to pass Nick.

That said, goes back to my point - all the predictions were ridiculous wishlists - not realistic.

Just to recap: I suggest the offseason "rebuild to contend" posts were ridiculous and insane because they were unrealistic and wishful, get called out for being too harsh and that most people didn't think that, post just a small sample of a much richer pile of evidence to prove that plenty of people did, then get told all of those things were unrealistic and wishful. Right where I started.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

This post is excessively douchey, even for you.

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

What would you say its DORP is?

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

What would you say its DORP is?

fDORP or bDORP?

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

What would you say its DORP is?

fDORP or bDORP?

Well done, guys.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

This post is excessively douchey, even for you.

Absolutely intentional. It takes a lot of smug to pass Nick.

That said, goes back to my point - all the predictions were ridiculous wishlists - not realistic.

Just to recap: I suggest the offseason "rebuild to contend" posts were ridiculous and insane because they were unrealistic and wishful, get called out for being too harsh and that most people didn't think that, post just a small sample of a much richer pile of evidence to prove that plenty of people did, then get told all of those things were unrealistic and wishful. Right where I started.

I'd say wishful, but not unrealistic. It's certainly within the realm of possibility for the Twins to spend money on FA and even make some cost-effective signings. Wishful, sure.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I'd say wishful, but not unrealistic. It's certainly within the realm of possibility for the Twins to spend money on FA and even make some cost-effective signings. Wishful, sure.

By all means cite some examples of when one team has gone out and signed 2-3 of the top 7-10 FA starters in one offseason. Then we'll talk realistic. I don't doubt that the Twins "could" do this - I never said "impossible". I said insane and ridiculous because it was unrealistic. Again, you seem to have missed the point by imprinting your own interpretation. Which then got handed off to Nick to do the same errant interpretation.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I'd say wishful, but not unrealistic. It's certainly within the realm of possibility for the Twins to spend money on FA and even make some cost-effective signings. Wishful, sure.

By all means cite some examples of when one team has gone out and signed 2-3 of the top 7-10 FA starters in one offseason. Then we'll talk realistic. I don't doubt that the Twins "could" do this - I never said "impossible". I said insane and ridiculous because it was unrealistic. Again, you seem to have missed the point by imprinting your own interpretation. Which then got handed off to Nick to do the same errant interpretation.

Look, you're placing ridiculous conditions on these supposed unrealistic blueprints. You're just strawmanning. The Twins realistically could acquire three competent starters in any number of ways. They can trade, resign, and yes use FA; and they might find great value in 10-15 of SPers that other teams don't see.

No one, I mean no one, suggested that the Twins were going to sign three of the top seven free agent starters. No one said that. So just quit it.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

You're just strawmanning. The Twins realistically could acquire three competent starters in any number of ways. They can trade, resign, and yes use FA; and they might find great value in 10-15 of SPers that other teams don't see.

You're equivocating. "Possible" does not equal "realistic". People are not suggesting just competent - you can go back and review my post as well if you'd like or check out the blueprints thread yourself. It was ridiculous to think it realistic to do what no team has done before. If you have precedent, by all means post it. If you don't - you are only suggesting what is literally not impossible. You aren't suggesting anything realistic.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

What would you say its DORP is?

I am cracking up over here.

Holy posts Batman!

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I am cracking up over here.

Chief's reply killed me.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Oh, I don't know. Average-ish in it's douch-ness, I'd say.

What would you say its DORP is?

fDORP or bDORP?

Well done, guys.

I lulz'd.