11-14-2012, 01:01 AM #1
Article: Baker Follows a Good Deal
You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.ph...ws-a-Good-Deal
11-14-2012, 05:40 AM #2
The NL may be more pitcher-friendly but Wrigley field is not gonna jive too well with his fly ball tendencies.
11-14-2012, 09:25 AM #3
"Why would he ditch the organization that raised him, even if an extra million or two was being offered by another club?"
Asked and answered. "an extra million or two." Who wouldn't? Is that not a lot of money? A player's time is short. It is really short for a 31 year old pitcher coming off TJ surgery.
So often I read posts tinged with anger and/or disrespect for the player when they choose to leave. Where is the anger towards the club when his productivity falls and he is placed on waivers, cut or non-tendered? "He doesn't get to that ball in the hole anymore but maybe they should give him a couple of years because he has been so loyal to the organization?" Ha! You will never hear it.
Players are contractors with a limited career span. How many contractors do you know, in your real life, that stay where they are when a better contract becomes available elsewhere?
Teams constantly evaluate a player's price and worth. They have several replacements already training to take his spot when he loses a step and the cost/benefit changes. They use every bit of leverage they have. Why expect less from the player?
11-14-2012, 02:37 PM #4
Did the Cubs overpay? Or are you (and many of the rest of us) undervaluing players this offseason perhaps by not taking in to account many teams being willing to use a bit of the MLB tv rights windfall that kicks in next season?
After the past couple of seasons, I think players and agents are smart enough to know that when they get an offer they think is good, they need to take it. Waiting around has bitten more than one player in the butt recently. I don't blame Baker at all for his decision.
Whether I blame the Twins for not being willing to pony up is a question I don't think I can answer yet. If, in the end, they end up with 3 new starting pitchers at least as promising as Baker, then that's great. Everyone gets what they want.
But if it turns out the Twins are unwilling to cough up what it takes to get better starting pitchers than Baker and they're left scraping the bottom of the bargain bin in January because Baker got a couple million more than they were willing to give, you're damn right I'll blame the Twins for letting him go over what's really a piddly amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
11-14-2012, 02:43 PM #5
when does overpaying turn into not really overpaying? If a bunch of teams are willing to 'overpay' does that not turn into market value and become NOT overpaying?
11-14-2012, 02:45 PM #6
11-14-2012, 04:04 PM #7
11-14-2012, 04:26 PM #8I post regularly on our Knuckleballs blog (http://knuckleballsblog.com/)
~You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant~
11-14-2012, 05:10 PM #9
Many of you are forgetting that Matt Garza and Scott Baker pitched together on the Twins in, I believe, 2006 and 2007. Am sure he checked out what Matt had to say about the team. Also Carlos Gutierrez is now with the Cubs. Finally, Theo has had enough years as GM of the Red Sox to see what the Minnesota Twins have through spring training. It seems like the Twins were playing the Red Sox every week in spring training. Maybe Lariano will be the next new Cub? It is always interesting to read what other fan blogs have to say about the players they pick up. For Chicago Cubs fans the best one to read: www.chicagocubsonline.com
11-14-2012, 05:52 PM #10
I think that maybe the Cubs are planning to use Baker as trade bait near the trading deadline next year, assuming that he is likely to be pitching well by then.
11-14-2012, 06:28 PM #11
The dynamics of free agency are not lost on me. But five million bucks is a substantial amount of money to throw at someone who has been extremely unreliable from a durability standpoint and is coming off major surgery. We can't definitively say Baker's being overpaid – it could easily end up being a great bargain and even if not it won't hurt the deep-pocketed Cubs much – but that's just way more than you ever see a pitcher in that situation getting.
11-14-2012, 06:32 PM #12
If they truly walked away because Baker wouldn't do the option for 2014, it might also say something about their expectations of contending next year.
11-14-2012, 07:08 PM #13
It could be bad, or it could be okay. He would have given up 17 home runs at Wrigley in 2009 by my count, if he were a Cub (200 IP).
11-14-2012, 07:33 PM #14
Baker isn't elite and 5M isn't elite money. It was a slight overpayment at most, certainly nothing to bristle at and start dropping "elite" references around to imply that it was ridiculous.
11-14-2012, 09:11 PM #15
Evidently the Twins overpaid for Josh Willingham last offseason according the collective board logic of the day....
Outbidding and overpaying don't necessarily equate to the same thing, although often they do.
11-14-2012, 09:23 PM #16
11-14-2012, 09:31 PM #17
11-14-2012, 09:47 PM #18
Where exactly did you shift them to and then decide to whine about it? Because I've laid out my criteria....what's yours?
11-14-2012, 09:57 PM #19
The biggest problem I have with letting Baker go is that it apparently came down to the option year. By losing him over that, when he apparently wanted to come back here according to earlier reports, you lost out on a guy who was going to have incentive to stay healthy and pitch well. Yes, they lose that option year if he does outperform the value of his contract, but, they would also be in a better position to re-sign him should he end up pitching well.
With Baker leaving the only real conclusion I can come to is that they must have not really cared for him to come back either way or had a lot of faith that he would pitch well enough for one year. For as much bashing of the 'Twins Way' is done here and on other boards, I can't for a moment believe that this was solely the outcome of an option year.
Lastly, it is really difficult to 'overpay' for a player in F/A. The market is usually close enough between teams that it's more about opportunity, comfort, wanting to leave, etc, then it is dollars. Additionally, where do you draw the line at 'overpaying' and 'overbidding' with someone? If we find out that Hunter had offers of 2/22 and 2/24, do you really think the Tigers overpaid or outbid?
For me, in my opinion, to really get into an 'overpay' type situation, in free agency, is for a team like Minnesota, Houston, Pittsburgh, etc, to just completely blow other offers out of the water to lure a player. Teams coming off a few seasons of futility would probably have to 'overpay' to land a substantial player. The only way someone like Greinke or Hamilton would be in a Twins or Astros uniform next year is if their offers were 50% more than the next best offer or they had a burning desire to play for a team that is 3 years away from being relevant.
11-14-2012, 10:31 PM #20Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
I think you and others are getting way too caught up with the term "overpay." The Cubs paid what they had to in order to get him to sign. The amount was higher than most expected, more than most people in his situation get, and more than the Twins probably should have paid. We won't know if Chicago overpaid until after the fact.