Thread: Marcum To Mets

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

That's exactly how it works. The Twins, like every other team, do not prioritize guys in their late 20s who haven't been dominant at any level. Ryan is not going to let Sam-freakin-Deduno block May or Meyer if he steamrolls through the low minors. You don't let 30 year olds get in the way of early 20s flamethrowers. That's just common sense and Ryan, despite my differences of opinion with him, is not a moron.

Of course you aren't blocking your #1 and #2 pitching prospect. Which isn't even close to what I said.

Originally Posted by panolo

Of course you aren't blocking your #1 and #2 pitching prospect. Which isn't even close to what I said.

The point is, guys like Deduno aren't blocking ANYONE who performs halfway decent, not just Meyer or May. If half the AA rotation throws lights out the first few months of the season, not one of them will be stifled by Deduno being on the AAA roster. They will replace him on it in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Jack Morris, and he was paid as one of the top pitchers too.

Without knowing the bonus money, if the Mets gave Marcum $4 million, are you actually trying to say he wouldn't have come to the Twins for $6 million? That's ludicris and the players union would put up a stink if he did that, just as they would if David Price took a 33% discouont to stay with Tampa Bay.

P.S. Just read your last two lines. What did money have to do with Justin Upton? He is already under contract, if anything, that proves that he had the luxery to be picky about his destination because he had ALREADY been paid.

Like many contracts in baseball Upton had a limited no trade clause. He, like many others were able to negotiate their ability to be picky. They are usually picky about going to losing teams.

Originally Posted by jokin

I think it's even more telling that the Mets passed on Pelfrey!

Marcum could be more risky, but he's not coming off of September TJ (Pelfrey) and his last year of pitching effectiveness wasn't 2009 (Harden, w/ catastrophic shoulder surgery overlooming any potential comeback) or being extremely sucky for an entire career (Correia).
.

TJ was early May
Pelfrey made 5.7 million last year. Of course the Mets non tendered that. Given his first couple years in the majors, how much of a raise do you think Boras could have won?

Originally Posted by ThePuck

The bar is set extremely low. Just better isn't good enough. Significantly better is what we need.

Yes the Twins need significantly better. That is why it baffles me why these people have been so gung-ho on all of the third tier free agents. Marcum is not a third tier.

Originally Posted by old nurse

TJ was early May
Pelfrey made 5.7 million last year. Of course the Mets non tendered that. Given his first couple years in the majors, how much of a raise do you think Boras could have won?

Metaphor Mixmaster strikes again.

Hard to know why I bother, but the argument was why Pelfrey would leave the big market and big opportunity on a team in desperate need of pitching. News flash, guys who get non-tendered often re-sign with their old clubs, sometimes at a discount. The Mets chose to pursue Marcum and decline on Pelfrey, the Twins chose to pursue Pelfrey and decline on Marcum, both signed at the same base salary, First year after TJ historical results suggests the Twins, with their 1-year deal with no team option on year 2, took on more risk than the Mets. It's really not hard to ascertain which team played the odds for success out of their deals better.

Mea Culpa on the TJ date, too many google searches for TJ dates for prospective Twins pitchers this offseason.
That still leaves it likely that Pelfrey is unable to start out in the rotation and puts a big question mark about when he might regain his career-level of effectiveness.

Originally Posted by jokin

Mea Culpa on the TJ date

Shame on you for admitting you were incorrect when faced with evidence contrary to your original premise. Do you not know that debate in this age is based entirely on stubbornly holding fast to every word you say regardless of any and all evidence showing you were wrong?

Originally Posted by panolo

Of course you aren't blocking your #1 and #2 pitching prospect. Which isn't even close to what I said.

Then who ARE you blocking? And what does it matter anyway, even if your, um, questionable theory is correct?

Originally Posted by jokin

Metaphor Mixmaster strikes again.

Hard to know why I bother, but the argument was why Pelfrey would leave the big market and big opportunity on a team in desperate need of pitching. News flash, guys who get non-tendered often re-sign with their old clubs, sometimes at a discount. The Mets chose to pursue Marcum and decline on Pelfrey, the Twins chose to pursue Pelfrey and decline on Marcum, both signed at the same base salary, First year after TJ historical results suggests the Twins, with their 1-year deal with no team option on year 2, took on more risk than the Mets. It's really not hard to ascertain which team played the odds for success out of their deals better.

Mea Culpa on the TJ date, too many google searches for TJ dates for prospective Twins pitchers this offseason.
That still leaves it likely that Pelfrey is unable to start out in the rotation and puts a big question mark about when he might regain his career-level of effectiveness.

Pelfrey probably left the Mets for many the same sort of reasons that Baker left the Twins. Despite your news flash, it is pretty uncommon for players to stay on teams if they have to take a pay cut unless it is done either before the season ends or at the end of the offseason (when there are few other options).

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Then who ARE you blocking? And what does it matter anyway, even if your, um, questionable theory is correct?

Anyone from #3 on down, I guess.

Originally Posted by drjim

it is pretty uncommon for players to stay on teams if they have to take a pay cut unless it is done either before the season ends or at the end of the offseason (when there are few other options).

Works both ways. "Few other options" must have been where Pelfrey was then already, for him to jump on such an early low-ball offer from a crummy team like the Twins, and with far more "frozen tundra" headaches to deal with and far fewer "cultural amenities" and "endorsement opportunities" in the Big Apple- ahh, Minneapolis, a cold Omaha, indeed.

"Endorsement opportunites". Yes I have seen some commercials for Mauer, for Jeter, and for some retired players (Hernandez and R. Johnson) but I really can't think of any others. Plus, all of these guys were from the "top-of-the-mountain" so to speak. Locally, Hrbek did one-or-two commercials, but that's it. When I think of "endorsements" I think of shoes, clothes, golf clubs, cars--deals that pay hundreds of thousands or millions per year, not standing next to Joe of Joe Schmo's Heating and Cooling. I really don't think baseball players cash-in on this stuff much--especially compared to the other sports.

Originally Posted by Kwak

"Endorsement opportunites". Yes I have seen some commercials for Mauer, for Jeter, and for some retired players (Hernandez and R. Johnson) but I really can't think of any others. Plus, all of these guys were from the "top-of-the-mountain" so to speak. Locally, Hrbek did one-or-two commercials, but that's it. When I think of "endorsements" I think of shoes, clothes, golf clubs, cars--deals that pay hundreds of thousands or millions per year, not standing next to Joe of Joe Schmo's Heating and Cooling. I really don't think baseball players cash-in on this stuff much--especially compared to the other sports.

I agree, baseball endorsements tend to be local, not national or global. A player can just as easily get an endorement deal from ACME in Minnesota or Chicago or Milwaukee.

Of course there are always exceptions, who can forget Palmiero's infamous "Works for me" quote, while plugging Viagara (although now we know why it had to), and of course one of the most famous endorsements of all time when Pete Rose was robbed of a sure HR off a 12 year old, by none other than the jug of Kool-Aid guy......what a catch!!!

Here's an article from a few year's back that pretty much supports what you're saying. It's an odd phenomenon.

SportsBiz: Why advertisers shun baseball - Business - Sports Biz | NBC News

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Then who ARE you blocking? And what does it matter anyway, even if your, um, questionable theory is correct?

I said the Twins don't jettison arms. If you have guys like Deduno, Walters, etc. are taking up a roster spot at AAA they obviously are taking a spot that could be used for a younger player to try his hand.

Over half of the starters at Rochester last year were 27 or older. For the most part these older arms don't have a revelation and start pitching well enough to earn a ML roster spot unless something like a bullpen switch happens. In general the Twins have been at the top for Minor League AB's and Minor League IP before promotion.

I'm sure the last year or two the lack of organizational depth has contributed to this but IMO it has been this way for 15 years.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

It's the chicken. Actuality is logically prior to potency.

Wow! It amazes how this forum really is full of true geniuses.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

The only thing more ridiculous than trying to project win totals for 2013 is trying to project win totals beyond 2013.

I've linked to this before, but here it is again. A compilation of 5 projections going back 2 years.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5pI...NIVHA1NVk/edit

Something to think about, is how actual wins have compared to pythagoran wins (ie. (runs scored)^1.83 / ((runs scored)^1.83 + (runs allowed)^1.83). The standard deviation over this period is 3.85 wins. Meaning, about 5 teams every year can be counted on to finish 4 games or worse than their pythagorean record. In the same way, 5 seemingly random teams will finish 4 games or better than their pythagorean record.

So if the Tigers are a 87 win team again, and the Twins are a 68 win team again (by Pythagorean record), there's about a 1.4% chance that the Twins finish at 73 wins or better, and the Tigers finish at 82 wins, or worse. And there's a .62% chance the Twins finish 8 games better than their Pythagorean record, while the Tigers finish 7 games worse - 76 wins to 80 wins. And that's with no improvement from the Twins roster whatsoever (or decline), and no improvement or decline overall from the Tigers team either over last year.

If the Twins improve their pythagorean record by just 5 wins, and the Tigers repeat their 87 pythagorean wins, then there is a small but real chance the Twins steal the division just by shear random pythagorean luck.

If the Twins post a pythagorean record of 78, that is, ten games better than 2012, as Gunnarthor suggests the Twins would by simply eliminating the 80 lousy starts by our AAA guys and replace them with 80 starts of replacement level (0 WAR) production, then the Twins are looking at roughly a 4% chance of posting an actual win total that's higher than any 87 Pythagorean win team.

That's incredible. You just blew my mind.