In this case, that something is Carl Pavano. Pavano is certainly worth waiting for. He was the second best starting pitcher on the team, the team’s horse, and proved to be a super-powered Luigi, outdueling the likes of Roy Halladay and Johan Santana.
It also looks like he might be more affordable than we might have thought. Originally, he looked like he would earn at least a 3-year, $30M deal. But the market for his services became a lot thinner once the Twins offered him arbitration and he turned it down. Faced with needing to give up a high draft pick to sign Pavano, the field has reportedly narrowed to:- Milwaukee (who says they won’t offer more than a 2-year contract),
- Washington (who says they won’t offer a multi-year deal),
- Texas (who everyone assumes would be interested if they lost out on Cliff Lee, but hasn’t pursued Pavano yet) and
- your Minnesota Twins.
It seems increasingly likely that the Twins could re-sign him for just 2 years and $20 million. Or even $2/18 with a 3rd year team option that they can buy out for $2M? Either contract would be a bargain given his performance last year. And with an xFIP (a stat that is a better predictor of ERA than ERA) of 4.02, why shouldn’t he remain effective?
Geek Chorus: It’s not like the mustache from which he clearly derives his superpowers is going anywhere soon.
On the other hand, we found out yesterday what waiting for his price to come down can cost when Jesse Crain signed with the White Sox. It isn’t a surprise that Crain left – the Twins never looked like they were interested in paying the top-flight money Crain received. But it is also clear that the Twins are working within a fairly limited budget, and they aren’t spending that money until they have resolved the Pavano situation.
Geek Chorus: So what was ths cost exactly? Or is this more about what Crain "represents?"
The latter, and losing him and Matt Guerrier signals that the reliever free agent market is heating up. The Twins must address other needs. Their bullpen is almost completely empty. Their bench lacks any kind of real replacement and their starting lineup is filled with players that missed significant time last year. Nick covered this yesterday, and if there is one thing we’ve learned about the AL Central in this last decade, it is that the deeper team usually survives to go to the postseason.
I don’t have real strong feelings one way or the other on Pavano, even at a bargain price, but the timing is important. The high-end relievers are starting to sign, and that’s a market that the Twins can’t miss out on. There is an unbelievable amount of talent out there this year for relievers – a lot of it supplied by the Twins. It is a buyer’s market, and could allow the Twins to establish a strong bullpen for the next couple of years - if they don't miss out on it.
If Pavano really wants to come back to the Twins, and the Twins really want to have back Pavano, it’s time to supply him an offer with an expiration date. By the end of the weekend, we’ll start spending the money that we are offering you.
Personally, I might walk away now. Pavano is great, but he’s not the left-handed ace or right-handed power that should be the top two priorities this offseason, so I can’t justify spending limited money on him. This team signaled how strapped for cash they were when they traded away a pretty decent shortstop for two intriguing but marginal prospects. It will cost at least another $9M to sign Pavano, and that is $9 million that can’t be spent on filing several other needs.
In fact, it sounds increasingly like the Twins would need to trade away one of their younger cheaper starters to find room for Pavano’s salary in the budget. There is a reason why Kevin Slowey has been the subject of trade rumors lately, and it’s not just because the Twins would have six reasonable starting pitchers. They’re never been afraid of that in the past. It's because they would want to get the $3M he could make in arbitration off the books.
I also worry about giving a multi-year contract to a guy who was injured for so much of his career. It wasn’t just New York. This year was only the third time he had ever achieved 200 innings. And while in New York an orthopedic specialist diagnosed him with a hip dysfunction that led to one leg being longer than the other, which they thought was the root cause of all his back/elbow/shoulder problems. He's been reasonably healthy the last two years, but Twins fans who watched his exceptional year might not understand just how rare that was.
But I’ll say this: it’s a close call. If the Twins sign Pavano at a reasonable deal, and he performs anywhere near to what he did last year, the worse case scenario is that he’s a tradable asset next offseason. Best case? He keeps on rolling and finally lives up to the hype that surrounded him in his youth, when he was both a premier free agent signing and the guy who was traded for Pedro Martinez.
And so, neither is a bad option. What is critical is that the decision be made fairly quickly, so that if the money isn't spend on Pavano, it's spend while there are still other options available.
Posts
24 comments:
"It’s tempting to wait for something you want. The question is how much waiting costs you."
Actually, the danger is you buy what you want now and can't afford what you need later as a result. The Twins bullpen started last year with a lot of question marks. They spent money to answer them during the season by adding Fuentes, Capps and Flores. If they had immediately spent a big chunk of money on a closer when Nathan got hurt, that wouldn't have happened.
I don't know where the Twins lacking depth comes from. Outside of catcher and the bullpen, what position is it that lacks depth? And how is that different than last year.
The Twins started last year with Punto and Harris battling for the third base spot with the other being the infield depth. Tolbert was at AAA. This year they will start with Nishioka, Casilla and Valencia with Tolbert as the backup. And Plouffe at AAA. I think this is argument about depth is really a cover for people who think Hudson and Hardy were better than Nishioka and Casilla. Its hard to imagine Tolbert being worse than Harris last year.
And the Twins added Repko to the outfield, which gives them much better depth there. No more Cuddyer in center field.
"I think this is argument about depth is really a cover for people who think Hudson and Hardy were better than Nishioka and Casilla."
Hardy and Hudson are heads and shoulders better then Nishioka and Casilla. Also, you say "other than catcher and bullpen" we are deep, and claim that Tolbert at backup infielder is a sign of our depth. First of all Tolbert is not a major league baseball player. He is terrible. So is Trevor Plouffe; he's no Valencia waiting in the wings. Second, you dismiss catcher and bullpen, but what other positions would you prefer depth? Mauer's going to sit out or DH a ton of games, and since most of our starters go 5 innings, we need a deep bullpen. So even if catcher and bullpen are the only areas we are not deep (they aren't), it's still going to hurt us.
Your best and worst case scenarios might as well be fiction. Pavanos and 35 year old, his k rate sank to scary low depths last year and he has a long track of injuries. You really think his worst case is tradable asset a year from now and his best case is mega star? From an injury prone 35 with no track record of superstardom? His worst case is he has perpetual injuries and becomes a large sunk cost. His likely case is that he sees heavy regression from his ERA is isnt worth 10 mil and at best a salary dump in a trade, and best case is about what we saw last year. And dont forget that the twins would give away baker or slowey to make room pav and a rotation that may feature a league leading number of pitcher in the bottom 20% of the league in k/9. Resigning pavano shouldnt even be an option, but the twins are so poorly run that it might as well be done.
"Hardy and Hudson are heads and shoulders better then Nishioka and Casilla."
You realize you are agreeing with me don't you? The argument is not about depth. Hardy simply isn't that good and neither was Hudson.
"First of all Tolbert is not a major league baseball player. He is terrible. So is Trevor Plouffe"
Most of last year, Tolbert and Plouffe were the Twins primary infield depth. So that hasn't changed. What has changed since last spring, is that the Twins now have a semi-established answer at third base. Which means they actually have more depth than last year.
"Second, you dismiss catcher and bullpen"
Actually, I said quite a lot about the bullpen. A quick summary of that is that it has a lot of depth. The question is which, if any, players will produce. Its only when you know the answer to that that you can start filling holes. You don't want to pay a premium price for a guy who ends up in a middle relief role behind Neshek and Perkins because Capps, Nathan and Mijares are handling the setup and closer roles.
"a rotation that may feature a league leading number of pitcher in the bottom 20% of the league in k/9."
So what? All that demonstrates is the Twins defense (including pitchers) is good at getting hitters out on balls in play.
Pavano's too expensive. We got the best he has to give. If we're dumping a stud SS to save money then we might as well dump an aging pitcher. I applaud what he's done for us, but we need to move on and fill the holes in the MI and bullpen
"So what? All that demonstrates is the Twins defense (including pitchers) is good at getting hitters out on balls in play."
I was making a future projection, the twins defense will almost certainly be worse this year than last and wasnt great last year. BIP are bad whether you have the "ability" to get balls hit at fielders or not. Not missing any bats is not the recipe for long term success.
"BIP are bad whether you have the "ability" to get balls hit at fielders or not."
Something virtually no one who plays the game would agree with.
But lets be clear. K/9 a measure of the percentage of outs a team makes by strikeout versus other methods. The more outs the fielders make, whether the ball is hit at them or not, the lower the K/9.
"Something virtually no one who plays the game would agree with."
So these players would rather a pitcher strike out no batters than strikeout every batter? Your complaint is nonsense guised as real world actuality.
Either way if the players would rather have BIP they are idiots. The strikeout is the highest percentage out in baseball. A BIP turns into a homerun 5% of the time, a strikeout turns into a homerun 0% of the time. Do the players love high walk rates too because men on base keep them on their toes? No, thats stupid, just like this anti strikeout sentiment.
"But lets be clear. K/9 a measure of the percentage of outs a team makes by strikeout versus other methods"
k/9 is the average number of strikeout a pitcher records per 9 innings pitched over a specified sample not what you said.
"k/9 is the average number of strikeout a pitcher records per 9 innings pitched over a specified sample not what you said."
"innings pitched" = outs/3
So k/9 is a measure of k's divided by one third the number of outs, which is exactly what I said. Every time a fielder makes an out, the K/9 goes down.
"So these players would rather a pitcher strike out no batters than strikeout every batter"
They would rather have an out on the first pitch. There are, of course, exceptions to that where runners are on base where a strikeout had an advantage. But in most cases a ball in play hit at a fielder is a good thing. And with a runner on first, a team would much prefer a hard hit ball right at the shortstop so they can get a double play. BIP are generally good if they are not well hit.
"So k/9 is a measure of k's divided by one third the number of outs, which is exactly what I said. Every time a fielder makes an out, the K/9 goes down."
What you were describing is strikeout rate which i understand is a very linear off shoot of k/9. I suppose i was just poking fun at the fact you stated let me be clear right be fore making a statement that was imprecise.
"BIP are generally good if they are not well hit." I disagree with this sentiment a lot. I think you are giving pitcher way too much credit for being able to get ball hit where they want. But even weakly hit ball turn into cheap hits which lead to cheap runs. A strikeout is better than a ball in play.
"A BIP turns into a homerun 5% of the time, a strikeout turns into a homerun 0% of the time."
No out on a BIP is also a home run any more than a strikeout is also a home run. You can't count a strikeout only after you have the desired result, and compare it to the BIP which you measure before you know the result.
There is little doubt that an out in hand, is better than later. I doubt there is a single pitcher who would prefer to get a strike on the first pitch, instead of a pop up to an infielder. but if I were to say outs on balls in play are much better than getting a strike, it would not have much meaning.
"What you were describing is strikeout rate which i understand is a very linear off shoot of k/9."
I suppose, if "linear off shoot" is a fancy way to say they are identical measures. The fact remains that teams that turn balls in play into outs will have lower K/9's than teams that don't.
"I think you are giving pitcher way too much credit for being able to get ball hit where they want."
I think that is basically irrelevant. Whether you give the fielder or the pitcher credit, when an out is made on a ball in play the K/9 of the pitcher will go down.
"Most of last year, Tolbert and Plouffe were the Twins primary infield depth"
Punto, Casilla, Valencia and Harris comprised the Twins primary infield depth last year, TT, with Valencia eventually claiming a full time job.
Now 2 of those are gone, and two are being asked to fill full time jobs. Tolbert and/or Plouffe, expected to be in AAA as backups to the backups, will be asked to fill primary backups on the big league club. There will be, at most, one infielder capable of helping the Twins at Rochester this year instead of 2 or 3.
Claiming the Twins 'actualy have more depth than last year' is so wrong ... well, it's hard to come up with an adequate word for how wrong it is.
"when an out is made on a ball in play the K/9 of the pitcher will go down."
Im disagreeing with this because its obviously true. The part about BIP not being the inferior out come to a strike out is what i take issue with.
Punto, Casilla, Valencia and Harris comprised the Twins primary infield depth last year
Can't call all of them depth, someone has to be the starting 3rd baseman. Punto and Harris were supposed to split time at 3rd. Harris was demoted and Casilla got injured. We saw Tolbert, Hughes, and Plouffe too.
Im disagreeing with this because its obviously true.
Heh.
The part about BIP not being the inferior out come to a strike out is what i take issue with.
You're arguing different things. TT is saying an out that results from a ball in play can be (or is usually) superior. You're making the brilliant argument that a ball in play (which may or may not result in an out) is superior to a strikeout.
I put it to you, lvl 5 Charizard, that the sky is blue and the grass is green.
Im not going to argue that my debate with TT isnt irrelevant and largely based on a disagreement of context because it is. And if you think my argument about the probablistic outcome of a ball in play is obvious I on board with that too. But if i were to make an argument using probabilistic BIP to claim era is a crappy measure of pitcher skill people would go wild. My take home point is that i dont believe a pitcher has much control of where a ball goes once its put in play other than whether its a gb, ld, or fb, which i dont think people find obvious.
You've taken issue with the necessity of my claims and have nothing for TT? His argument boils down to a BIP turned into an out is better than a K because it takes fewer pitches. That statement doesnt qualify as brilliant?
"You're making the brilliant argument that a ball in play (which may or may not result in an out) is superior to a strikeout. "
My argument is the exact opposite of this.
"Im disagreeing with this because its obviously true."
I'm not disagreeing*** Accidental omissions even happen to great minds like myself.
Now I am a bit confused. The discussion started with the importance of K/9. K/9 is a ratio between outs resulting from strikeouts and resulting from all outcomes. Balls in play that don't result in outs, have no impact on K/9.
What that means is that anything that helps turn a BIP into an out effects K/9. How hard the ball is hit, where it is hit, the range of the fielder, his ability to catch, the strength of his throw ...
In fact, it doesn't even require a ball in play for all the outs that are alternatives to strikeouts. A catcher throwing out a base stealer or picking off a runner effects K/9. Its just not a very good measure of pitching prowess.
"Its just not a very good measure of pitching prowess."
K rate+BB Rate+gb rate is where pitcher ability is at.
Actually fastball, curveball, slider, changeup, location and pitch selection are where "pitching ability" is. The rest all follows from those.
Post a Comment