Comments on: Livan

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:29:16 +0000

We can afford to make these signings right now because the payroll has plummeted after losing Santana, Hunter, and Silva. So Wild Bill has money to blow on guys like Monroe, Lamb, Everett, and now Hernandez.

So why didn't we sign our own guys? Because they all were demanding large raises on long term deals, which would carry them well out of their primes. We can't afford to do that.

And look at it this way: If we'd signed these guys, we wouldn't have been able to afford the Morneau/Cuddyer contracts, nor would we be able to afford to improve the team. So we pay a premium to keep our (third place) team together, crippling ourselves for the future while we lose in the present.

It just wasn't a good idea, due to the very real financial restraints the Twins have.

By: FunBobby

FunBobby — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:26:30 +0000

The number of years were more of an issue with Johan than the dollars. And from what I understand he wanted out. Even if we kept him around without adding that extra offense, how would our team be any better than last year? The twins always have, and show no signs of stopping giving out mostly short term deals. Morneau being the exception.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:23:07 +0000

I just dont get the constant 2M, 3M, 4M, 6M, per year signings we do each year and then let Santana walk for $3M more a year for 6 yrs as opposed to 5 yrs… we couldn’t use the $5M and the 3.82M from Monroe to keep Santana around by extending our offer?

It doesn’t seem we ever do anything other than this year after year… $16M on Punto, Monroe, Lamb, Everett, and now Hernandez – isn’t there something else we could have done?

By: FunBobby

FunBobby — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:21 +0000

I agree. The front office knows more about the players than we do. So maybe perkins isn't 100% healthy yet, or maybe one of the young guys is mentally fragile and would be devestated if he gets shelled. Having a veteran who can go out, pitch several innings and be able to come back after a shelling will be something that is good for the team.

Also, the possibility of being able to spin him off on a desperate, pitching starved team in july is a bonus. He has the name recognition the people tend to overpay for.

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:15:05 +0000

MarkW, I think this is better than the Ponson signing. At least Livan has demonstrated himself to be decent and consistent. Service time may have had something to do with it, but I don't look at that as a "good" reason to sign someone.

As mentioned above, it may also be a forward-looking ploy to buy a prospect off some semi-contender at the trade deadline, much as we did last year with ROrtiz.

And it's also not that likely that we'd get a similar pitcher for less money. The top two remaining FA starting pitchers were Livan and Lohse. And Lohse is looking for a long term deal at $10M/year. Beyond that, it's scraps.

They're probably not planning on Livan losing 20 games. It seems to me that they're buying veteran consistency, and the flexibility to keep someone in AAA if they're not 100% ready to go. And that flexibility is pretty important.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:10:42 +0000

Guys, help me out here, I’m dealing with morons on the other “blog” posts…

Everyone is insisting this is signing is great as it keeps our young arms from pitching too many innings this year, or keeps someone in AAA as to avoid MLB service time… Whatever the reason, if it’s only for these things, why pay someone $5M a year to do this? Can’t we find a cheaper veteran or bring Ponson back is all we want is someone to throw the ball 200 innings this year, nevermind that he loses 20 games or gives up 45 HRs in the process, because that’s not the point of the signing!! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills…

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:56:23 +0000

I don't think Humber is projected to be on the big league club at the start of the season.

Nick&Nick recently wrote about the possible advantages to moving Humber to the bullpen, possibly the closer's role, noting the similarities between him and Nathan. But I think that's all speculation.

By: Texas

Texas — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:51:10 +0000

No problem. I agree that Liriano will be in the pen until May. Also, I wasn’t implying Hernandez starts OD, only that he is def. Top Three on March 31st. I think Baker has the inside track to be OD starter. What about Humber, or is he projected as a RP?

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:40:34 +0000

I don't think the opening day starter has been decided yet, but my guess is that it'll be either Baker or Bonser, depending on which looks better in spring training. (No way they have Livan Hernandez start on opening day. The Twins believe in keeping their own guys happy by not making someone "the ace" without thinking about it. Radke was still opening day starter in 2004, when it was clear that Santana was by far the best pitcher on the team.)

Baker, Boof, Livan, Slowey, Perkins. That'd by my guess. I don't expect Liriano to be in the rotation until May, at which point he replaces whoever's having the toughest time out there. (Hopefully it's not Boof, he'd probably kill himself.)

And thanks for reading, Texas.

By: Texas

Texas — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:35:23 +0000

Hey guys, just catching up, keep up the good work.

I think you're right and the Hernandez signing is a way to limit Blackburn and Duensing's major league appearances. What do you think the rotation shakes out as and who is the opening day starter?

My thoughts: Hernandez, Baker, Bonser (Top 3 in no particular order) after that who knows!

Also I am a fan of acquiring Kenny Lofton