Comments on: Everyone take a lap, except you Span, you’re cut.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:32:34 +0000

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article , but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:01:25 +0000

Yes, I think this contract makes Nathan more trade-able. Teams won’t see it as a rent-a-player if we decide to deal him.

By: Texas

Texas — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:32:19 +0000

1- I guess some of my meaning might be getting lost in translation. Hunter and Santana seemed rather content to chase the money, however, both had stated earlier that if the Twins had approached them before the season they would have been more agreeable to extensions (maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I would take them at their words). I was never a fan of re-signing Hunter (way too old, way too many years), but it's hard to watch the team not even negotiate in good faith with a potential HOFer.

2- 2010, assuming Nathan is still an elite closer and we haven't developed one in our system. Of which we have several very good pitchers in.

3- I don't disagree that the contract isn't bad. Considering Nathan's track record over the last three years, 11 mill a year is a very good dollar figure. The point i'm trying to make is that the closer role is entirely overrated and a team on a fixed budget should not be investing more than 10% of it's budget on this position. The contract will be agreeable to many teams. I'm not sure when or how Nathan has to designate the teams he can't be traded to, so I don't know about that part of the deal.

Again it's not that I am not a fan of Nathan (I am) or Nathan getting paid (Good for him). I'm opposed to the deal as far as the club is concerned. I would rather have taken my chances with Neshek or someone from Rochester and taken the haul. All of that being said, we still have the no-trade clause and again perhaps this contract would make Nathan even more lucrative.

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:15:00 +0000

1) Nathan was willing to negotiate on the terms of the contract to bring the years down. He wanted 5 years, and got 4. Neither Santana nor Hunter were willing to accept a huge money deal for any less than the maximum number of years they could get. I don't see how they're comparable.

2) Winning this year? Maybe not. But it's a 4 year contract. It might be nice to have an established closer when we're good in 2010.

3) It's a four year contract. I don't know why everyone's going crazy about this like it means he's definitely going to suck and now we're stuck with an albatross. If we learned anything from the Santana/Haren/Bedard debacle, it's that teams value a couple years of someone good much much more than one year of someone awesome. So if we put Nathan up for a trade ... his lengthy below-market contract will look pretty tasty to a lot of teams, and we'll get a nice haul in return.

The only bad thing about this contract that I can see is the danger that Nathan blows his arm out. But he hasn't really been showing any signs that that's a legitimate worry, so ... I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

By: Texas

Texas — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:00:17 +0000

I agree that the previous contract was undervalued and I agree that Nathan is a top notch closer. We also got him below market rate. However, the point I’m trying to make is that this is not the sort of investment that a mid-market team that is continually investing in cheap young talent should be making. Especially when we consider our track record of turning pitchers into closers and our reluctance to sign talent that arguably will have more of an impact on the team generally (the best SP in the game & a pretty good OF who by all accounts was the team leader). I don’t feel that the Twins are going to be winning this year, especially considering the starting rotation. But I have been wrong before. And this isn’t a move a team that at best looks to be a third place team should be making.

By: sirsean

sirsean — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:52:38 +0000

But considering the overall market for "closers," or "9th inning relievers," his $6M contract was grossly undervalued. The contract we signed him to is at or below market rates.

His "signs of decline" may be largely attributable to a lack of save opportunities in 2007. And he had one bad month early in the year. He's still been the best closer in baseball.

By: Texas

Texas — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:21:03 +0000

The salary would be about the same. The Twinks kept the same no-trade clause from the previous contract (Nathan can designate three teams that he can not be traded to). So essentially it’s the same deal with a 7 million dollar raise commitment for three years to a pitcher who has shown signs of decline and will be at the least 36 years old when we can get out of the deal. To a position that is entirely overrated when it comes to salary disposition

By: sirsean

sirsean — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:09:58 +0000

Actually that does make a lot of sense, and I hadn't considered it.

Presumably we want to groom Buscher to replace Lamb, possibly for next year, and the way to do that is to have him stay at AAA, start every day, and see if he can mash the ball down there.

I'm willing to hope that Gardy's thinking about this correctly.

By: FunBobby

FunBobby — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:56:50 +0000

Another thought is that Buscher should be playing everyday, so he is in AAA, where Tolbert is destined to be a bench player the rest of his career so might as well start him on that path now. Just another theory. Although it makes too much sense so its probably wrong, considering Gardy’s track record for doing things incorrectly.

By: sirsean

sirsean — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:34:54 +0000

Tolbert's had exactly one good half-season in his minor league career, and has the annoying tendency to try to kill himself on the field. Remember when Punto broke his collar bone diving for a ball he had no chance at? Look for Tolbert to do the same.

Buscher hasn't had that much more success in his career, and certainly can't play as many positions. But the way I see it, if you have to choose between two mediocre players, you should probably pick the one whose skillset you lack. It's about balance. And you don't get more balanced by stacking the team with light-hitting utility players with questionable baserunning decision-making skills and just barely enough speed to be dangerous (to themselves and the inning).

At least Rochester may be able to make a run at the IL title this year; it looks like a few guys on their team are better than their counterparts on the Twins.