"He extended Nathan, Morneau and Cuddy because if he hadn't, there would have straight up been a revolt. New stadium got finalized that year and were coming off losing Hunter (WAY overpaid) and Santana."
He chose to lose Santana. He could have had another year with him. There would not have been a revolt had Smith not extended Nathan, Morneau, and Cuddyer.
"and at the time, Cuddy and Nathan both would have received very similar deals on the open market, the only problem I have with those deals in the option year for Cuddy having to be picked up a year prior and not that year. And now both deals are coming off the books after this year."
Well, Nathan has a club option for 2012. So, no it's not coming off the books after this year. Nathan likely would have received a similar contract on the open market. Cuddyer is slightly overpaid, especially for this year.
"Crain and Guerrier would have cost more to keep in the long run than keeping Capps for just this year. Thats kind of a moot argument anyways, plus the belief is they need Capps this year just in case Nathan's recovery hits a snag while Guerrier doesn't have closer stuff and Crain is too inconsistent and gets mentally rocked, something you don't want from a closer. "
Keeping Capps this season and similar relief pitchers in subsequent seasons will likely cost more than keeping Guerrier and Crain for the three years. Regardless, Smith did not offer arbitration to Guerrier (a Type A free agent) or Jesse Crain (a Type B free agent) or even Brian Fuentes (a type B free agent). Simply offering arbitration to any of these players would have either a) kept them for one more year or b) netted them extra draft picks if/when they signed somewhere else. The Capps belief is dumb. There's no way around it. I don't know where you're getting that Guerrier doesn't have closer stuff as multiple sources last year said Guerrier should get first chance at the closer job (here) As for Crain, he wants to close, just google "Jesse Crain closer". He might end up being the closer on the White Sox. Fuentes used to be a closer and is signed for less money per season than Capps, albeit he is older. Fuentes could have easily been the closer insurance. It appears, Capps was the only option to be the insurance closer, probably because Smith gave up Wilson Ramos for him.
"Hardy is oft injured and costing $5m, Nishioka and Casilla are not injury prone, potential international stars (which is good for the team in every way), both play solid D at 2 positions, bring speed and combined cost less than Hardy (and I'm even a Hardy fan, that's a smart move)"
Nishioka is a potential international star, in the sense that he is from Japan. Much like Morneau is an international star for being from Canada. Crain should have been kept by that logic because he is from Toronto and is an international star. I'll just link you here. In case you didn't click, Nishioka's wikipedia page says he has established a reputation of being an injury-prone player. Casilla is a "perennial underachiever who has never played more than 100 games in a season." When healthy, Hardy was one of the best in the league at shortstop.
"With Hernandez, they needed a veteran pitcher which the team didn't have, he was relatively cheap and actually pitched fairly well for the team before it was time to bring up Franky, which COULDN'T have been done sooner because of arbitration reasons, Liriano almost filed a grievance because he was butt-hurt from it while at the same time the same thing happens all the time, Longoria, Strasburg, Gibson this year, it will happen to Harper, it will continue to happen and they won't file grievances"
They didn't have a veteran pitcher because Smith traded Santana and Garza. He pitched ok, nothing spectacular. Liriano wasn't brought up because he was recovering from an injury. Longoria and Strasburg never complained to the point of almost filing a grievance because the team is blatantly keeping the player down to control costs. It doesn't happen all the time. You're wrong, again.
"Trading away Ramos was more a necessity, he's a projected starter while Butera is a defensive specialist, when you need a backup, especially at catcher, Ill take the defensive specialist. Ramos' potentially allowed the Capps deal, which in turn, helped win the division last year. Even if they didn't trade Ramos, he would have walked at first opportunity, he has no spot on the team. "
I don't get this logic, how was it a necessity because he's a projected starter? Is it because we have a franchise catcher in Joe Mauer? Joe Mauer never misses a game. He hasn't had injury problems either. It makes absolutely no sense to keep a catcher who can hit on the roster. Ramos would have walked at first opportunity in 2016 or so, when he was elgible for free agency. It's not like having a cost controlled backup catcher would have helped the Twins, who are always whining about lack of money. Butera is a defensive specialist, awesome, I would rather have Ramos. The trade for Capps was unnecessary. Besides having other closer candidates, such as Guerrier and Crain, Rauch was doing a fine job as closer. Arguably, we would have won the division without making that trade.
Finally, moving on to a new commenter.
"The reason they got rid of Santana and Garza is because their farm system was, and still is, loaded with pitchers. They may trade Liriano or Slowey to make room for young talent... they Twins have been doing this for years... "
The reason they got rid of Santana was because he was leaving as a free agent and the Twins knew he wasn't going to re-sign with him. The reason they traded Garza was because he feuded with coaches (oh, that's just what another commenter said) and because they were trying to upgrade their offense. It's not really loaded with pitchers. Well, technically it is. It's not loaded with front-line starter talent. It definitely wasn't loaded at the time of the trade (probably the reason Smith got 3 pitchers for Santana besides dealing with one of the worst farm systems at the time). I don't know what to make of your last comment as trading Liriano and Slowey would be stupid. If they wanted a rotation spot for one of their young talents, they could have merely not re-signed Carl Pavano and saved some coin and given the spot up. If their rotation is loaded with pitching, then going after Pavano would have been unnecessary in the first place because they would have already had enough pitching. Trading away your best pitcher does not make any coherent sense from making the statement that the system is loaded with pitching and then signing a free agent pitcher.
No comments:
Post a Comment