The Twins yesterday released a list of 19 non-roster spring training invites. The name that will stand out to most people is Kyle Gibson, the team's first-round draft pick from 2009 who finished last season in Triple-A and could make a legitimate bid for a rotation spot in March.
My eyes scanned further down, to the list of minor-league catchers receiving invites to camp. There are six: Jair Fernandez, Chris Hermann, Steve Holm, Danny Lehmann, Danny Rams and Rene Rivera. It will be interesting to follow this group in Ft. Myers, because as things currently stand, pretty much any one of those guys could be one injury away from finding himself on the big-league roster this year.
One offseason trade I haven't discussed at all in this space was a December swap that sent Jose Morales to Colorado in return for a minor-league pitcher. The Twins never trusted Morales' defense, so it was hardly a surprise to see him go, but between him and Wilson Ramos the Twins have over the past six months gotten rid of the only two backstops in the organization outside of Joe Mauer with any kind of offensive ability. Morales was not the great hitter that his .311 average from from 2009 would suggest, but he was competent with the stick and that's not something you can say about any of those spring training invites mentioned above. It's also not something you can say about Drew Butera, who figures to be Mauer's top backup from the get-go this year.
Mauer is no stranger to injuries, which is to be expected given that he plays such a physically demanding position. Even in what we would deem a healthy year by his standards, he still misses about a month's worth of games. There will be many occasions this year where he'll be hurt, written into the lineup as a DH, or simply given the day off. With Morales gone, those opportunities to catch will all fall to Butera, who batted .197/.237/.296 last season and is arguably the worst hitter in the major leagues. In the event that Mauer has to miss a sizable chunk of time, Butera will be viewed as a regular and one of the minor leaguers mentioned above would become the big-league backup.
It's a disastrous scenario. Of the six non-roster invites, only Holm and Rivera have any MLB experience. They've both had cups of coffee and neither has managed to establish himself as any kind of legitimate prospect. The other four are raw young players unlikely to yield any more offensive production than Butera.
Of course, offense is clearly not a major consideration for the Twins when evaluating backup catchers, otherwise they wouldn't have traded Morales away. They're probably correct in that mindset; it's the most important defensive position on the diamond and teams can easily take advantage of liabilities like Morales.
But what the Twins have been missing since Mike Redmond's departure is a backup catcher with a solid glove who can actually hold his own at the plate. That's not Butera, and it's not any of the six other guys who will be vying for the third spot on the depth chart during spring training.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Everything you said about Butera is true in the 155 ABs he had last year. But, he was second in the AL throwing out 43% of base stealers. For 155 ABs, his defensive skills make up for most of his offensive limitations. If Mauer would be out of the lineup for a significant stretch, the Twins would look for some help via trade. I can't see us running Butera out there for a significant stretch. Regardless, I don't think it's worth getting too shook up about. Best case, one of six proves to be Butera's equal behind the plate, shows a little more with a bat in his hand, and takes over as the backup. Worst case, we have a backup catcher that plays good defense with a lousy bat.
Relax everybody....we got Nish. Everything will be ok.
ughh, Tigers just got Penny for 3 mil, which is very reasonable. Why couldn't the twins get ONE of the low priced comeback candidates?
Dave of course they could have, but that would have required spending upwards of 3 million dollars which is much better utilized as ass padding in Jim Pohlads wallet.
"it's the most important defensive position on the diamond and teams can easily take advantage of liabilities like Morales."
Pretty cliche. It might be true in the sense that if you were super terrible youd have a huge impact on the game because you have to catch and throw every pitch. I dont think theres any good evidence that its a particularly unique skill set. Lots of players can fill this role without being very gifted. Neither butera or morales are average players. I suspect morales is more valuable overall despite the difference in defense, which should really be what the twins are concerned with. But as per usual the twins seem to put a lot of stock in fringe nonsense like calling a good game, so id bet at some point they pay butera more than the league minimum. Id also bet that if mauer misses some extended period of time butera's 530 ops and overall offensive game which is almost 70% below average will make the twins regret trading away most of their organizational depth at the position.
Nick, I think you need to take a pill or go do something else for a while. What a crybaby.
I bet if your wife burned the dinner in the first year of your marriage you pronounced the marriage doomed.
"It's a disastrous scenario." If you hadn't been so whiney this offseason, I'd have thought you were kidding. I mean, get a grip.
Act like a grown up for once.
Butera is a defensive catcher. If he gets a hit, its gravy. His job is to call a game and defend on those days Mauer is given a rest. We do not need a hitting catcher with sorry defensive skills. Throughout baseball managers prize defensive skills over hitting at this position. If a guy can hit but not catch, he is moved to another position.
Those of us who have managed teams know this. Those who think their job is to find fault, like you, don't know or don't care.
How about before you write crap like this, you call Gardy and ask what the team's thinking is?
lvl 5
Your comment: "But as per usual the twins seem to put a lot of stock in fringe nonsense like calling a good game..." shows your ignorance of the game.
Calling a good game is the result of hard work scouting opposing hitters and their tendencies. It takes hours of planning. Every "mistake" or wrong pitch selection can get hit into the seats.
You are one of those people that can watch a game and never know what is really happening. You see signs and ignore them because you don't know what they mean.
You have a right to voice your opinion, but I have a right to explain what a fool you are.
How about before you write crap like this, you call Gardy and ask what the team's thinking is?
Good idea. I'll do that.
Interesting that the Twins have recently traded Morales, Ramos, and Hardy for what amounts to relief pitching depth. None of those trades by themselves are atrocious (though I personally wasn't crazy about any of them), but put together they suggest that the Twins are systematically undervaluing up-the-middle assets in favor of relatively fungible relief pitching. That's not a very sound long-term strategy, and the current catching situation is one consequence of it. I'd be much happier if the Twins had to pick a long reliever off the scrap heap than a catcher.
I'm sure there are differences between the way catches call games and I sure some are better than others. But the perceived value it adds to a catcher pretty easily becomes hyperbolic. Also the arguments for its importance are so self fulfilling. If a pitcher get hammered and gives up a bunch of runs the catcher never is accused of calling a terrible game or shoulders any of that blame, but if a pitcher throws a shut out somehow a large portion of that is the catchers doing? I believe the actuality is that pitcher execution and performance is so much more important to an outcome than a catchers ability to call a game that the differences in catcher ability to call a game become exceptionally minor. Saying drew butera calls a good game and is therefore an asset to the twins is lazy.
"but put together they suggest that the Twins are systematically undervaluing up-the-middle assets in favor of relatively fungible relief pitching."
You dont have to look very hard to verify this. They gave away bartlett and have been cycling replacement level utility infielders in the position since. Then they got hardy and seemed like they couldnt wait to get rid of him so they can get a scrappier replacement level player to take his spot. And at the same time they are paying joe nathan 13 mil to pitch 55 innings a year. And they twins gave him that contract when their payroll was like 65 mil, which speaks to just how absurd an allocation of money that contract was and is. Saves, speed and being a veteran are all things the twins are willing to pay a premium for.
None of those trades by themselves are atrocious (though I personally wasn't crazy about any of them), but put together they suggest that the Twins are systematically undervaluing up-the-middle assets in favor of relatively fungible relief pitching.
Great take that perhaps merits its own blog post.
lvl5
Yeah, and all Tony Bennet can do is sing.
CA...are they really undervaluing the up-the-middle assets if they ante up millions to negotiate then sign a middle infielder from Japan to a multi-year deal? or how about signing Mauer to a long term deal last year? It almost sounds like the Twins have placed a lot of value in up-the-middle assets...and with Mauer in place behind the plate that leaves Morales and Ramos with nowhere to play.
Morales had an underwhelming year at the plate across the board and for a guy who does not field his position very well that is not good. Ramos could be a solid major leaguer but it remains to be seen. But fungible relief pitching? They traded Ramos for Capps who was an all-star in 2010 and put up numbers (2.47 era and 42 saves) that are comparable to other top relievers. And with the uncertainty of Nathan's health for 2011 the Capps trade gives them either a closer in Nathan's stead or incredibly bullpen depth if Nathan returns to form. Would you really rather have Ramos for 150 abs or Capps in the 8th or 9th all season? Plus, the jury is still out on the relievers that came over from the Hardy and Morales trades.
Given the Twins track record of building guys up through their organization, I wouldn't say that they'd be picking a catcher up off the scrap heap. Nick talked of inviting 6 or so catchers to spring training this season and I have a hard time believing that after Mauer and Butera the rest of the catchers in the organization are complete garbage.
Anyway, the current catching situation is that the Twins have the best catcher in the game locked into a long term deal and he is only 27 years old. Take a poll of the other 29 mlb teams and I think you'll find that they would all love to be in the Twins catching situation.
Nick you tend to base your evaluations on worst-case scenarios. Mauer struggled early in his career with injuries but that has not been the case throughout his career. The reality is that Mauer has been very durable in 7 seasons in the majors he has played in over 130 games 5 times, including the past 3 years. Molitor also struggled early in his career with injuries and ended up with a hall of fame career...the same direction Mauer is headed. I suggest you enjoy watching Mauer play, the catching situation is in very capable hands.
Anonymous....Barlett is very overrated. Take away his career year of 2009 where he hit .320 with 14 homers and 66 rbi and the guy is a slap hitter who is lucky to top .280. He tends to get nicked up and miss too much time considering the severity of the injury and is solid in the field but certainly not a top glove. Would you like to be stuck paying 5 mil a year for a SS with limited range, who could as likely hit .250 as .280. The Padres overpaid for him.
You cannot fault the Twins for giving Nathan the deal they did....I hope you are also not one of the whiners that says the Twins never spend money. From the time Nathan took the mound in 2004 to 2009 he was one of the best closers in baseball...period. The only one in that time frame that stands head and shoulders above him is Mariano Rivera and he is an easy first ballot hall of famer. And if saves, speed and being a veteran are all the Twins will spend money on then explain the 2009 signing of Joe Mauer.
lvl5
Using big words for the sake of using big words does not make you sound intelligent...it actually has the opposite effect.
"The perceived value it adds to a catcher pretty easily becomes hyperbolic."
How about saying something like 'The value of game calling for catchers is exaggerated'? Fess up, you found the word hyperbolic in the thesaurus and didn't bother to look it up. It's a word that is much more suited for match functions...you know...having the same relation to a rectangular hyperbola as the unqualified function does to a circle. True, it can be used for the purposes of language but it sounds awfully clumsy.
The next sentence is another disaster. First self-fulfilling is a hyphenated word, and it is an adjective so you can't just leave it out there on its own. You need to add it to a noun, which I guess would be importance but no matter how you fix it, the sentence remains clumsy because you end up with self-fulfilling importance. Now, self-serving can be used as a noun as can self-aggrandizement....probably better fits for what you were attempting to accomplish.
"I believe the actuality..." God help you...we are in the realm of a declarative statement. You do not need to state the words 'I believe', it's an opinion, of course you believe it. Again, we come back to the clumsiness of the word actuality, the word you want is reality. Start the sentence off with 'The reality is that..' and then leave out the extra/implicit words in the sentence.
After that garbled attempt to sound intelligent this is all you ended up saying....
The value of catchers calling a good game is overrated. The outcome of games is more dependent on the pitcher than the catcher. Drew Butera is not an asset to the team just because he is supposed to call a good game.
I'm not sure what laziness has to do with the presentation of arguments about Drew Butera's worth but I am sure that there was plenty of laziness in the writing of your post.
And by the way, a back-up catcher who is a very good fielder does have value on a major league roster.
Dave before you get too wrapped up in Penny have you taken a closer look at his numbers. He's been a very good pitcher in the National League where he has spent the majority of his career. His one season in the AL was with Boston in 2009 when he posted a 7-8 record with a 5.61 era and gave up 160 hits in 130 IP. He has only topped 200 innings twice in his career and hasn't come close to that number since 2007 and has had some serious problems staying healthy the past couple of years. His career era is over 4 and he's on his way to Detroit where hitters flourish. We'll have to wait and see how this one plays out but I am glad the Twins sat out on this guy.
I'd rather see the Twins sign up Pavano than Penny. And a Pavano, Liriano, Duensing, Baker, Slowey/Blackburn/Gibson rotation sounds pretty solid....especially when you take into account that Blackburn, Slowey and Baker had what could be argued as each player's worst individual year in 2010. If you want a good bounce-back player for 2011 I'd look to Baker.
And going back to the swapping sluggers post....if you sign Vlad you could easily bring him in as the everyday DH making Kubel expendable....especially with Revere nipping at the majors heels. Then you could try and put a trade package together with Kubel, Slowey and a minor leaguer and try and get a top of the rotation starter or a number 2 guy in a rotation. I doubt the Twins would be that aggressive but it's an idea. I know, what if worst comes to worst and Morneau can't go....you would still have Vlad at DH, Cuddyer at 1b and an outfield of Span, Young and Revere...an outfield that would cover ground and still be productive at the plate.
"Anonymous....Barlett is very overrated. " I didnt say he was a great player, but he was solid for the twins, and he was solid for the rays. Average to above average. The problem is the twins do a terrible job drafting middle infielders, they do a terrible job developing middle infielders and they replaced solid above average SS like bartlett and hardy with filth. Punto, everett, tolbert, casilla, cabrera, harris. Now we are going to replace solid hardy with casilla and it seems lots of people think this is likely to be something other than a disaster. Im not overvaluing hardy and bartlett, youre undervaluing what average middle infielders mean to an organization that never has them.
"You cannot fault the Twins for giving Nathan the deal they did."
Did you not read my comment. I definitely fault the twins for signing nathan to the contract they did. No relief pitcher is worth 13 mil a year even if they are very elite. Nathan pitches in 50-60 innings a year. Thats an incredibly small amount of the teams total innings and the twins have dedicated 10% and almost 20% when they signed the deal of their pay roll for 55 innings. That money without a doubt could have been more wisely allocated.
"And if saves, speed and being a veteran are all the Twins will spend money on then explain the 2009 signing of Joe Mauer"
I of course said saves, being a veteran and speed were all things the twins are WILLING to pay a premium for, not that they exclusively pay a premium for these things. Good effort on the comprehension, I know sometimes works can be tough. I'd say they overpaid mauer for his fluky, unsustainable 2009 power numbers.
anonymous...
I understood your comment on Nathan...I just think you are completely off-base. You do pay elite closers elite money. Would you rather they traded off Nathan like they did with Santana and not get much value in return or let Nathan walk like Hunter and get a couple of compensatory picks? Would you really be making the same argument if Nathan had never been injured...it's doubtful. Repeating the same argument to try to make your point might mean that your point is paper-thin.
No matter how mediocre you think the current middle infielder group is they will not have much trouble replicating the numbers your 'solid' Hardy put up last year. The word is that Casilla is playing well in winter ball, that may not mean much but about this time last year there were reports that Liriano was pitching well in winter ball and he had a very good 2010 season. There is reason for optimism on Casilla even if his track record up to this point has been inconsistent. His sample size was small last year but had you given Casilla the same number of ABs as Hardy had, Casilla would have put up better numbers. And you aren't taking into account Nishioka who is much more directly responsible for making Hardy expendable. There has been entirely too much love for Hardy this offseason.
Typing things in BOLD does not actually make your point any better than just typing the words normally. And you were trying to say 'words' not 'works'...nice attempt at boxing me in. And since your argument was about what the Twins are willing to pay for then it can be inferred that things not on your list were things the Twins were UNWILLING (did that drive home the point any better?) to spend money on. So again, nice try, but incomplete thoughts really aren't great arguments.
I think they got Mauer for a bargain compared to the money he would have gotten on the market this year. Were his power numbers of 2009 fluky? Perhaps...it's far too early to tell with a player entering his prime. But it could also be argued that they paid him the money they did for being the best catcher in the game, for winning 3 batting titles (previously unheard of for a catcher) and having the promise of putting together even better seasons going forward. He's won the MVP award. He has won 3 straight gold gloves at catcher. He has won 4 silver slugger awards (including the last 3) and is a perennial all-star who gets voted as a starter by the fans. Does your Mauer argument really just center on his 'power numbers'? And before you bring up a down year in Rbi let me remind you that those hitters in front of Mauer also had down years and if guys aren't getting on base as much then there are fewer opportunities to drive runners in. So cling to your misdirected animosity...Mauer isn't the problem.
A couple of points:
1. Losing Mauer for a lengthy period of time is a disaster, period. I'd be nice to have a backup in the system who can hit a little and be solid behind the plate, but the damage would be massive regardless. It's the risk involved in relying on a superstar player when you're not the Yankees/Red Sox and can't just buy a replacement.
2. What does 3rd place on the depth chart mean? Will out 3rd catcher be in Rochester or on the bench? If one of these no-hit options ends up on the 25-man roster, that's really bad. He'll have no value at all at that point, since he won't be a pinch-hitting option and won't see the field except in emergencies.
3. The starting lineup for the Twins is pretty solid. there are some question marks, to be sure, but overall it should be good. The bench is where it gets very questionable. Butera is a no-hit backup catcher whose defensive value is based on a small sample size and a lot of anecdotal hype from people invested in his success. Tolbert is a no-hit middle infielder with a good glove; he's Punto on a budget. Repko is a solid outfielder who can play all three positions at need, but has a mediocre bat. Who gets the other 2 slots, and will there be an impact bat among them?
"No relief pitcher is worth 13 mil a year even if they are very elite. Nathan pitches in 50-60 innings a year."
1. You're playing pretty fast and lose with facts. Nathan has typically pitched around 70 innings with the Twins, never fewer than 67.
2. You make the assumption that all innings are created equal. They're not. Pitching with a small lead in the late innings is incredibly important in relation to winning and/or losing. Nathan's 70 innings are largely in very high leverage situations, and it's worth paying a premium to have someone in that situation who is typically better than what the competition runs out in similar spots. Major league baseball teams win or lose based on very small margins. A smallish advantage in late inning bullpen talent is a big deal. A very big deal.
"1. You're playing pretty fast and lose with facts. Nathan has typically pitched around 70 innings with the Twins, never fewer than 67."
All right. No pitcher that pitches 65-70 innings is worth 13 mil.
"You make the assumption that all innings are created equal. They're not."
They are created equal in the sense that a run scored in the first counts for the same number of runs as a run scored in the 9th. Obviously you want you best pitcher pitching in high leverage situation but how much better is joe nathan at finishing games than a quality setup man that makes 1/3 his salary. My point is that if you replaced joe nathan with a good setup man at 1/3 price and replaced alexi casilla with a good 2b at 5-8 mil you are going to improve the teams run differential and still have some money left to improve elsewhere. Scoring more runs than your opponents is ultimately a better indicator of long term team success than cherry picking high leverage pitching situation where an elite closers value is unfairly magnified.
Joe nathan is a very good player but he is a very good example of a luxury item. The twins could have generated more value with that money by upgrading weaker positions.
There are clutch moments that can turn defeat into victory or vice versa. Those moments are often at the end of the game, when a player's concentration is sharpened. You want the best on the mound in those situations, not a middle reliever. There is a reason they call em saves.
All right. No pitcher that pitches 65-70 innings is worth 13 mil.
Per Cots, Nathan's 2011 salary is $11.25M, not 13. But whatever.
My point is that if you replaced joe nathan with a good setup man at 1/3 price and replaced alexi casilla with a good 2b at 5-8 mil you are going to improve the teams run differential and still have some money left to improve elsewhere.
If you replaced Nathan with a good setup man, you'd 1) likely get a couple fewer saves (how much is 2 wins worth?) 2) Have to replace the setup man, meaning part of the 'money left to improve elsewhere' would have to go towards getting someone equal in talent to the setup man you no longer have. If you don't do that, then you're further weakening the Twins bullpen. How many wins will that cost you? 3) If you're going with the weaker-in-two-spots bullpen, please name the good second baseman, and tell us how you'll get him. He'll have to be 3 or 4 wins better than what the Twins currently have, remember, since you've weakened your bullpen by that many wins.
Scoring more runs than your opponents is ultimately a better indicator of long term team success
I think you meant 'scoring more runs' or 'allowing fewer runs' didn't you? As a Twin, Nathan has thrown 418 innings with a 1.87 ERA. That's pretty good, right? Seems like he's more than paid his weight in 'allowing fewer runs.'
Signing Nathan wasn't a mistake. He's not a bargain, but he hasn't been overpaid, either. Nathan has been an extremely reliable, effective, and durable reliever. Those guys don't grow on trees, and they contribute to winning at a much higher rate than a simple look at their IP would indicate.
At this point I'm much less worried about backup catcher than backup 1B. Zero confidence that Morneau is going to play a full season. So the Thome signing is nice but says the Twins are okay with Cuddy's below-average offense and defense as his backup. Oh well, it's a convenient excuse for fans/org. to make after failing to make or win a game in the playoffs again: well yeah but Morneau was hurt.
At what point do people start to fault the FO for not having a backup plan in place for this sort of thing?
Twins payroll was slightly more than $100 million. They won 94 games. So lets assume a win costs $940,000.
A closer with 40 saves or a starter with 15 wins (1/6 of all team wins) is worth a lot. At least 6 million and closer to 10, given market forces
Post a Comment