Comments on: Scott Baker leaves Twins, signs one-year contract with Cubs http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/ Baseball news, insight and analysis from Aaron Gleeman Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3 By: Jeff H http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22683 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:58:40 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22683 I think the human side of this that people forget is that if you’re Scott Baker, you probably signed that contract expecting to pitch well enough that the team would pick up that team option and pay the money. Baker did pitch well, and then got hurt, which was not his fault, and might have partially been the team’s fault for mishandling it in a way that he couldn’t make it back from TJ early enough to prove he was worth that option year.

So the Twins are now telling you that you’re not worth what they thought you might be worth when they signed a deal, yet Baker’s attitude is obviously “I’m going to make it back and be the pitcher I was before”. Why wouldn’t you just go find a fresh start and a higher bidder, under those circumstances?

]]>
By: Josh http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22647 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:51:28 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22647 I expect the money was a little high for the Twins but the lack of the option year was the real deal-killer for them, and rightly so.

It’s very hard to expect that Baker will be ready to pitch on Opening Day, and I expect he won’t round into form until mid-summer at the earliest. $5.5M is a lot to pay for a guy that will only pitch about half the season, is an unknown on his post-injury effectiveness…and will be a free agent at the end of the season, having used you for his rehab year. I wanted Baker back, but not at a silly price or bad contract. Clearly, this wasn’t a good fit.

]]>
By: BR http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22630 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:33:59 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22630 I wanted Baker to resign here, but if the team isn’t getting an option year, then I understand the desire to keep the guaranteed money low. Can’t assume ALL of the risk…

As for Baker, it seems an odd choice to go to a lousy team in a hitter’s park, where even more of his flyballs will end up in the seats. But $5.5M guaranteed is persuasive, I guess.

]]>
By: Sean http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22617 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:46:26 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22617 I remember reading over the summer that Baker wanted to return, that the Twins were all he’d ever known, blah blah blah. You know it’s probably crap at the time you read it, but there was some hope with me that he would come back next year. Even with his question marks, I would say he is the best pitcher on the Twins if he’s still on the team. Painful proof that baseball really is business.

@ Jim H.: if you think Baker, even after post TJ, is comparable to Deduno or DeVries, pass it over because I need a hit bro. It’s especially ironic with Deduno, because while DeVries just doesn’t have the talent, Deduno is literally one of the most erratic pitchers in all of baseball. It’s an incredible contrast with Baker, a pitcher with some of the best control in all of baseball. It’s not even close. There is no one in the organization ready to fill Baker’s shoes, and he’s a big loss for our 2013 plans, whatever they are.

@ jfs: I don’t think anyone wants to come to a team fresh off two 96+ loss seasons if they have a choice. 96+ loss seasons in the worst division in baseball, I might add. The Marlins drew some talent last year, but they spent a sh*tton on those guys, and they’re now unloading two of the players they signed (Reyes and Buehrle). The Twins offer about the same promise as the Marlins but they’re even cheaper, so the hope is even less. There is nothing appealing about this franchise at this point. When I read comments from Baker and Morneau about how much they want to stay, I am heartened, but part of me also wonders how they could be so crazy. Morneau could be on, say, the Red Sox or something. I mean, a team with a legitimate chance to do something big. There’s no way the Twins can objectively compare to that.

]]>
By: wrong em http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22616 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:36:59 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22616 Yes.

]]>
By: jfs http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22608 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:44:47 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22608 are the twins viewed favorably by pitchers around baseball? we’ve lost a few good ones. and nobody seems to be beating a path to ryan’s door, inquiring on employment. is there a problem with anderson, gardy, and/or the training/medical staff?

]]>
By: Jim H http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22607 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:40:00 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22607 20 to 25 starts is probably a reasonable expectation for Baker in 2013. My question is why you think it would be reasonable to pay $5.5 million for them. Say he manages 40-50% quality starts, something I think would be pretty good for a guy coming back from TJ surgery. You end up paying $5.5 million for maybe 10 quality starts. Now, he may do a bit better than that, but guys coming back from TJ surgery don’t usually regain all their old effectiveness immediately.

My guess is that if those 20-25 starts went to a Deduno or DeVries, you would have just as good a chance of getting 10 or so quality starts. I don’t think I would want to pay $5.5 million for them and then maybe loss Baker to free agency after the season, if all the good starts are at the end of the season.

]]>
By: Dave T http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22601 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:15:12 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22601 I have to side with the Twins on this one. In this case, a one-year deal is a one-sided deal. Baker will probably not be fully recovered/rehabbed until 2014. Why should the Twins continue to finance his rehab, without getting to enjoy his full capabilities in 2014?

]]>
By: jfs http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22595 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:34:57 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22595 i guess my first reaction was disappointment. he would have been a good, affordable fit for the twins in 2013.

so the stumbling block was the option year? what a bunch of nonsense. sounds like the twins tried to fine-tune negotiations the same way they try to fine-tune every aspect of a player’s game.

i wish baker well with the cubs.

]]>
By: wavedog http://aarongleeman.com/2012/11/13/scott-baker-signs-with-cubs/comment-page-1/#comment-22593 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:13:20 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=86652#comment-22593 Sounds like a good move for both parties. Baker get a one year deal and a nice payout. I don’t think the Twins are looking for a one-year contract on a pitcher especially with Baker coming off surgery, so I don’t fault them for asking for an option year. We did pay Baker $6.5M this year not to pitch – right in line with a couple of years ago where we paid Nathan $11.5M not to pitch (maybe insurance softened some of that amount).

]]>