PDA

View Full Version : Twins reward Scott Baker for having a career year last year


DumpJerry
03-07-2009, 04:32 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9305494/

15.25M, four years.

doublem23
03-07-2009, 04:40 PM
That works out to less than $4 million a year, and even with the collapse of the free agent market, it's still probably a better deal for the Twins than if they let him get all the way to free agency. When you're an admittedly smaller market team, you have to take more chances early with your guys (especially pitchers) at locking them up to deals before the hit the FA market. Baker will be in Minnesota until he's 31, or if they so choose, it probably won't be too difficult to unload his salary if they need to start from scratch.

Konerko05
03-07-2009, 05:00 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9305494/

15.25M, four years.

Why is it a career year? He's a 2nd round draft pick who has improved over the last three years while increasing his IP.

Marqhead
03-07-2009, 10:35 PM
Why is it a career year? He's a 2nd round draft pick who has improved over the last three years while increasing his IP.

Thread title is a bit off. This is a great deal for the Twins. Baker will be a top of the rotation guy for them all 4 years.

jabrch
03-07-2009, 10:52 PM
It's a good deal for the Twins - fixes their cost. It's a good deal for Baker. While he had a good year last year, he was less great the season before that. Who knows what he will do during the course of the contract? Nobody.... But it works well for both parties.

In the next few years, we will have to start discussing similar deals with Floyd/Danks/TCQ, etc. Jenks also - we could do something with....

Good young teams have this opportunity/issue.

DumpJerry
03-07-2009, 11:43 PM
It's a good deal for the Twins - fixes their cost. It's a good deal for Baker. While he had a good year last year, he was less great the season before that. Who knows what he will do during the course of the contract? Nobody.... But it works well for both parties.
That is my point. Was last year a career year or is it the Real Deal? How much was he helped last year by the Dome Advantage which is in its final year?

munchman33
03-07-2009, 11:46 PM
That is my point. Was last year a career year or is it the Real Deal? How much was he helped last year by the Dome Advantage which is in its final year?

Baker has above average stuff and ridiculous control. It's only a career year if something happens to him to make him suck. Saying Baker had a career year is akin to saying Danks had a career year. It might be true, but there's too many reasons to think it's not.

FedEx227
03-07-2009, 11:56 PM
Baker has above average stuff and ridiculous control. It's only a career year if something happens to him to make him suck. Saying Baker had a career year is akin to saying Danks had a career year. It might be true, but there's too many reasons to think it's not.

From all I can see, he should be fine. I doubt it was a career-year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/6176_P_season_mini_7_20080930.png

He's right where he should be as far as BABIP.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/6176_P_season_mini_1_20080930.png
Not much change there.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/6176_P_season_mini_0_20080930.png
ERA has been on the decline.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/6176_P_season_mini_6_20080930.png
As has WHIP.

jabrch
03-08-2009, 12:09 AM
That is my point. Was last year a career year or is it the Real Deal? How much was he helped last year by the Dome Advantage which is in its final year?

I agree with you....it is a risk. But the other side of the coin is equally risky. I'll never blame either a club or a team for either side of this move. It's classic risk management.

DumpJerry
03-08-2009, 12:51 AM
Well, someone has used stats, so I guess he's the Real Deal.

doublem23
03-08-2009, 01:26 AM
Well, someone has used stats, so I guess he's the Real Deal.

Please Dump, don't rehash this tired argument. If you don't like the use of stats, fine, but then please give us your scouting report that indicates Baker's 2008 season was a fluke. ERA, WHIP, BABIP, and K/9 are 4 pretty basic stats, but if you really hate using them so much at least make a counterargument.

Not all good pitchers burst onto the scene as a 20-year-old phenom, sometimes they take a few seasons to put it all together (I'm looking at you, Gavin Floyd). It's really not that unbelievable to think a 27-year-old could continue to develop into a reliable starter. Baker's probably not going to contend for a Cy Young Award, but it's pretty likely that he'll be a good bargain for the Twins at under $4 million/year (that's less than they're paying Joe Crede's back to play on their concrete parking lot of a baseball field this year).

FedEx227
03-08-2009, 03:49 AM
Well, someone has used stats, so I guess he's the Real Deal.

Stats couldn't possibly rival the "I never heard of him until last year and saw him play in about 6 games last year against the Sox" scouting.

I wasn't using mind-blowing statistics, basic ones to show trends that he didn't explode onto the scene last year.

Jerome
03-08-2009, 06:14 AM
fancy colored lines

hogwash! get that mumbo jumbo out of here - it's meaningless

spiffie
03-08-2009, 08:13 PM
Scott Baker sucks and would not be in our rotation. The Twins paying him over $4 million a year is why they are and always will be losers.

everafan
03-08-2009, 08:23 PM
Seems like the Twins got the better end. But I always question an up and comer that signs a deal like this. It screams, "This is the best I can do."

DSpivack
03-08-2009, 08:35 PM
Scott Baker sucks and would not be in our rotation. The Twins paying him over $4 million a year is why they are and always will be losers.

He sucks? He had the 8th lowest ERA in the AL last year.

doublem23
03-08-2009, 09:03 PM
He sucks? He had the 8th lowest ERA in the AL last year.

I think that post was meant to be read with heavy teal.

DSpivack
03-08-2009, 09:11 PM
I think that post was meant to be read with heavy teal.

<-----:dunce:

goon
03-10-2009, 04:17 PM
Baker has above average stuff and ridiculous control. It's only a career year if something happens to him to make him suck. Saying Baker had a career year is akin to saying Danks had a career year. It might be true, but there's too many reasons to think it's not.

Scott Baker and John Danks couldn't be more different and shouldn't be compared at all.

Baker pitched exceptionally last year and it will be interesting to see if he can repeat last season's performance.

doublem23
03-10-2009, 05:49 PM
Scott Baker and John Danks couldn't be more different and shouldn't be compared at all.

Baker pitched exceptionally last year and it will be interesting to see if he can repeat last season's performance.

And John Danks didn't? If anyone is more likely to regress in 2009, it's Danks. Last year's 3.32 ERA was his career best for any full season in professional baseball, minor leagues included. He's never thrown 195 innings at any level ever. Baker's had a slower progression, but it's not like he had a 2003 Esteban Loazia-esque season. It just took him a few years to put it all together.

And, once again, the contract averages to under $4 million/year and locks him up through most of his prime years. That's a nice deal for Minnesota.

goon
03-10-2009, 06:55 PM
And John Danks didn't? If anyone is more likely to regress in 2009, it's Danks. Last year's 3.32 ERA was his career best for any full season in professional baseball, minor leagues included. He's never thrown 195 innings at any level ever. Baker's had a slower progression, but it's not like he had a 2003 Esteban Loazia-esque season. It just took him a few years to put it all together.

And, once again, the contract averages to under $4 million/year and locks him up through most of his prime years. That's a nice deal for Minnesota.

Did I say John Danks didn't pitch well? The only reason Danks will possibly have trouble this year is because of the work load from last season, not because of talent. Baker is a great pitcher, but I don't know if he is going to be the ace of that staff or if he could be on any other staff in the league. The point is that comparing Danks to Baker is difficult because they are different pitchers at different stages in their careers.

jabrch
04-22-2009, 12:58 PM
Very early and a very small sample size - so nobody can draw any conclusions on this one yet - but it will be interesting to compare Baker to Gavin and their similar deals over the course of the upcoming few starts.

Baker got bombed in his first start (vs TOR) and didn't get off on a good foot in his second start (@ Bos). That said, I still think deals like this are smart for both sides.

thedudeabides
04-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Very early and a very small sample size - so nobody can draw any conclusions on this one yet - but it will be interesting to compare Baker to Gavin and their similar deals over the course of the upcoming few starts.

Baker got bombed in his first start (vs TOR) and didn't get off on a good foot in his second start (@ Bos). That said, I still think deals like this are smart for both sides.

Scary early stat for Baker. He has given up 7 home runs in his first 7 innings pitched this year. :o:

jabrch
04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Scary early stat for Baker. He has given up 7 home runs in his first 7 innings pitched this year. :o:


Can you imagine the angst if this was Gavin after signing a similar deal?

DumpJerry
04-22-2009, 06:01 PM
After today's rain-shortened blow out lost (10-1 in seven innings) to the Red Sox, his ERA is 12.46.
He gave up a two-run homer in each of the first three innings.....

Cy Young has passed over the Dome on to other possible destinations.....

DumpJerry
05-20-2009, 08:19 AM
After last night's game, I'd say the Sox got their money's worth from the new contract.:D: