Erasing Silva: (Or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Carlos Silva is poised for a pay increase this offseason, upwards of $9 million a season, because of his ability to amass innings. There is basic baseball theory in which Silva's forthcoming payday is predicated upon. It is the idea that if your starting pitching can provide six-plus innings an outing, your bullpen will be considerably fresh during the back-end of a three or four game series. General Managers have allocated a significant portion of their pitching staff to players that have at certain points in their career have proven they can meet or exceed two hundred innings in a given season. The Milwaukee Brewers signed Jeff Suppan to a 4 yr/$42 million dollar contract based upon his perceived durability. The theory certainly has teeth. After all, if your bullpen cannot be trusted with a lead, a short-term fix would be to sign a pitcher that can throw 50+ more innings per season. The basis for Silva's enlarged paycheck revolves are three elements: 1) he throws a lot of innings, 2) his walk-rate is minuscule and 3) he induces groundballs with his sinker.

Are these three reasons enough to commit $50 million and 5-years?

To answer that question we have to address the aforementioned three elements and prove why those elements are not rationale enough to resign Silva. Fortunately for me, the wheel does not have to be reinvented as Dave Cameron at the USS Mariner has already assembled a guide to Evaluating Pitching Talent. In the chart below, are Silva's critical pitching statistical categories the past three seasons.

Silva	Batters Faced	K%	BB%	GB%
2005	749	9.2%	1.2%	49.2%
2006	811	8.6%	3.9%	43.6%
2007	848	10.5%	4.2%	47.5%

His base-on-balls per plate appearance is absurdly low. As Cameron reaffirms this in his evaluation: "The average walkrate is 8% for a major league pitcher, though the DH makes the AL a higher walk league than the NL. Anything under 5% is tremendous, and anything over 11% is a problem." This is a strong indication that Silva knows where the plate is. Conversely, Silva's strikeout per plate appearance falls short of the league average. Cameron's research shows that "16% is league average, with 20% being terrific and 12% being a problem", Silva's best strikeout season in 2007 was still well below the acceptable rate for the league. Between strikeouts and walks, Silva was directly responsible for 125 batters-faced.

These statistics show that Silva is near the plate but not inducing swing-and-misses. His groundball per batted balls in play has been roughly above-average to average. Cameron's study says that: "42% is league average, and anything over 50% is terrific, with the best sinkerball pitchers posting rates in the 60-65% range, while anything below 35% can be a problem if its not offset with a high strikeout rate." When 723 batters were putting the ball-in-play in 2007, 402 were hitting them on the ground. Another 321 batters put the ball in play in various other manners. So at face value, Silva's ability to induce the groundball appears positive yet his inability to get strikeouts, Silva has to be extremely reliant on his defense.

Comparing Carlos Silva's 2007 to Boof Bonser's 2007 campaign, one will find not only that they shared the same ability to provoke grounders but Bonser can also retire batters through strikeouts.

Bonser	Batters Faced	K%	BB%	GB%
2007	772	17.6%	8.4%	45.0%

Bonser is already a staple in the rotation and will remain there but he has been exactly the kind of young talent that Silva was blocking because Silva is viewed by the organization as an "innings-eater" and a rare, miracle groundball manufacturer while peripheral statistics indicate otherwise. Bonser had direct responsibility (strikeout or walk) for the results of 201 plate appearances. His walkrate is average as is his strikeout rate. As stated above in Cameron's research, inciting groundballs 45% of the time is above league average -- a total of 257 balls-in-play for Bonser were on the ground (which is 145 less chances for a seeing-eye, squib or bouncers down the line than Silva). Bonser has the ability to get batters out on his own, pining them at a 17.6% strikeout rate, a trait that Silva has lacked.

Dick 'n Bert's FoxSportsNet Twins Lovefest have lauded Carlos for making opposing batters beat the ball into the carpet while keeping runners off of the basepaths because of a low-walk rate. This notion coupled with Silva's relative durability (180+ in the past four seasons) and youth (28) will invariably attract attention from the inning-hording GMs. Organizations like the Royals or Mets who have admired him from afar and will overvalue innings pitched regardless of their quality will eventually sign Silva to what could conceivably reach $50 million dollars (although Sean McAdams reports that some teams recognize the depleted talent pool and will avoid the free agent overpricing by seeking a higher quality pitcher via trade )(Then again, last offseason one gm make the statement that the free agent pool was shallow and still managed to overpay for Adam Eaton ). These overinflated contracts are a result of franchises lacking the in-depth analysis into these supposed durable innings-providers that eventually culminate in allocating a significant portion of a payroll strictly to innings rather than outs.

Hot Stove Indulges

During the offseason there is no shortage of inane rumors. Fox Sport's Ben Maller offers plenty of links to a nation of columnists and writers that go to print with a trade offer that seems completely make-believe. One of my personal favorites is Paul Hoynsie in Cleveland who does his best to fan and extinguish some of those very rumors for the Tribe in his Q & A column "Hey, Hoynsie!" Considering the gaping holes in the Twins lineup (third, DH, center) and the league's fetish with young pitching, one could easily put team names in a hat and concoct your very own rumor. Thankfully it is not necessary to find a hat. Locally, the Twin Citians are fortunate enough to have two such sources for hot-stove hearsay: Shooter and Sid.

(As a confession, in spite of the recent gaffs of A) reporting that the Twins will indeed have a centerfielder next season (an excellent follow-up to his prior column "Water is Wet"), B) reporting that the Twins lost Alexander Smit to the Reds "the other day" in October when "the other day" happened to be in the previous July (but hey, we've all misplaced blocks of time), and C) making a claim about Silva's contract offer that was totally unfounded, like Nick & Nick, I somehow maintain the belief that Charley Walters rumors carries significantly more weight than Grandpa Sports in the Westside Fishwrap. While both columnists show signs of phoning it in Walters - with no real evidence to prove this credibility aside from his previous connection to the Twins organization - is seemingly the more trustworthy source.)

In his most recent column, Charley Walters has indicated that 34 Kirby Puckett Place is still in contact with the Tampa Bay and discussing a Delmon Young-for-Matt Garza swap. Arriving at this speculation must have been no small feat for Shooter. After all A) the newly-dubbed Tampa Bay Rays have a glutton of young outfielders and the Twins are in desperate demand for such a product and B) the Twins have a surplus of young, inexpensive pitching the likes of which every organization envies. A well-placed phone call to the Twins front office might have confirm that A) the Rays have outfielders and B) the Twins have pitchers. Following that, all a columnist had to do was fill in the blanks that the Rays are willing to trade Outfielder X for Twins Pitcher Y. (Or, perhaps read one of Joe Christensen's past articles from the beginning of November). Story written.

Meanwhile, Rotoworld has already refuted the Young-Garza deal (and as we will see with good reason) but let's play devil (ray)'s advocate and indulge Walters and assume this deal is indeed discussed between the two organizations. This is precisely the transaction that would benefit the Twins long run. When the Montreal Expos swapped Cliff Floyd to the Florida Marlins for Dustin Hermanson and Joe Orsulak, Floyd had spent parts of four season on the Expos roster. He was a young corner outfielder that had previously destroyed Double-A and Triple-A pitching and in 1994 placed 5th in the Rookie of the Year voting. After coming to Florida, Floyd hit very well and established himself as a premium player in the National League. Likewise, Delmon Young has done the same to minor league pitching for the Tampa organization. Last season he finished second to the Red Sox's Dustin Pedroia as the runner-up for the Rookie of the Year in the American League. He hit left-handed pitching well (.299/.326/.427) and played in all 162 games for the AL East's perennial losers.

Needless to say, the Twins would greatly benefit from Young's right-handed presence in the lineup.

I have long felt that many of the Twins pitchers are replaceable from within the farm system. If the right deal were presented Baker, Bonser, Slowey and Garza are all expendable. Delmon Young is that type of player. While displaying flashes of brilliance, Garza is certainly not a guaranteed number 1 starter in a rotation. In his previous two seasons with the major league club, Garza has a career strikeout rate of 17.9% (of the 599 batters faced, Garza has pined 105 of them). Comparatively, Garza falls between Scott Baker (who has a career strikeout rate of 16.3%) and Boof Bonser (who is at 18.4%). Baseball Think Factory's ZiPs has Garza finishing 2008 with a 13-12 record and a 4.21 era. If the Twins enter 2008 with a rotation of Santana, Liriano, Baker, Bonser and Slowey ZiPs projects that this group would accrue roughly 63 victories. Substituting Garza for Baker, Bonser or Slowey would only aid the Twins only two or three projected victories.

If Garza were to be traded for Young, the pitching prospects in the farm system including Nick Blackburn, Brian Duensing, Anthony Swarzak and Yohan Pino will be ready to enter the rotation following the 2008 season. Garza's potential output would easily be reproduced by a younger prospect. I do believe he has the opportunity to have a brilliant pitching career -- most likely as a mid-rotation guy on a good team -- but the chances of an arm injury add risk, which is why (pending a break-out season) the market for Garza might not get any better.

The Rays are hardly without pitching but like almost every franchise it could use more. With a 2008 rotation that will include Scott Kazmir, James Shields, JP Howell and Andy Sonnanstine, a staff that ZiPs projects to win an estimated 42 games, a solid arm like Garza added to the front of this rotation would provide an additional young talent and has the potential to add 5 to 6 more wins per season over any other starter in the Rays system. Considering Garza's projected 2008 era is 4.21 and better than everyone on the Rays staff besides Kazmir's, he could be the number 2 starter in Tampa.

So the fact that the Tampa Bay Rays would immediately benefit from Matt Garza is substantiated as well.

The problem is that in all likelihood if the Twins were that interested in Young, the Rays would ask for another player or two with Garza to make it happen. Similar to the Twins pitching surplus, the Rays have a like situation in the outfield. Currently on the roster the Rays have Upton, Young, Baldelli, Crawford, Gomes, and Dukes in the outfield. The Rays could conceivably trade Young and replace him with another outfielder, however, he is cheap and will avoid arbitration until after the 2010 season. A player like Delmon Young who finished strong in 2007 can definitely replicate his numbers in the coming seasons. Which begs the question: Of all the potential trading pieces, why would the Rays trade Young? If you were the Rays front office would you not most likely consider moving the often-injured Baldelli, the free-swinging Gomes, the domestically-abusing Dukes or the soon-to-be-expensive Crawford prior to Young unless you were blown away by an offer?

The fact is that even though the Twins and the Rays have something the other wants, it does not mean that the two organizations will agree on the price-point.

Torii: Go West, Young Man.

Young might be a bit of a stretch nonetheless Torii's youthful and infectious smile coupled with his front-and-center interviews with Best-Damn-Sports-Show-Period will play well from LA-LA Land. For a spell. As Dave over at USS Mariner has pointed out, Torii's contract demand is a "landmine" - the back-end of his contract would be too pricey for a 37-year-old corner outfielder who could be on and off the DL regularly. Considering the market for a centerfielder (White Sox, Rangers, Dodgers, Angels, Twins), his valuation was expected to be through the roof. there are plenty of franchises just has eager to hand over the money for the front part of his contract. The Angels will certainly look like the team to beat in the AL West with Matthews and Hunter patrolling two-thirds of the outfield. The Twins are small market team and were not willing to subtract from the talent of the ballclub in contract years four and five and I for one cannot blame them.

Where I can blame them is for not adequately preparing for this very situation. Whether it was Twins not restaffing the farm system with centerfield candidates when Denard Span did not live up to his prospect status or the inability to move Hunter in the past offseason (or during the season for that matter) or the foresight necessary to read the free agent/trade market for current centerfielders. I can blame the organization for not being prepared for this. I can.

Torii was on Dan Barreiro this afternoon repeating the mantra that he really, really, really wanted to stay with the Twins, and Barreiro was pissy about the Twins not offering him the money, but $18 million a season is crazy dough. It is, no question. And the Angels are just the franchise to understand what it means to overpay a centerfielder. This past offseason the Angels signed the 32-year-old Gary Matthews Jr to a unconscionable contract calling for 5-years/$55 million. Similar to Hunter, Matthews had a season that was well above his career numbers. His career line was .263/.336/.419 through 2006 following a break out .313/.371/.495 2006 campaign for the Texas Rangers. In his first season with the Angels in his new contract, he performed below his previous career line at .252/.323/.419. While not known for being nearly as fluctuating offensively as Matthews, what some argue as Hunter's best season (I disagree, it was his 26-year-old season in 2002), his 2007 line of .287/.334/.505 was significantly higher than his career line at .271/.324/.469.

Does this mean he won't replicate his 2007 performance? Of course not, he still could hit with the same numbers but all statistical indicators regarding age and previous performance tells us that he certainly won't produce steadily that kind of output over the course of a five-year contract. In fact, it is more probable that his output could significantly drop-off in 2008. His defense will continue to be an asset, and I would assume that he will be a great corner outfielder when his 37-year-old legs finally breakdown in year four or five of his contract minus the power that comes from a left or right fielder. The Twins knew this and decided not to play ball.

The Star Tribune's Lavelle E. Neal is reporting that the Twins have strong interest in signing Tony Clark and ESPN's Buster Olney just labeled Clark as the number 1 undervalued free agent this offseason.

These rumors, speculations and subsequent signings of supposed "re-treads" has understandably agitated the Twins fan base. After all, we have been bombarded by a plethora of offseason signings of the aging Batistas, Sierras, Cirillos, and Whites (twice!) in the twilight of the Terry Ryan era. These were certainly low-risk signings but also proven to be low-reward ones too. And had the Twins compiled a shred of research on those players, it would have been clear that the percentages of the bargain-bin players to reward the organization with any offensive production was minuscule at best.

Rarely in the past few offseasons had the Twins had the opportunity to sign an offensive player that would have provided runs at a low-price. In hindsight, the Twins should have been the ones who structured a deal with Frank Thomas instead of Oakland who did in 2006. Thomas, of course, was one of the offensive catalysts that lead Oakland into the 2006 playoffs where he destroyed Twins pitching, hammering 2 home runs in 10 at-bats in 3 games. In the ALCS Thomas was shut down by the steamrolling Detriot Tigers pitching staff who rendered him hitless in 13 at-bats. For $500,000 plus incentives, Oakland obtained the 38-year-old designated hitter who would finish the season with 466 at-bats, mashing 39 home runs with a .270/.381/.545 batting line. Obviously everybody organization would have knocked down their own grandmothers for a deal like that.

At the time there was initial trepidation among baseball insiders as to the kind of season Thomas would produce which was why he could be had for a pittance. In the two previous seasons leading up to his offseason signing with Oakland, Thomas was limited to 345 at-bats. Many believed that Thomas was all but washed up. In 2005, it appeared that his legendary plate discipline had disappeared. Thomas routinely walked more times than he struck out in a season. In 1993 he had a total of 112 walks and only 54 strikeouts. In his appearances in 2005 for the Sox, Thomas struck out 31 in 105 at-bats and walked only 16 times. Injuries and attitude had led to the Chicago White Sox cutting ties with a player that had been with the organization since 1989.

All that for half-a-million.

Which brings me to the Twins interest in Clark. I mentioned Thomas above because over the course of the next week or so, the local media will undoubtedly draw comparisons to Thomas (mainly the age, power and the prospect of a rebound season). Their ability to hit the long ball is what binds these two players together. Thomas has hit a home run in 5.2% of his plate appearances while Clark has deposited home runs in 5.0% of his. While Thomas has hit extra-base hits in 10.3% of his plate appearances, Clark has nearly matched that doing so in 9.8% of his. Realize that Tony Clark and Frank Thomas are not even remotely in the same realm when it comes to discussing plate disciple. As mentioned before, Thomas had a keen batting eye that led to numerous walks and a .421 career on-base percentage. Baseball Propectus described Clark in their book "Mind Game" as a free-swinging out machine and his career obp of .339 reflects that. Over the course of his career, Clark has struck out in 23.2% of his plate appearances. Thomas has struck out in only 13.6% of his. Parish the thought that a signing of Clark could emulate numbers like Thomas provide Oakland in 2006. They are not the same hitter. This is not even apples to oranges. It is apples to something entirely inedible.

The Star Tribune article suggests that Clark is looking for an AL team to designate hit for so that he can achieve 400 plate appearances again. For the record, the last time Clark managed to get to the plate 400 times in a season would be in 2001 where he struck out in 21.7% of them. Admittedly, I do not think the acquisition of Tony Clark would be as disastrous as Tony Batista was provided that the Twins front office comprehend what they have. Clark is a proven pinch-hitter. In 2007, Clark made 36 pinch-hitting appearances for the Diamondbacks and hit .250/.333/.563 and slugged 3 home runs. Meanwhile the Twins were relegated to marching Jason Tyner to the plate as a substitute in the bottom of the ninth to face the dominate closers. For my money, it would behoove the Twins to send Clark to the plate and pinch run Tyner for him once he does drive home the tying run. The problem is, the Twins would not leverage Clark to his potential and give him too many at-bats.

Ultimately, I would speculate that with the rumors that multiple AL teams are looking for a serviceable designated hitter and NL teams who have an opening at 1B or the bench will ultimately raise Tony Clark's potential contract amount. The market will push the value of a 36-year-old free-swinger well beyond a reasonable contract. If the Twins do obtain Clark (and keep Monroe as well), it will be a decent gauge of what flexibility new GM Bill Smith is allotted for payroll.

The Monroe Doctrine (Or How I Learned To Not Accept the Twins Offseason Moves)

A few days has passed since the Twins announced that they are relinquishing one of their dimmer stars for the 30-year-old Craig Monroe. While most in the Twins community seem to believe that this is yet again another indication that the Twins are only interested in second-rate stars (Gleeman, TwinsGeek, Nick&Nick ) and truthfully that was my initial gut reaction as well. Why spend any amount of the payroll towards Monroe even if he is a 4th outfielder/DH platoon? Last year the Twins acquired Jeff Cirillo in what turned out to be the final season of his career. When Cirillo wasn't on the DL, his contributions were minimal and was eventually waived and picked up by the Diamondbacks. To some, it would appear that the Twins were once again acquiring an overpaid, low-reward hitter.

Don't be fooled because this is exactly what they got. The only mitigating factor is how the team deploys Monroe.

When the rumor mill began to buzz that the Twins were in talks with the Cubbies for Monroe, my first inclination was that if you are negotiating with the Cubs, why not attempt to get Matt Murton, a young right-handed bat with years left in his legs? After all, the numbers certain indicate that Monroe has probably peaked with his production. Monroe's numbers prior to his 2007 drop-off were not all that impressive and since his best offensive season in 2004 he has steadily declined and his strike out rate has increased.

Monroe	AVG.	OBP.	SLG.	BB%	K%
2004	.293	.337	.488	6.0%	16.4%
2005	.277	.322	.446	6.4%	15.2%
2006	.255	.301	.482	6.3%	21.5%
2007	.219	.268	.370	6.0%	25.0%

In an ensuing conversation with a high-ranking organizational official, I learned that the Twins view Monroe as a no-risk deal. Essentially the Twins bought themselves the ability to get a free look at Monroe and the ability to negotiate a lower contract. The team believes that Monroe would be a better option instead of Lew Ford as the outfielder on the bench. Meanwhile, Murton was discussed both internally and with the Cubs, however the consensus within the organization is that Murton is not an "everyday player" and the Cubs were seeking several prospects in exchange for Murton.

The Cubs wanted too much for Murton and the Twins were only in the market for a 4th outfielder/platoon DH with power that is seemingly affordable (giving up a Garza or Slowey isn't affordable). I realize that the parameters that the Twins acquired when they sold a prospect for Monroe was the right to (hopefully) reduce his salary to play a very specific role: a right-handed platoon and a power-bat off the bench in a pinch-hitter capacity. Only there are two problems with that: (a) Monroe is not a particularly good hitter against left-handed pitching and (b) Monroe has made 25 pinch-hitting appearance and has hit exactly zero home runs.

So is Monroe the solution to the Twins problem? No.

As a vigilant advocate for Kevin Mench, a player that has continual speculation that the Brewers are going to non-tender him this offseason, I believe the Twins should be bringing Mench in instead of Monroe. In 812 plate appearances against southpaws in his career Monroe has hit .273/.319/.495 (6.7%BB%/18.5%K%). Mench, however, in 775 plate appearances against left-handers has hit .305/.361/.563 (7.7%BB%/6.8%K%). Monroe has hit home runs in 4.4% of his plate appearances against lefties. Mench has homed in 5.1% of his.

While I was lead to believe in my brief conversation with the Twins official that the options present were Lew Ford versus Craig Monroe, in which case, everyone would hopefully opt for Monroe. The spin from the front office would like you to believe that there were no other options for the same product for the same price range when that simply wasn't the case. There was a better product at the same price range.