Don't Sign Joe Nathan Petition! Sign up now!

That’s right, I’m starting a petition right here, right now, for the Twins to not sign Joe Nathan to an extension. However, I’m lazy, so put your name in the comment section to “sign” and I shall personally forward this story to Carl Pohlad when the petition reaches a high enough number (re: enough to make me crap my pants that this blog is actually popular).

Let me give a quick rundown of why we shouldn’t sign Joe Nathan: we’ll be overpaying him a truckload. Done. That was easy. The salaries and media love for closers is something I despise about baseball. To me, a reliever is a reliever. Pitching the 9^th inning as opposed to the 8^th should not translate to a four-fold increase in salary. I know I whip VORP out all the time, but look at the VORP for Twins pitchers in 2007. Guerrier, with a slightly higher ERA but more innings pitched, saved the Twins 36.8 more runs than a “replacement level player” would have, while Nathan saved the Twins 32.9 runs. Guerrier, therefore, was more valuable to the team, right? Well, Guerrier is making $950,000 next year while Nathan tries to negotiate a “bargain” for the Twins in the realm of $12 mill. Yes, Guerrier is still under arbitration, which severely deflates his salary, but I dare you to make the argument that Guerrier would be out-earning Nathan if he was currently in his free agency years.

Baseball executives have a love of the closer and the “save” statistic. I really don’t see what’s so special about it. If I’m manager of a baseball team, say the 2007 Twins, I run my bullpen differently. I say to Nathan, congrats, you’re my best reliever, so you’re option one. Guerrier, you have some stamina so you’re long relief. Neshek, that makes you option two. I’m basically calling them option one and option two instead of “closer” and “set-up man”. Why, what’s the difference you ask? I’m going to use them depending on who’s hitting, not what goddamn inning it is.

Let’s say it’s the top of the 8^th, Twins are at home and up by one. To make things specific, let’s say the Tigers are in town. That means their line-up probably looked like this: (Note, this is the lineup the Tigers did use visiting the Twins May 11^th)

Ivan Rodriguez – C
Placido Polanco – 2B
Gary Sheffield – DH
Magglio Ordonez – RF
Carlos Guillen – SS
Craig Monroe – LF
Marcus Thames – 1B
Brandon Inge – 3B
Curtis Granderson – CF

So, top of the 8^th, and we’ll say Gary Sheffield is up. Conventional wisdom says “It’s the 8^th inning, send out your set-up reliever!” WHY?!? You have a one run lead and the opposing teams best hitters are coming out! Why would you not send out your best reliever?! I’m sending out option one, Nathan, to try and shut down the oppositions best hitters. Then, in the 9^th, I send out Neshek, option two. My best reliever faces their best hitters, giving me the best chance of not giving up a single run. Neshek gets a save, but who cares? Does that really matter? I’m not suggesting a closer by committee exactly, I’m just saying that late in the game (8^th inning on, maybe 7^th), I’m going to use my relievers more as a reaction of who is going to be hitting, not what inning it is.

The reason I bring up my theories on how to manage a bullpen is this is directly tied to my theories on closers. As you can see from my bullpen management, a reliever is a reliever to me. Joe Nathan may be the best reliever on the Twins, but is he worth $10 million more than our next best reliever? No. The discussion is muddled a little by Neshek and Guerrier both being under arbitration and thus not getting their actual market value, but the point stands. The term “closer” adds at least $5 million in salary to a reliever, regardless of performance. The only way I’m signing Joe Nathan is if he signs at the discount price of $6 million per, which we all know isn’t happening.

The one benefit from the incredibly inflated opinions on closers is that we can abuse the market. Trade Nathan right now, insert Guerrier or Neshek into the closer role, and watch him prosper. Sign out his arbitration years and first few years of free agency at a slightly higher salary than a middle reliever deserves, and then trade him with two years left in his contract as a cheap and effective closer. Wash, rinse, repeat. Of course, none of this will actually happen because it makes too much sense. Instead, look for the Twins to try and sign Nathan to a $12 mill a year deal for the next 3 years (he’ll be there for the stadium opening in 2010! Yes!) while Neshek and Guerrier to go relatively unappreciated for their performance.