At least the Twins are in it. It's better than we usually get. I've honestly been pretty happy with the new management. They seem to have similar beliefs to me. We need a top of the rotation pitcher, but if you have to overpay it's just not worth it. Even if you pay market value it may not end up being worth it. You have to mitigate risk.

 

I'm in this corner. I like a deal and this is full on retail. That earlier comment about poaching on the end of Grenke's deal sounds like a deal

I'm in this corner. I like a deal and this is full on retail. That earlier comment about poaching on the end of Grenke's deal sounds like a deal

Greinke was worth 6.3 bWAR in 2017. Arizona will not be selling him for less (in terms of talent + assumed salary) than a Darvish FA contract.

Is there anyway that Darvish would take two years 28 mil per year or $56 million guaranteed and add a third year mutual option which either side could decline from the Twins.

No.

 

No.

 

Agreed. He's not signing for less than 125-150MM.

 

Is there anyway that Darvish would take two years 28 mil per year or $56 million guaranteed and add a third year mutual option which either side could decline from the Twins.

 

Allegedly he already has a 5 year offer on the table, which I suspect guarantees at least double of that $56 million...

 

Cotillo and others have been suggesting it's Cubs vs. Brewers (possibly because of yesterday's rumors that Twins might be backing off due to price tag), so maybe Morosi was just reiterating that the Twins were still in it too?

 

Are the Twins really surprised Darvish would be expensive? Wouldn't backing off now due to this reason be kind of, well, daft?

Are the Twins really surprised Darvish would be expensive? Wouldn't backing off now due to this reason be kind of, well, daft?

could be posturing

I will silently eat my plate of crow if the Twins get him. The signs just don't look promising to me. FWIW I hope I am wrong.

If I was forced to guess. BTW... I’m not forced to guess yet here I am guessing anyway.

 

I’m guessing the Rangers swoop and piss me off.

Easy enough for you to say. When Andy Benes met Giminez, he didn’t understand the big deal about him, so he directly asked him, “Who do you think you are?”Giminez answered with a smirk, “I’m Chris Giminez!”

Andy Benes asked me the same question. I replied back “Mr. Big Stuff”.

 

True Story... except it probably wasn’t Andy Benes.

Andy Benes asked me the same question. I replied back “Mr. Big Stuff”.

True Story... except it probably wasn’t Andy Benes.

Sounds more like Alan.

Signing this week is a plus for the Twins...next week will be all-SuperBowl all-the-time, with it in Minnesota any news of a Darvish signing would get lost...it's either this week or the week before spring training

 

It's also quite possible that the Cubbies will make it a clean sweep of high priority Twins Targets

 

Duensing....Giminez and Darvish

 

Me Thinkee it will be Greinke if Darvish fails

 

It's time the Twins deal with the D-Backs for something other than a backup catcher

 

Gordon

Pearson

Baneulos (what's a D-Back trade without a catcher)

We eat $100M on Greinke contract

 

Edited January 25, 20188 yr by tvagle

With deferred money, the present-day value of Greinke's contract was considered 6 years, $194 mil.  Of that, 4 years and roughly $130 mil remain.

 

If Darvish is getting a similar deal on the FA market, I don't see why Arizona would be eating cash and taking back less than elite prospects to move Greinke.  Greinke is a few years older, but with only 4 years left on the deal and coming off a 6.3 bWAR season, that helps mitigate the risk quite a bit.

 

FWIW, Greinke has a limited no-trade which includes 15 clubs.  Even if that list doesn't include the Twins, it significantly depresses his value on the trade market and thus increases the value of Arizona simply keeping him.

One Word...They want to re-sign JD Martinez

 

They will eat money back in the deal if it clears enough to re-sign JD

(or at least that's my take on this hypothetical starting point)

Edited January 25, 20188 yr by tvagle

One Word...They want to re-sign JD Martinez

 

They will eat money back in the deal if it clears enough to re-sign JD

(or at least that's my take on this hypothetical starting point)

thats way more than one word

Move on - I understand we have some young arms with lots of talent - I will take them.

Move on - I understand we have some young arms with lots of talent - I will take them.

“I take them everywhere; they keep coming back.”

-Terry Ryan

 

With deferred money, the present-day value of Greinke's contract was considered 6 years, $194 mil.  Of that, 4 years and roughly $130 mil remain.

 

If Darvish is getting a similar deal on the FA market, I don't see why Arizona would be eating cash and taking back less than elite prospects to move Greinke.  Greinke is a few years older, but with only 4 years left on the deal and coming off a 6.3 bWAR season, that helps mitigate the risk quite a bit.

 

FWIW, Greinke has a limited no-trade which includes 15 clubs.  Even if that list doesn't include the Twins, it significantly depresses his value on the trade market and thus increases the value of Arizona simply keeping him.

 

Rumors are rumors but there are rumors the D-Backs are shopping him. True? Not true? IDK

 

My theory... they would have to eat cash because they already went over value to outbid others to sign him. 

 

 

 

 

Andy Benes asked me the same question. I replied back “Mr. Big Stuff”.

True Story... except it probably wasn’t Andy Benes.

And you probably aren't "Mr. Big Stuff"!

One Word...They want to re-sign JD Martinez

 

They will eat money back in the deal if it clears enough to re-sign JD

(or at least that's my take on this hypothetical starting point)

It is a cute theory, but that's about it. Why would Arizona eat $30 mil to get rid of Greinke's remaining 4/130, just to sign a bad defensive corner OF for 5/125 or more? That's not saving money at all, and arguably a talent downgrade.

 

I understand that they have explored some options with Greinke, but I would shocked if they found this proposed deal acceptable.

Rumors are rumors but there are rumors the D-Backs are shopping him. True? Not true? IDK

 

My theory... they would have to eat cash because they already went over value to outbid others to sign him.

MLBTR has reported zero Greinke information for the last month:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/zack-greinke/

 

I really doubt they are that desperate to move him. In fact, if/when Darvish signs for a comparable amount, Greinke's remaining contract will hardly seem "over value" anymore.

MLBTR has reported zero Greinke information for the last month:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/zack-greinke/

 

I really doubt they are that desperate to move him. In fact, if/when Darvish signs for a comparable amount, Greinke's remaining contract will hardly seem "over value" anymore.

Could Be. I won’t dismiss your reasoning. Nor Mine.

Me Thinkee it will be Greinke if Darvish fails

 

It's time the Twins deal with the D-Backs for something other than a backup catcher

 

Gordon

Pearson

Baneulos (what's a D-Back trade without a catcher)

We eat $100M on Greinke contract

I applaud creative ways to use $100M across four years in the here-and-now, if we think money above that for Darvish is "dead money", and if it turns out Darvish himself can't be signed even for more.

 

In addition to the points already raised, I want to add a touchy subject: Greinke has moved around a lot. Most recently, the Dodgers, who can afford to sign anyone they want (they gave Kershaw-money to Kershaw), said "nah, we're good" when they had the chance to re-sign Greinke after a three Cy-candidate season tenure. I recall him being considered "aloof" early in his career; at age 34 he's probably a different guy by now, but I still have to wonder if he's thought to be not worth the trouble, if Arizona is now known to have him "available" in the right trade after a couple of years in close proximity to him. I don't overweight clubhouse chemistry, but it's a factor to consider.

 

Meh....we were told for years they were in on Cubans. Being "in on" a FA means little, imo.

 

 

Well, let's be clear about what we were "told". There's a huge difference between telling reporters you're sending evaluators to a workout for someone and that the team has an interest in them, versus saying someone "is a priority". You won't be able to come up with a single example of someone with the Twins saying the Twins are "in on" a bid for any of those Cuban players. I don't think there's any real similarity with what's transpiring with Darvish, do you?

 

 

Move on - I understand we have some young arms with lots of talent - I will take them.

The Twins have many guys that might become #3's in a year or two. At some point you have to address the problem - Front of the Rotation arms. 

Move on - I understand we have some young arms with lots of talent - I will take them.

The Twins will still have those guys if they sign Darvish, no?

 

Signing this week is a plus for the Twins...next week will be all-SuperBowl all-the-time, with it in Minnesota any news of a Darvish signing would get lost...it's either this week or the week before spring training

 

It's also quite possible that the Cubbies will make it a clean sweep of high priority Twins Targets

 

Duensing....Giminez and Darvish

 

Me Thinkee it will be Greinke if Darvish fails

 

It's time the Twins deal with the D-Backs for something other than a backup catcher

 

Gordon

Pearson

Baneulos (what's a D-Back trade without a catcher)

We eat $100M on Greinke contract

If I were the D-Backs, I wouldn't make that trade. Greinke is worth a lot more.

 

The Twins have many guys that might become #3's in a year or two. At some point you have to address the problem - Front of the Rotation arms. 

That is true and I hope Berrios and Romero will move to that level.  Old arms falling from the top of the rotation interest me less than those on the way up.  We have hired a plethora of pitching coaches from mlb to minor leagues and then put more coaches overseeing those coaches.  Let them earn their money.  All aces start as prospects. 

 

The Twins will still have those guys if they sign Darvish, no?

Sure and we will have a huge contract that will go on as Darvish diminishes in talent and the younger players will need to be paid and extended.  I will never advocate for long term, huge contracts for players in their 30's.  If the contract starts in their 20s and goes into their 30s yes.  But I have watched too many of these great signings go bust.  Paying a lot of money for what they did in their prime is only good when you have them in their prime.  Look at Pujols.   This article was written in 2012, but captures my total reluctance - https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/baseballs-worst-contracts-starting-pitchers/  Beckett, Lackey, Lincecum, Wilson, Buerhle...all looked good in the years before the contracts.  As far as I am concerned Darvish is already starting to show signs of slipping. 

 

That is true and I hope Berrios and Romero will move to that level.  Old arms falling from the top of the rotation interest me less than those on the way up.  We have hired a plethora of pitching coaches from mlb to minor leagues and then put more coaches overseeing those coaches.  Let them earn their money.  All aces start as prospects. 

I will take both personally. I have hopes for Berrios. Romero has the upside but he is very raw and has some significant injury concerns. I am uncertain if he will last more than a full season or two as a starter.

Of course, all aces start as prospects but not all prospects have the upside of an ace. Some come out of nowhere and surprise but the Twins mostly have MOR types in the system. You are going to be waiting a long time to put a strong playoff caliber rotation with the Twins system. And that is a problem imo.

 

Sure and we will have a huge contract that will go on as Darvish diminishes in talent and the younger players will need to be paid and extended.  I will never advocate for long term, huge contracts for players in their 30's.  If the contract starts in their 20s and goes into their 30s yes.  But I have watched too many of these great signings go bust.  Paying a lot of money for what they did in their prime is only good when you have them in their prime.  Look at Pujols.   This article was written in 2012, but captures my total reluctance - https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/baseballs-worst-contracts-starting-pitchers/  Beckett, Lackey, Lincecum, Wilson, Buerhle...all looked good in the years before the contracts.  As far as I am concerned Darvish is already starting to show signs of slipping. 

At some point you have to spend money. 

What signs of slipping do you see? The swstr%, velocity and K rates are all great. Or do you mean ERA...