Article: Report: Darvish Decision Expected This Week, Twins In Consideration

[Doomtints]

Are baseball rumors ever correct this time of year?

[mikelink45]

 

You've built some really strange narratives around Darvish.

 

1. If the Astros (and other good teams) can just hit Darvish at will, why'd Darvish post 12 very good innings against Houston during the regular season and why was he so far above average overall?

 

2. Darvish had the 12th-highest K/9 rate in baseball last season among qualified pitchers (and he played most of the season in the AL). He absolutely has "go ahead, try to hit this" stuff.

 

3. He's not going to be paid like he's the best pitcher in baseball, he's just going to be paid very well and (likely) in line with his talent level. There's no way he gets $200m+ in a Kershaw, Greinke, or Scherzer level of contract.

I am sure I am coming off as a Darvish hater - I am not.  I think he is overrated, about to start his career slide - Arrieta too.  And I do not want him signed for more than three years.  

 

I have enjoyed all the debates and counter arguments.  Now I am anxious like the rest of you to see where he ends up and then it will be two years before my apprehensions can be tested.

[Doomtints]

I agree with you. I think Darvish is overvalued. I would not be upset if he was signed, but if it were me, I would look for dependable arms and shop for a star at the deadline (if pertinent).  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I am sure I am coming off as a Darvish hater - I am not.  I think he is overrated, about to start his career slide - Arrieta too.  And I do not want him signed for more than three years.  

 

I have enjoyed all the debates and counter arguments.  Now I am anxious like the rest of you to see where he ends up and then it will be two years before my apprehensions can be tested.

That's fair, I'm certainly wary of the guy as well, but I think you're trying a little too hard to downplay his talent level. He's a very good pitcher and it's completely fine to believe he's not the $150m pitcher you want your hometown team to sign without digging into very SSS arguments to defend that opinion.

[Twodogs]

 

I am sure I am coming off as a Darvish hater - I am not.  I think he is overrated, about to start his career slide - Arrieta too.  And I do not want him signed for more than three years.  

 

I have enjoyed all the debates and counter arguments.  Now I am anxious like the rest of you to see where he ends up and then it will be two years before my apprehensions can be tested.

You are correct that there is a lot of risk that comes with Darvish.  However, right now, in my opinion, the Twins should be in a win now mode.  Darvish helps the Twins win now, again in my opinion.  If people think that they can just go into the season with what they have and that they are going to the playoff and do damage they are wrong.  There is no way Gonsalves and Romero are ready at this point in time.  Romero can barely pitch past 120 innings in a year so far; both of them still need developing, maybe not their stuff, but they need to get stronger and facing the Astros, Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs is not the way to build strength in a couple of young pitchers.  Again Darvish has risk, but in a year or two those kids will probably be ready to take that step forward and be dominant in the big leagues, however, if we trade them away for a guy like Archer then in two years when Archer's contract is up the Twins will have nothing in the hopper to win at that point in time and they will be talking about re-building or they will have to go out and get some new free agent at that point in time who will probably be more expensive than Darvish is now.  So Darvish is the best answer at this time, way better than relying on Phil Hughes and the likes of those guys.

[mickeymental]

remindful of the perpetual sign in a bar that says "free beer tomorrow" ... 

[ashbury]

remindful of the perpetual sign in a bar that says "free beer tomorrow" ... 

Similarly I've seen references to Brazil or Ireland as "the country of the future, and always will be".

 

We don't want to be that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I am sure I am coming off as a Darvish hater - I am not.  I think he is overrated, about to start his career slide - Arrieta too.  And I do not want him signed for more than three years.

I feel like you and others in the "don't sign Darvish" camp are letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good".

 

Do we wish Darvish was a few years younger, or was coming off a Cy Young season?  Sure.  But then he wouldn't be available, certainly not for 5/125 and zero prospect cost.

 

And it's just not realistic to expect that the Twins group of SP prospects will produce a Darvish level performer within the next 2 years, at least, just because of their inexperience.

 

So what's your alternative?  Do nothing?  Sign a lesser player (who might still cost $60-75 mil) and hope to get lucky?  Keep in mind Cobb and Lynn are essentially the same age as Darvish, and while each has been effective in the past, starting at 6.5-7.5 K/9 doesn't give them as much room to fall and remain effective as they age compared to Darvish at 10 K/9.

 

There are rarely if ever perfect players or deals in baseball.  If you want a good team, you're going to have to make some good (but not perfect) deals for some good (but not perfect) players.

[bunsen82]

My personal preference is Cobb this year.  I think you will get similar production, he is a tad younger and will cost about half as much.  I would definitely be okay with getting Darvish.  I think he will have very good numbers in Target field.   He also has a higher ceiling and has the possibility of being a low end #1 for 2-3 years.  Ultimately if you feel the window for the twins opens in 2019 through 2021, and you can get a #1 pitcher for a reasonable amount you do it. 

 

Don't base anything off the world series.  It is very clear he either wasn't able to grip the ball as well or had an injury.  Add on top you have Houston saying he may have been tipping pitches.  The tipping can be easily corrected.  As to the world series the only concern would be whether he gets the yips in pressure situations, but with the work he did in the NLCS that eases the concerns for me.  

 

Either way I hope we get one of Cobb or Darvish, man has that offseason been glacially slow.  

[Jerr]

 

Sandy Koufax disagrees.

And Koufax is correct, first day of the week is Sunday....here I thought, baseball fans were smarter, than the average sports fan.

 

[Jham]

I agree with you. I think Darvish is overvalued. I would not be upset if he was signed, but if it were me, I would look for dependable arms and shop for a star at the deadline (if pertinent).

Then why not trade now? Why give up half a season? Why not trade last deadline? We talked and talked about trading for a piece that would help for years. We ended up with a 1 week rental that we traded to the team that knocked us out. And we paid the bill ($4.5 mil) in exchange for a kid they were not going to protect. Coulda shoulda woulda. Never a perfect time or deal.

 

I said last year. Either support the core or blow it up. We've wasted 1.5 pennant chases and suffered through a 100 loss season. Sano, Kepler, Stewart, Burdi, Alex Meyer and Gordon have all lost significant trade value. We've wasted at least 2.5 years by sitting on the side line. I really don't want to waste even another half season at this point.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Jham

[Doomtints]

 

Then why not trade now? Why give up half a season?

 

Because:

1) The Twins need a couple of solid pitchers, not just one
2) I don't want the Twins to fall early in the playoffs should the manage to make it

Build the foundation first, then shoot for the stars if the foundation proves to be sound. 

[Jham]

Because:

 

1) The Twins need a couple of solid pitchers, not just one

2) I don't want the Twins to fall early in the playoffs should the manage to make it

 

Build the foundation first, then shoot for the stars if the foundation proves to be sound.

1) But if we need 2, signing 1 brings us closer. It also seems unlikely we'd be able to trade for 2 impact arms at the deadline.

 

I'm also not sure we need multiple arms. We made the playoffs with basically the same rotation. We need quality at this point.

 

2) We all want the Twins to win in the playoffs. Waiting until the deadline limits our options and ability to improve our chances.

 

3) Are we really lacking a foundation?

 

I'm agreeing with you on everything except on when to start accumulating talent. I believe teams should always be trying to accumulate more talent. He who hesitates is lost.

 

My biggest criticism of Ryan wasn't the moves he made. It was his getting himself in position where he had to make panic signings because he low-balled, burned bridges with agents, built a miserly reputation, and was too tentative early in signing periods. Opportunities lost don't always re-emerge.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

1) But if we need 2, signing 1 brings us closer. It also seems unlikely we'd be able to trade for 2 impact arms at the deadline.

I'm also not sure we need multiple arms. We made the playoffs with basically the same rotation. We need quality at this point.

2) We all want the Twins to win in the playoffs. Waiting until the deadline limits our options and ability to improve our chances.

3) Are we really lacking a foundation?

I'm agreeing with you on everything except on when to start accumulating talent. I believe teams should always be trying to accumulate more talent. He who hesitates is lost.

My biggest criticism of Ryan wasn't the moves he made. It was his getting himself in position where he had to make panic signings because he low-balled, burned bridges with agents, built a miserly reputation, and was too tentative early in signing periods. Opportunities lost don't always re-emerge.

If now isn't the time to make a push, I'm not sure there will ever be a time to make a push.

 

After this season, Dozier is likely gone. That's 3-5 wins you need to replace. Some of the core enters arbitration, which means the clock starts ticking on them as they become more expensive.

 

And next offseason, Mauer comes off the books, which means a Darvish contract will almost entirely be absorbed by the removal of another contract.

[Doomtints]

Longest week ever.

 

http://i549.photobucket.com/albums/ii374/binyomilan2002/downloadterlama.gif

[MN_ExPat]

I'm pretty sure most folks have seen this from MLB Trade Rumors, but just in case...

 

In his latest Dodgers mailbag, Andy McCullough of the L.A. Times writes that Yu Darvish has “made it clear” that he’d like to return to the Dodgers, which is part of the reason that his market hasn’t moved forward. Darvish, according to McCullough, has been waiting to see if the Dodgers will be able to shed any money; McCullough notes that they’ve explored dealing from positions of depth by gauging interest in well-compensated veterans such as Yasmani Grandal, Logan Forsythe and Hyun-Jin Ryu, though clearly nothing much has come of those endeavors to date. The fact that he’s waited this long suggests some degree of mutual interest, though the Cubs, Twins and Brewers have been most prominently linked to Darvish in recent weeks.

 

So beats the heck out of me.   I'm all for it if they do, but at this point I'm ready to say just sign Cobb or Lynn and let's just go ST and play some ball. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

So beats the heck out of me. I'm all for it if they do, but at this point I'm ready to say just sign Cobb or Lynn and let's just go ST and play some ball.

I suspect Cobb and Lynn aren't moving much in negotiations either.

[Riverbrian]

 

 

 

In his latest Dodgers mailbag, Andy McCullough of the L.A. Times writes that Yu Darvish has “made it clear” that he’d like to return to the Dodgers, which is part of the reason that his market hasn’t moved forward. Darvish, according to McCullough, has been waiting to see if the Dodgers will be able to shed any money; McCullough notes that they’ve explored dealing from positions of depth by gauging interest in well-compensated veterans such as Yasmani Grandal, Logan Forsythe and Hyun-Jin Ryu, though clearly nothing much has come of those endeavors to date. The fact that he’s waited this long suggests some degree of mutual interest, though the Cubs, Twins and Brewers have been most prominently linked to Darvish in recent weeks.

 

 

 

Rumors are Rumors... but... this makes sense to me. Darvish is clearly waiting for someone if not something. 

 

I assumed it was the Rangers he was waiting on. But... Yeah... I can see the Dodgers. 

 

 

Darvish's agent is probably being strung along by Friedman and Zaidi.

 

"We want Yu... We will make an offer but we got to move some contracts first." 

 

The next day "Hang in there... Still working on it". 

 

The next day "Got a couple of teams kicking the tires... I think we can get something done". 

 

The next day "Nothing yet" 

 

The Next Day "Those deals fell through but we will pick them back up at the end of the month. Do me a favor and hang in there".  

 

End of the Month "We are getting lots of phone calls... should be able to give you some good news before the week is up". 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

Twins choices are:

 

1. Waiting for the clock to run out and hope that Dodgers or Yankees fail in their attempt to move salary while also hoping the Rangers don't jump in or hoping that the Cubs don't add extra years or dollars. 

 

2. Overpay to the point that Darvish can't refuse even if the Dodgers clear money off the books. 

 

3. Execute a Plan B, GIve Darvish a hard quick deadline and leave Darvish holding the bag... instead of us holding the bag. 

 

4. Hold the Bag and enter 2018 as is.

 

I'm making phone calls to every GM in the league to keep an ear to the ground for #1 and getting ready to go with #3 soon. (If they have a plan B... I hope they have a plan . 

[amjgt]

A mod needs to add “(last)” in the middle of “this week” in the thread title.

[mikelink45]

 

I feel like you and others in the "don't sign Darvish" camp are letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good".

 

Do we wish Darvish was a few years younger, or was coming off a Cy Young season?  Sure.  But then he wouldn't be available, certainly not for 5/125 and zero prospect cost.

 

And it's just not realistic to expect that the Twins group of SP prospects will produce a Darvish level performer within the next 2 years, at least, just because of their inexperience.

 

So what's your alternative?  Do nothing?  Sign a lesser player (who might still cost $60-75 mil) and hope to get lucky?  Keep in mind Cobb and Lynn are essentially the same age as Darvish, and while each has been effective in the past, starting at 6.5-7.5 K/9 doesn't give them as much room to fall and remain effective as they age compared to Darvish at 10 K/9.

 

There are rarely if ever perfect players or deals in baseball.  If you want a good team, you're going to have to make some good (but not perfect) deals for some good (but not perfect) players.

I would be happy with a 2 -3 year Darvish deal, but I think it will be twice that long.  If the Twins want to take the plunge I am in no position to oppose it, but I will remain skeptical of his value long term.  I see our young players peaking in 3 years, not this year, and when they do they will be really good and I want a pitching staff at that point that matches their bats and play in the field.   Only Dozier and Mauer are on the otherside of that curve.  We have so many stats showing the age 27-28 years are peak value for players and I think that will be true for our Twins.  We might have some current players off the roster, a few players like Rooker and Lewis on it, but we should really be a good team for a nice 3 - 5 year run.  Will Yu be there?  And if he is, will his contract block someone else who should be in the rotation at that time?

[mikelink45]

 

I agree with you. I think Darvish is overvalued. I would not be upset if he was signed, but if it were me, I would look for dependable arms and shop for a star at the deadline (if pertinent).  

The trade of Blake Griffin from the Clippers to the Pistons is a reminder of how debilitating these maximum contracts can be to teams in any sport.

[Doomtints]

 

The trade of Blake Griffin from the Clippers to the Pistons is a reminder of how debilitating these maximum contracts can be to teams in any sport.

 

I'm not worried about the Twins financials, but yeah there is every possibility the Twins would use this sort of thing as an excuse.

 

The Twins really seem to be sticking to spending 50% of the revenue on player salaries.  

[Ncgo4]

Which week, exactly is "This Week"?

[Brandon]

The week is almost up. Going to the last minute to sign with the Twins eh Yu. Maybe you can get a few more million out of the Team.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would be happy with a 2 -3 year Darvish deal, but I think it will be twice that long. If the Twins want to take the plunge I am in no position to oppose it, but I will remain skeptical of his value long term. I see our young players peaking in 3 years, not this year, and when they do they will be really good and I want a pitching staff at that point that matches their bats and play in the field. Only Dozier and Mauer are on the otherside of that curve. We have so many stats showing the age 27-28 years are peak value for players and I think that will be true for our Twins. We might have some current players off the roster, a few players like Rooker and Lewis on it, but we should really be a good team for a nice 3 - 5 year run. Will Yu be there? And if he is, will his contract block someone else who should be in the rotation at that time?

I think you are over-rating how easy it is to project 3 years from now. There isn't much confidence in projections 3 years out, so I wouldn't strategize too much around them. If you have a good team today, and a need, and resources available, you should probably just address that need. For that matter, you can't project that the FA options will be better in 3 years than Darvish today, or even equally willing to sign with us.

 

Also keep in mind while peak age was found to be roughly 27, that was in the aggregate over thousands of players. Over the Twins cohort of 5-6 players, that may not be true. For all we know, Rosario already hit his peak in 2017, Kepler may never achieve a meaningfully higher peak, Sano's peak could continue to be plagued by injuries, etc. Why weaken your team while you still have Dozier, Santana, etc. for a future that may never come?

[Riverbrian]

 

I would be happy with a 2 -3 year Darvish deal, but I think it will be twice that long.  If the Twins want to take the plunge I am in no position to oppose it, but I will remain skeptical of his value long term.  I see our young players peaking in 3 years, not this year, and when they do they will be really good and I want a pitching staff at that point that matches their bats and play in the field.   Only Dozier and Mauer are on the otherside of that curve.  We have so many stats showing the age 27-28 years are peak value for players and I think that will be true for our Twins.  We might have some current players off the roster, a few players like Rooker and Lewis on it, but we should really be a good team for a nice 3 - 5 year run.  Will Yu be there?  And if he is, will his contract block someone else who should be in the rotation at that time?

 

It would be wonderful for us if the Twins could simply name their terms and the player had no leverage. 

 

It would be real exciting next year when we bring in Bryce Harper and Manny Machado on risk free deals.    

 

[mikelink45]

 

I think you are over-rating how easy it is to project 3 years from now. There isn't much confidence in projections 3 years out, so I wouldn't strategize too much around them. If you have a good team today, and a need, and resources available, you should probably just address that need. For that matter, you can't project that the FA options will be better in 3 years than Darvish today, or even equally willing to sign with us.

Also keep in mind while peak age was found to be roughly 27, that was in the aggregate over thousands of players. Over the Twins cohort of 5-6 players, that may not be true. For all we know, Rosario already hit his peak in 2017, Kepler may never achieve a meaningfully higher peak, Sano's peak could continue to be plagued by injuries, etc. Why weaken your team while you still have Dozier, Santana, etc. for a future that may never come?

I can only state my beliefs and as you have seen I try to find whatever I can to substantiate them so let me offer this blog - https://www.fangraphs.com/community/be-wary-of-long-term-deals-for-free-agents/ 

The title is beware of long term free agents - to which I say - AMEN brother.  "The overall numbers for the group though was not promising. Whether this is due to many of these players aging which could be highly likely, or just never getting settled with a new ballclub. It seems teams looking at signing Free Agents to deals of 3 years or longer should not expect much out of the players." 

 

Or the next report that says, "Seven players signed deals worth at least $100 million in guaranteed salaries. Eight players signed contracts that gave them the right to opt-out of their deal at some point and re-enter the free agent market if their value goes up. Middle relievers and bench players made multi-year deals a standard for players who used to have to go year to year. This past winter was, by any definition, a league-wide spending spree.

But as we approach the end of the first year of these contracts, there seems to be one developing theme; the teams that spent the most money in free agency probably wish they hadn’t.

With only a couple of exceptions, the high-end range of last winter’s free agent class have been soul-crushing disappointments. Let’s just get right to some numbers. Here are the 13 players who signed for at least $70 million over the winter, and how they’re performing this season."  https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-so-far-disastrous-crop-of-2016-free-agents/

 

This is where I stand.  Since I cannot influence the Twins I only stand on the side lines and say - don't do it.

[mikelink45]

 

It would be wonderful for us if the Twins could simply name their terms and the player had no leverage. 

 

It would be real exciting next year when we bring in Bryce Harper and Manny Machado on risk free deals.    

No - I understand what you are saying, but I am not excited by these either. See what I posted for Spycake.  No team does better by taking someone else's player than they do by developing their own.  I prefer a Mauer contract for someone we develop than a Pujols contract for someone else's star that is about to fade. 

[Vanimal46]

 

No - I understand what you are saying, but I am not excited by these either. See what I posted for Spycake.  No team does better by taking someone else's player than they do by developing their own.  I prefer a Mauer contract for someone we develop than a Pujols contract for someone else's star that is about to fade. 

 

I appreciate the Fangraphs' article, and generally, yes free agency is silly where teams rarely get what they paid for. For most free agents, it's the one time they can finally cash in for providing incredible value while under pre-arbitration or arbitration salaries. No fan clamors for a player to earn more money when they're providing 5.8 bWAR making a $400k salary like Joe Mauer in 2006. 

 

MLB teams made a combined profit of $981 million in 2016 according to Forbes, and franchise valuations have exploded from $18.1 billion to $46.1 billion over the last 5 years. I'd rather see the players get a better piece of the revenue pie over billionaire owners. If teams are unwilling to pay players for past performance in free agency, they'll have to look for ways to pay players for their current performance.