Will the Twins ever sign a top free agent or are we all just wasting our time?

[bcs4]

 

Man, you'd think in an offseason where our rotation is a wreck, the team and ownership openly stated their intent to be aggressive, the team was in the final running for the player, and the player signed for much less than expected.....that it would eliminate all the excuses. 

 

And yet here we are with people will still finding ways to give the team cover for failing to get it done.  The rotation is still in shambles with ST right around the corner and they had a prime opportunity.  

 

If you can't fault them now, at what point can you just admit your objectivity is shot?

 

The Twins need more than 1 pitcher. I never wanted Darvish at that price. If the Twins even got close to that amount, they WERE aggressive. If he went for less than expected it's more likely that the league is finally starting to realize that value isn't in signing 31 year old pitchers for big money and a long time. 

 

That said, Cobb and Lynn together could possibly be had for the same money that Darvish will be making each year, but for 4 years instead of 6. If the Twins sign a dud or two to be "inning eaters" I'll be just as angry as you are with Darvish.

 

As far as objectivity is concerned, I think I've been objective and you've been subjective. I'm sure that you feel the opposite, again though, that's what MLB forums are for.

[Mike Sixel]

But for Darvish we would have had to outbid what he got from the Cubs, and then outbid the Cubs' bid that outbid our bid that outbid what he got from the Cubs. So it wouldn't have been $1 more than what he signed for. It would have been many millions more than what he signed for.

Agreed. And they could have afforded that.

[bcs4]

 

He's asking about his contract in regards to length not cost.  Read what you wrote and how he responded.

 

I did. If MLB felt as strongly about 31 year olds for 6 years as they used to, he would have been signed for more. I don't see him as an exception to the my point, I see him as evidence for my point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Twins need more than 1 pitcher. I never wanted Darvish at that price. If the Twins even got close to that amount, they WERE aggressive. If he went for less than expected it's more likely that the league is finally starting to realize that value isn't in signing 31 year old pitchers for big money and a long time. 

 

That said, Cobb and Lynn together could possibly be had for the same money that Darvish will be making each year, but for 4 years instead of 6. If the Twins sign a dud or two to be "inning eaters" I'll be just as angry as you are with Darvish.

 

As far as objectivity is concerned, I think I've been objective and you've been subjective. I'm sure that you feel the opposite, again though, that's what MLB forums are for.

 

That might have been your preference, but the team stated otherwise.  And they had as ripe an opportunity to fulfill those pledges as we'll likely ever see.

 

You can rationalize it later with Plan Bs, but take this for what it is: The team failed to do what it heavily implied it was willing (and attempting) to do.  Objectively - they failed and they only have themselves and their lesser offer to blame.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Then why make essentially the same offer as the Brewers, just 3 weeks later?

If Darvish was prejudiced against the Twins to start with, I don't blame them for ultimately not being able to change his mind. I do blame them, however, for not even trying (which the late Brewers match seems to represent).

If you really want a job that other people are probably more qualified for, wouldn't you want to work harder and be more aggressive in your effort? Or do you just recycle your old resume, and show up at the same time as everyone else?

Well, you're trying to parse non-facts.   According to Rosenthal, the Brewers offer “was not as competitive as reports indicated.” And that they were primarily driving up the price for the Cubs. 

 

And the first sentence of my post concedes your general point, that I wished the Twins had offered more initially.   I take your point, but I think you need to be careful by assuming facts that we really don't know (what the Twins offered, what the Brewers offered, what negotiation there was, how much Darvish was willing to negotiate, much less sign with the Twins)--and your construing that ambiguity to fit the narrative that the Twins clearly messed up here.  I think there's more nuance to what happened, than the Twins just being wimpy by only offering 5 years and 110 million. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Or offer/have some other intangible benefits that the player likes, i.e, other players on the team, coaching staff, city and ability to win a WS. 

 

Total guess at this point and pure speculation but I think Darvish decided on Chicago over the Twins for some of those other intangible reasons.  

 

I think what you are saying is absolutely possible. 

 

I also think that it is quite possible that the Cubs were the first team to offer a 6 year deal as a way to meet in the middle. 

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Well, you're trying to parse non-facts. According to Rosenthal, the Brewers offer “was not as competitive as reports indicated.” And that they were primarily driving up the price for the Cubs.

How does that contradict anything I wrote? It says nothing about how the Brewers offer compares to that of the Twins. I think it is telling that they have only been described using the same financial terms.

[Nine of twelve]

7 years, 150 million. See the trouble is that he never wanted to play in Minnesota to begin with. I suspect we will see the same thing when Cobb, lynn all sign elsewhere and the Twins are left with nothing when the music stops. Let's face it almost nobody good wants to play in Minnesota.

Not in 2018. Let's hope that changes in the not-too-distant future.

[Nine of twelve]

I think now it is how the Twins spend the offered money.  If they sign Buxton and Sano to long term deals and invest in some more decent pitching I can live with it.  If they trade for another decent starter, fine.  If they just do little but put bandaids on the starting staff and save the money, I have my pitchfork at ready.

I'm close to that point, but I don't want to see money spent just because they were planning on spending. It's gotta be spent in a worthwhile manner.

[laloesch]

Hughes contract isn't even close to tradeable at this point.

Maybe if he shows he's healthy and pitching ok for several months.

Ask yourself if the roles were reversed, under what circumstances would you want the Twins to trade FOR Hughes?

At this point it doesn't really matter any more. If they don't or can't spend the money on a free agent starter the payroll will drop a lot next season unless some guys are signed to extensions like Dozier, Buxton, Sano, etc.

[drjim]

If it turns out the Twins were unwilling to go past 5 years. They were either never really serious about signing Darvish or they were betting that nobody else would be willing to go past 5 years and they lost that bet.

 

Either is unacceptable.

 

Unless they have a Plan B.

I see nothing wrong with the second part, other than hyping it up.

[bcs4]

 

That might have been your preference, but the team stated otherwise.  And they had as ripe an opportunity to fulfill those pledges as we'll likely ever see.

 

You can rationalize it later with Plan Bs, but take this for what it is: The team failed to do what it heavily implied it was willing (and attempting) to do.  Objectively - they failed and they only have themselves and their lesser offer to blame.

 

The only thing that I've seen is that Darvish was a priority.  What else was said? What did you see that I missed?

 

If that's what your talking about, are you saying that it was "heavily implied" that they would sign Darvish at any cost? Talk about a rationalization. Look at the definition of priority.

[drjim]

So the Twins front office can't be expected to know/infer anything about a player's intentions, unless the player explicitly tells them? If so, they're out of their league.

 

And the Twins offer was basically the same as the Brewers, which languished for weeks because everyone knew it was insufficient to seal the deal for a small market. Everyone knew the Cubs could match it or beat it if they wanted, and they are widely understood to be a more attractive destination for a variety of reasons. The Twins offer thus was either very naive or it was just more of our standard bargain hunting. I am leaning toward the latter, but the new FO tried to sell it as more than TR would have.

I still don't understand your point in the first graph. Twins knew what he wanted, had a limit they'd go to, and hoped no one would beat them.

 

Perfectly acceptable beyond the hype.

[laloesch]

It's an eight week old yellow lab.  Just hijacked a yellow lab photo off the internet.  He wants to keep a low profile.

 

LOL i see. I just remember when i got my lab and he was 8/9 weeks and he was a lot bigger then that pup. He looks young like six weeks. A lot of breeders won't give you a pup that young. It's funny i could hold my dog in one hand at that age now he's 80 lbs.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And the first sentence of my post concedes your general point, that I wished the Twins had offered more initially. I take your point, but I think you need to be careful by assuming facts that we really don't know (what the Twins offered, what the Brewers offered, what negotiation there was, how much Darvish was willing to negotiate, much less sign with the Twins)--and your construing that ambiguity to fit the narrative that the Twins clearly messed up here. I think there's more nuance to what happened, than the Twins just being wimpy by only offering 5 years and 110 million.

I totally get you. And I would be the first to ridicule the notion that the Twins could have landed Darvish simply by matching the Cubs deal, or even besting it by a nominal amount. That is indeed naive.

 

But it defies credulity to think the Twins really could have shown aggressiveness this offseason -- an offseason where the dominant theme is players complaining that MLB are colluding to suppress such aggressiveness -- but it just went completely undetected and unreported. It requires not only ignoring the published reports of this offseason, but also ignoring past history. The Twins have a long history of being fairly passive (at best) about expending financial resources to improve the team.

[drjim]

All evidence suggests the Twins could have done exactly that, landing the consensus top FA, at our greatest position of need, just by offering the consensus predicted contract (6/160 or thereabouts). It was a unique offseason in that regard, but the Twins apparently squandered the opportunity.

Thid is potentially true. depending on how the Cubs respond, or what the true value of the opt out is for Yu. But consensus aside, it's not a good contract for the Twins.

[PseudoSABR]

 

How does that contradict anything I wrote? It says nothing about how the Brewers offer compares to that of the Twins. I think it is telling that they have only been described using the same financial terms.

The Brewers were reported to have offered a deal of five years north of 100 million, Rosenthal than contradicts that by stating that it was not as a competitive as reported (so by implication less than what the Twins offered). (And again we're parsing nonfacts here, you can't say with any factual basis that the Twins didn't offer more the Brewers, as there's reporting that suggests otherwise, and no real facts).  I mean, if you're not willing to concede you don't know what you don't know, I don't see the point in having a discussion, because you're going to believe what you're going to believe.*

 

*Edit: after seeing your second response, this sentence seems unfair now.

 

[drjim]

Objection your honor, none of these facts are in evidence.

What isn't in evidenve? The reporting on the offers or the fact the other pitchers were always going to wait (which they did!)?

[Nine of twelve]

Agreed. And they could have afforded that.

But that does not make a good use of money. I think the main reason the Twins didn't go higher wasn't because they couldn't afford to pay more. I think it's because they decided that spending anything beyond a certain amount and/or beyond a certain length was unwise. It's part of their job to make such decisions, and no matter what the decision is some people will be unhappy. Or in denial, or angry, etc. And for the record I'm not sure if I like or dislike the fact that we didn't sign him.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I totally get you. And I would be the first to ridicule the notion that the Twins could have landed Darvish simply by matching the Cubs deal, or even besting it by a nominal amount. That is indeed naive.

But it defies credulity to think the Twins really could have shown aggressiveness this offseason -- an offseason where the dominant theme is players complaining that MLB are colluding to suppress such aggressiveness -- but it just went completely undetected and unreported. It requires not only ignoring the published reports of this offseason, but also ignoring past history. The Twins have a long history of being fairly passive (at best) about expending financial resources to improve the team.

I think that's all fair.  They should have gone big from the outset, or gone home.  Though I do appreciate the risk of bidding against themselves--a risk they should have taken.   I certainly hope the opt-out clause wasn't the deal breaker; Darvish for 2/50 sounds pretty good to me. 

[Mike Sixel]

But that does not make a good use of money. I think the main reason the Twins didn't go higher wasn't because they couldn't afford to pay more. I think it's because they decided that spending anything beyond a certain amount and/or for a certain length was unwise. It's part of their job to make such decisions, and no matter what the decision is some people will be unhappy. Or in denial, or angry, etc. And for the record I'm not sure if I like or dislike the fact that we didn't sign him.

Decades of deciding it isn't a good idea to sign really good free agents had led to one playoff win in twenty six years. Some of us were hoping that things would change, and many defenders of not doing signings commented here for the last few years that we should be patient, the twins would sign players when the time was right. If not now, when?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Objection your honor, none of these facts are in evidence.

This made me laugh. But to be fair, there really aren't many 'facts' in evidence, and when there's ambiguity cognitive biases tend to anchor the arguments.  

[Mike Sixel]

Thid is potentially true. depending on how the Cubs respond, or what the true value of the opt out is for Yu. But consensus aside, it's not a good contract for the Twins.

So, basically your answer is, no, they well never sign a great free agent to a big deal?

[drjim]

That's not a defense of the Twins. That is still misreading the player and market. If I nickel and dime on a house when I am willing to pay over asking price, and another buyer comes in with an asking price offer and I don't get the chance to counter, I don't get points for trying.

I didn't like the hype, but why would you read that as the Twins willing to pay whatever it takes to get Darvish?

[Riverbrian]

 

I see nothing wrong with the second part, other than hyping it up.

 

Unless they don't have a Plan B. Without an executable Plan B... it becomes a really big wrong. 

 

I look at it this way: 

 

I don't believe all of the rumors but I think everyone can agree that Darvish was identified as a clear target... if not a priority signing by the club itself. 

 

I don't know what the Twins were willing to offer but let's assume it was 5 years at 20 million per. If the Twins are willing to add 20 million to the payroll for Darvish for the next 5 years. I'm willing to wait and see what they do with the 20 million now that they lost the bet. 

 

If the the Twins don't spend it or fill the hole they were trying to fill. If they give some sort of impression that Darvish was the only one they were willing to spend 20 million on. Then drawing a 20 million line in the sand and saying they tried is beyond stupid.

 

If Darvish is the only one they wanted... 5 years or 6 or 7 years doesn't matter. You placed all your eggs in one basket... You do everything you can to protect that basket full of your eggs.

 

It's possible Darvish dismissed the Twins out of hand and there was no price that would have got the deal done but that would still be a lack of planning for the possibility and exhibit the creativity of a turnip. 

 

I'm waiting to see what happens next.

 

If it's nothing. The only thing I'll have left is the hope that they learned a lesson that won't happen next year. 

 

 

 

[drjim]

Darvish was just signed to a long term contract. Is he an exception?

Nope. By year 4 it won't make sense, though the Cubs will be able to eat it easier than the Twins would have.

[jimmer]

Twins pitchers and catchers report Tuesday.  We've done zip a dee doo dah to address the rotation. Which they desperately needed to do even before losing Santana for perhaps up to 20% of his starts.

[drjim]

Man, you'd think in an offseason where our rotation is a wreck, the team and ownership openly stated their intent to be aggressive, the team was in the final running for the player, and the player signed for much less than expected.....that it would eliminate all the excuses.

 

And yet here we are with people will still finding ways to give the team cover for failing to get it done. The rotation is still in shambles with ST right around the corner and they had a prime opportunity.

 

If you can't fault them now, at what point can you just admit your objectivity is shot?

I'll fault them when more pitchers beyond Darvish come off the board and they end up with nothing.

[Nine of twelve]

Decades of deciding it isn't a good idea to sign really good free agents had led to one playoff win in twenty six years. Some of us were hoping that things would change, and many defenders of not doing signings commented here for the last few years that we should be patient, the twins would sign players when the time was right. If not now, when?

The title of this thread notwithstanding, this discussion is really about not signing Darvish. This is the very first big name FA Falvine have even tried to pursue in the 15 months they've been on the job. Using the track record of two previous GM's who are no longer even with the organization is not only unfair but inaccurate and inapplicable.

[ashbury]

It's funny i could hold my dog in one hand at that age now he's 80 lbs.

Scoffs: