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

[TheLeviathan]

 

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

 

Wouldn't hyping it imply they were willing to play ball at the expected level?  

 

If so, the expected level likely would have landed them Darvish.  So it begs the question....were they ever really serious or were they paying lip service?

 

To some of the other themes going on right now....no, we don't have concrete facts about anything.  But we have a lot of probabilities and none of those favor the "aw shucks....Twins can't catch a break" responses.  

[Riverbrian]

 

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.

 

Agreed

 

Unless the one constant is the cause. 

[drjim]

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

Pretty much. I never thought tjey were going to sign Darvish, but thought it was worth it to stay engaged if his price dropped.

 

Teams in markets the size of the Twins don't have success with free agent contracts that stretch them too much, especially for pitchers.

[drjim]

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.

I would be pretty surprised of they don't have a plan b.

 

I don't think it was Darvish or bust.

[USAFChief]

Awfully snarky comment for a statement not based in sports economics or real life economics.  Franchises don't have to make money.  They have to build value.  Chewy.com (or some pet supply site) sold to Petco for $3+ million, the largest ever e-commerce acquisition.  Chewy didn't make a profit in 6 years.  It was founded with $250k in start up funding.  They could have ran the business less aggressively.  Perhaps they would have sold for $1.35 mil and cost themselves $2 mil without even knowing it.  Perhaps they wouldn't have distinguished themselves in a competitive field and not made it at all.  

14 NBA Franchises lost money 2 years ago.  Down to 7 this year.  Are the owners stupid?  Or do they know that sustainable losses are worth taking if the overall growth exceeds the expense?  For the first time in NBA history, EVERY owner can now say they have a BILLION DOLLAR franchise.

Speaking of, the Pohlads have a billion dollar franchise.  Perhaps if they had reinvested profits into the team and won, they'd have a $1.5 billion dollar franchise.  Or $1.2.  Or $1.8.  The Cubs' title brought in an estimated $300 million in value to the franchise in a single season.  

In fact, capital gains tax is about a fourth of income tax for the wealthy.  From a tax planning standpoint, you're better off reinvesting income if you can generate real value.  We argue that the balance point is further to the left on the spending vs saving continuum of where the Twins are currently operating. We say this because other teams are being more aggressive.  The Yankees, for instance, just traded for Giancarlo Stanton.

 

This is what I would have said, if I were smarter and better spoken.

[drjim]

Wouldn't hyping it imply they were willing to play ball at the expected level?

 

If so, the expected level likely would have landed them Darvish. So it begs the question....were they ever really serious or were they paying lip service?

 

To some of the other themes going on right now....no, we don't have concrete facts about anything. But we have a lot of probabilities and none of those favor the "aw shucks....Twins can't catch a break" responses.

I really don't know what the hype was about. Does make them look silly.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

My first paragraph was addressing the claim of Darvish disinterest.

 

 

To your post, I'd say "hope" != "priority"

 

And that "limit" the Twins set has never brought a top FA here, or arguably anywhere. A lot of people would not consider that a "perfectly acceptable" result. If not now, at SP, then is there ever an appropriate time for the Twins to be aggressive about a top FA? If not, let's stop the charade of "priority".

[TheLeviathan]

 

I really don't know what the hype was about. Does make them look silly.

 

It seems your conclusion is "lip service".  I guess I'm just done with that personally, which only adds to the disappointment.  I had no grand delusions we were going to land him, but that won't stop me from holding the Twins to the expectations they set.

[drjim]

It seems your conclusion is "lip service". I guess I'm just done with that personally, which only adds to the disappointment. I had no grand delusions we were going to land him, but that won't stop me from holding the Twins to the expectations they set.

I think he was a priority, but they had a limit, and it wasn't likely to be enough. They should have downplayed it a little more.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think he was a priority, but they had a limit, and it wasn't likely to be enough. They should have downplayed it a little more.

 

This sounds more like you think they were delusional.  I'm not sure that's better.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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).

I read the Rosenthal quote as referring to earlier reporting on their Darvish offer, which had more ambiguity about the dollar amount. So it was closer to $100 mil than, say, $125. Or referring to a lack of an opt out or other clauses that were not directly financial.

 

Not clear if there was any implication implied about the Twins offer either, the Rosenthal quote says nothing about the Twins and is only juxtaposed near a bullet point about the Twins by MLBTR editors. (The actual Rosenthal piece is behind a paywall.)

[drjim]

My first paragraph was addressing the claim of Darvish disinterest.

 

 

To your post, I'd say "hope" != "priority"

 

And that "limit" the Twins set has never brought a top FA here, or arguably anywhere. A lot of people would not consider that a "perfectly acceptable" result. If not now, at SP, then is there ever an appropriate time for the Twins to be aggressive about a top FA? If not, let's stop the charade of "priority".

They'll likely never sign a top outside free agent under the current system, unless they get lucky on a price drop. Or they want to seriously damage the team a couple of years later.

[PseudoSABR]

So the Twins stating they had made Darvish a priority must be either lip service or else they would have signed him?  That's a false choice/dilemma.  

 

They can have been serious and lost out; those things aren't mutually exclusive. 

[USAFChief]

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

yes.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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

I didn't read it like that. I just don't read "priority" as meaning "sure, we'd sign him if he's willing to sign with any rando team for ~30% less than expected."

[drjim]

This sounds more like you think they were delusional. I'm not sure that's better.

I don't really see it that way, but to each their own. Delusional strikes me as over the top.

 

They never actually said they were going to sign Darvish. He was actually a priority and they made a good run at him, but that doesn't mean they would do everything possible, and they got beat out by a larger market that was a better team and a better fit for Darvish.

[beckmt]

Problem is where do we reallocate the money (and we should spend it given what is coming off the books at the end of the year).  Santana is unlikely to trigger the automatic extension, so you may assume at least $45 million will not be on the books for 2019.  This was the perfect chance to raise payroll, so where do we go from here.  If we sign one of the FA's I hope it is Cobb, do not like it, but this is the best chance of having the contract work out.  We they need to sign Buxton and Sano to a long term contracts.  If Sano refuses or is not interested, I would make him the feature piece in a trade for Archer. There are ways to do this, let's make it so. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I would be pretty surprised of they don't have a plan b.

I don't think it was Darvish or bust.

 

[jimmer]

 

Problem is where do we reallocate the money (and we should spend it given what is coming off the books at the end of the year).  Santana is unlikely to trigger the automatic extension, so you may assume at least $45 million will not be on the books for 2019.  This was the perfect chance to raise payroll, so where do we go from here.  If we sign one of the FA's I hope it is Cobb, do not like it, but this is the best chance of having the contract work out.  We they need to sign Buxton and Sano to a long term contracts.  If Sano refuses or is not interested, I would make him the feature piece in a trade for Archer. There are ways to do this, let's make it so. 

I'm not sold on the idea we need to sign Sano to a long term contract. I'd wait till the offseason before his last with us.

[drjim]

yes.

You have observed previous free agent markets before right? The lateness of this throws it a little off, but it was always going to start moving after Darvish signed.

 

And Heyman and Rosenthal aren't exactly under the radar guys with their reporting.

[drjim]

So the Twins stating they had made Darvish a priority must be either lip service or else they would have signed him? That's a false choice/dilemma.

 

They can have been serious and lost out; those things aren't mutually exclusive.

And they were serious. But it was always a long shot and a matter of whether the big boys would step in or not.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I read the Rosenthal quote as referring to earlier reporting on their Darvish offer, which had more ambiguity about the dollar amount. So it was closer to $100 mil than, say, $125. Or referring to a lack of an opt out or other clauses that were not directly financial.

Not clear if there was any implication implied about the Twins offer either, the Rosenthal quote says nothing about the Twins and is only juxtaposed near a bullet point about the Twins by MLBTR editors. (The actual Rosenthal piece is behind a paywall.)

Well, I never saw any reporting up to 125 million, only around 100 million, so if there was reporting to dispute it probably wasn't the ambiguity so much as the speculation/reporting about the dollar amount/years.  

 

But you can concede that we're working with reporting and not facts, subject to interpretation, each perhaps a bit guided by our initial assumptions about what happened, right?  

[Vanimal46]

So the Twins stating they had made Darvish a priority must be either lip service or else they would have signed him? That's a false choice/dilemma.

 

They can have been serious and lost out; those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Agreed. It's just disappointing when the market looked ripe for a team that's not normally in on top FAs to sign one. We'll never know if Darvish would still choose the Cubs if the Twins matched the 6th year, or gave him a higher AAV.

[Platoon]

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.

I am not a moderator, but I played a moderator on tv. There is a yellow lab thread on LabradorsDaily.com. Please take your discussion there. . Or, on the other hand, you can stay. It's likely as relevant as the Mauer comparisons.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So the Twins stating they had made Darvish a priority must be either lip service or else they would have signed him? That's a false choice/dilemma.

 

They can have been serious and lost out; those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes, but their reported late offer does not imply seriousness. With the Cubs interested, were they "seriously" expecting that Darvish would sign in Minnesota for 5/~110?

 

Sounds like they were only "serious" about signing him if a nonserious condition (his market price falling precipitously) came true.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't really see it that way, but to each their own. Delusional strikes me as over the top.

They never actually said they were going to sign Darvish. He was actually a priority and they made a good run at him, but that doesn't mean they would do everything possible, and they got beat out by a larger market that was a better team and a better fit for Darvish.

 

What were they thinking then at the time they enthusiastically told the fan base they wanted to "do it"?

 

When the owner and the FO both confirmed their intent, they had to know the expected price correct?  We are sitting here on February 11th with Darvish having signed well below the line that was floating around at the time.  If they were serious about 5/160 being possible for this team, then why weren't they offering it?

 

If they were never going to go to 5/160, why were they actively (and clearly deliberately) telling the fanbase otherwise?

 

The only rational explanation out of that box is that they knew the owners were colluding to drive down prices and were secretly thinking they could be in the 5 year/whatever range the market would bear with collusion happening.  

 

Is that possible?  Sure.  Is it more likely that the Twins were never going to play in the market of 5/160 with all kinds of player perks?  By a mile.  So now you have to decide why, when they know they aren't in that market, why they would say they are.

[Riverbrian]

 

I am not a moderator, but I played a moderator on tv. There is a yellow lab thread on LabradorsDaily.com. Please take your discussion there. . Or, on the other hand, you can stay. It's likely as relevant as the Mauer comparisons.

Labs are never off topic

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Well, I never saw any reporting up to 125 million, only around 100 million, so if there was reporting to dispute it probably wasn't the ambiguity so much as the speculation/reporting about the dollar amount/years.

 

But you can concede that we're working with reporting and not facts, subject to interpretation, each perhaps a bit guided by our initial assumptions about what happened, right?

And neither of us will pay to get past the paywall and read the full context? Maybe we deserve to be Twins fans.

 

As to "reporting" and not "facts", we're not dealing with some rare or unique situation here. There are regular FA signings in baseball and plenty of established custom about what gets reported.

 

But you have people on this very thread who put forth the nonsensical idea that, "hey, maybe the Twins beat the Cubs offer but Darvish didn't take it." That defies logic. And personally, I don't view the idea that "hey, maybe the Twins were willing to beat the Cubs offer but just never got the chance for reasons beyond their control" as making any more sense.

[drjim]

 

But you have people on this very thread who put forth the nonsensical idea that, "hey, maybe the Twins beat the Cubs offer but Darvish didn't take it." That defies logic. And personally, I don't view the idea that "hey, maybe the Twins were willing to beat the Cubs offer but just never got the chance for reasons beyond their control" as making any more sense.

 

I'm jumping in to say I definitely agree with you on both of these points.

 

I suspect our disagreements are whether 6/160 is a good contract for the Twins to give out (I don't) and whether their actual offer (as best we can tell) should be considered serious (I do think it should be considered serious).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Remember at the start of the offseason, the Twins said they were prepared to make Darvish the highest paid Twin. That would be roughly $25 mil average for the length of the contract.