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

[bcs4]

For fans of WAR and Steamer, here's Sporting News.  I know that projections are just projections, but he comes up with values that are closer to mine, so it goes without saying that he's correct.

 

 http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mlb-free-agent-rumors-news-jake-arrieta-yu-darvish-2018-contract-value-estimate-war/67xwoocnnddd1kcmncyuxocs2

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

If Falvine seriously thought that nobody would eventually cave on a 6th year, and/or an opt out, then that's naivete bordering on incompetence, IMO.

And I'm a Falvine fanboy!

 

Sticking with 5 years and no opt out, when Darvish is telling you that one or both of those are dealbreakers, is not a serious offer.

[Mr. Brooks]

For fans of WAR and Steamer, here's Sporting News. I know that projections are just projections, but he comes up with values that are closer to mine, so it goes without saying that he's correct.

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mlb-free-agent-rumors-news-jake-arrieta-yu-darvish-2018-contract-value-estimate-war/67xwoocnnddd1kcmncyuxocs2

I think you missed this part:

 

 

"Steamer Projections predicts Darvish will outpace Arrieta in WAR in 2018 (3.6 to 2.7). If we were to use these marks as a starting point in a performance value model like those above, Darvish would be worth $126.88 million with Arrieta sitting at $82.12 million across five seasons. These values reflect a significant boost for Darvish and a slightly lower estimation for Arrieta, which happens to correlate with each pitcher’s recent production trends.

 

Darvish has been the more consistent pitcher of the two. He proved to be durable in 2017, but he wasn’t just strong — he was effective. Darvish’s strikeout rate was once again over 10.0 K/9 and for the second straight season his walk rate was 2.8 BB/9. But he did allow 1.3 home runs per game, the highest mark in his career. Darvish is widely considered to have much better “stuff” than Arrieta, which could lead to more dominating performances.

 

In the meantime, Arrieta’s production is quickly trending downward across most statistical categories from his 2015 Cy Young performance. Arrieta’s ERA+ decreased for the second straight season, his fastball velocity is in decline, hits allowed per nine has increased and he was also touched for a significant number of home runs per game in 2017 (1.2)."

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm not so sure of that. I think he valued himself pretty close to the consensus of 6 years and/or $135-168 mil. The opt out alone probably isn't enough to get him to pass on that goal to sign earlier in Minnesota, but it would have been a good aggressive first step. Ultimately I think we were going to have to hit those consensus targets, but it was within our sights.

 

that's fair... I just think the way the market played out, he probably would have taken 5/120ish with the opt out at some point before the Cubs swooped in... You may be right as well.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's crazy, perhaps, but rooted in the idea of using "Darvish money," give or take, to improve the team a different way. Use money on Moustakas to get a third baseman who can flat out hit. Take on Span's salary to approximately do what Kepler has done. Now, on top of those substitutions, admittedly probable downgrades, add established starter Archer and highly touted starting prospect Honeywell, who acquitted himself well in AAA at age 22. Is the downgrade on the position-player side more or less than the improvement in the rotation? Still too crazy to even try to tweak as a deal? (I don't know that Gordon or other pieces are needed, BTW. Maybe even the other direction, if the baseball world still values Sano a lot.)

 

I had to look Honeywell up, so perhaps not as crazy, but I still wouldn't do it. I'm quite willing to go Kepler+ prospects for Archer/Span. The team is better now and in the future. I know Kepler has the higher ceiling, but he was also one of the weaker links on offense and has a bit more risk at this point.

 

The problem is including Sano. That will make the team weaker now and in the future. There is no heir apparent and he is a potential superstar in the making. Yeah, the injury took a bite out of what was otherwise a decent season, but the only way you sell on Sano is if you're convinced he's never going to get better. I'm not.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The coast of Lake Michigan?

If by Michigan, you mean Superior..

 

Edit: unless by chance you are referring to Chicago...

[Mike Sixel]

Again, Tampa is not trading two starting pitchers under control for four and six years. That kind of defeats the purpose is trading for MLB players..

[Mike Sixel]

Not at all. The difference between your reading and mine is that I read it to conclusion:

 

I feel it’s reasonable to begin a performance value model with 3.3 WAR, which is the midpoint of the model above and his statistical projection for 2018. Doing so leads to a five-year breakeven point of $111.96 million. In that regard, a contract offer of five years and $105 million seems fair with a top end of $120 million. As with Arrieta, pushing to that final number or beyond (whether seasons or salary) is begging for issues as the contract concludes.

Winning the dollar per WAR pennant is useless. It's about the value of marginal wins. Those are very valuable to a team on the wild card bubble. Less so to teams not trying to contend.

[prouster]

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?

They offered him what would have been the largest FA deal in franchise history by a large margin. Their offer seems to be in line with what other teams were offering until the Cubs sweetened the pot.

 

They tried to sign Darvish. They made a competitive offer. Another team cut under them and got a deal done. Sometimes these things happen. Frustrating, sure. An indictment on the competence and character of the front office? Hardly.

[Platoon]

It's crazy, perhaps, but rooted in the idea of using "Darvish money," give or take, to improve the team a different way. Use money on Moustakas to get a third baseman who can flat out hit. Take on Span's salary to approximately do what Kepler has done. Now, on top of those substitutions, admittedly probable downgrades, add established starter Archer and highly touted starting prospect Honeywell, who acquitted himself well in AAA at age 22. Is the downgrade on the position-player side more or less than the improvement in the rotation? Still too crazy to even try to tweak as a deal? (I don't know that Gordon or other pieces are needed, BTW. Maybe even the other direction, if the baseball world still values Sano a lot.)

There's a lot of moving parts here, but I would take the opportunity to turn Sano into pitching in a heartbeat. I have always been a big fan of his, but the warning signs are getting more and more obvious. Today Molitor more or less admitted in the Trib that so far other players have failed to make any inroads with him. His unique ability to hit a baseball might never be fully realized.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I feel it’s reasonable to begin a performance value model with 3.3 WAR, which is the midpoint of the model above and his statistical projection for 2018. Doing so leads to a five-year breakeven point of $111.96 million. In that regard, a contract offer of five years and $105 million seems fair with a top end of $120 million. As with Arrieta, pushing to that final number or beyond (whether seasons or salary) is begging for issues as the contract concludes.

What if 10 teams come to that conclusion? They can't all have him for 5/105, or even buy X number of wins for 2018 for $105 mil elsewhere. So what to do? Is it worth it to spend a, say, $20 mil premium on top of this, spread over 5 years, to actually get the player?

 

Projections like this are a good sanity check, but they shouldn't be used to strictly limit an offer.

[Squirrel]

 

The coast of Lake Michigan?

It's not a bad coast ... but it's really cold in winter and spring ... I live right on it, I know.

[FormerMinnasotan]

Berardino:

 

 

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/10/whats-next-for-twins-after-falling-short-in-yu-darvish-derby/

 

I can see why fans are upset. You don't call it a "priority" and then offer fewer years and ~$50 mil less than what most observers predict will be necessary to land the player. Adding Darvish wasn't a priority, "getting a bargain" was the priority, and it quite likely hurt the team, yet again.

Reading this makes me think the Twins FO has ZERO interest in signing any of the top 4 free agent pitchers. More dumpster diving. I mean is the FO that dense? Outside of Santana (who is injured) and Berrios there is NO ONE who is a legitimate starter for our rotation. Gibson isn’t all that consistent, the jury is out yet whether Mejia will stick or not, same with May, and it sounds like the Twins are hoping to catch lightning in a bottle with Tyler Duffey as they HOPE he can stick as a starter.

 

Aaron Slegers and Felix Jorge are more than likely AT BEST rotational “fillers” who will be closer to “AAAA” talent rather than Big League talent. Stephen Gonsalves didn’t do any favors for himself as he was “good” in AA, but looked pretty poor in AAA, so much so there is growing doubt he’ll be any better than a 4-5 starter not a more frontline starter. And finally Fernando Romero looks to really only be a bullpen arm, not the dominant front line starter we need. And like I have said before if the Twins FO thinks they’ll catch “lightning in a bottle” with the signing of Chris Tillman, Jaime Garcia, or Wade Miley they are sadly mistaken. At some point they actually have to try to “go for it all” or they’ll risk losing more revenue and more fans because fans want to see a winner, not a “business” run for obscene profits.

[Otto von Ballpark]

They offered him what would have been the largest FA deal in franchise history by a large margin. Their offer seems to be in line with what other teams were offering until the Cubs sweetened the pot.

 

They tried to sign Darvish. They made a competitive offer. Another team cut under them and got a deal done. Sometimes these things happen. Frustrating, sure. An indictment on the competence and character of the front office? Hardly.

How competitive was the offer, really? It doesn't appear Darvish was particularly close to accepting 5/110 from a random midmarket team. The Cubs were always looming. Milwaukee's similar offer was 3 weeks ago and went nowhere, which should have been a data point in favor of a more aggressive offer, if we actually wanted the player and minimize our chances of being "undercut". (And I might quibble with the term "undercut" as Darvish signed for less than any analyst predicted at the start of the offseason. Seems like *we* were trying to undercut *him* too severely.)

 

The fact that it would have been the biggest FA deal in Twins history is not particularly reassuring either. That is primarily a function of our franchise's past cheapness, which is something we knew we had to overcome when recruiting top level FA, not highlight. (And of course even this offer was greatly eclipsed by a soon-to-expire extension, further suggesting that the yardstick by which to measure our franchise's potential capacity to spend on top level FA would be closer to Mauer than Ervin Santana.)

 

Given the strangeness of the market, and the recency of Darvish's surgery, this may have been the Twins best/only opportunity ever to sign a top level FA. Given those circumstances, making a late conservative offer seems like a rather careless fumbling of the opportunity.

[bcs4]

 

Winning the dollar per WAR pennant is useless. It's about the value of marginal wins. Those are very valuable to a team on the wild card bubble. Less so to teams not trying to contend.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of WAR.

 

Your point seems to conclude that the Twins won't be in a wild card chase in the last 3 years of a 6 year contract when Darvish is adding an average of less than 1 marginal win per season for $21 mil a year. Or even $21 mil for 2 marginal wins in 2 years. 

 

I would say instead of providing a value to the Twins, he would only be of value to the very best teams with a lot to spend because they would be more able to dump him when he's no longer producing. If they don't, and they sign all of their free agents this way, they'll be future wild card contenders at best.

 

It would lead me to believe that trades with non contenders would be a much better option than buying a free agent like Darvish.

[KirbyDome89]

We don't know the exact amount the Twins offered, and we don't know exactly how the negotiation process with Darvish went. Both are undeniably true, and we aren't likely to ever uncover exact details regarding either. 

 

No, nobody knows exactly what the Twins offered, but that doesn't mean the scenario where they outbid Chicago but Darvish turned them down is equally as likely as MN simply being outbid. This one has been beaten to death.

 

Nobody knows the exact details of any offer other than Chicago's, and we can't say with 100% certainty what counter offers were made, or even if they were entertained by Darvish. Again though, we're looking at a scenario where one outcome is far more likely than another. Yu was comfortable waiting until the week before ST to get that 6th year. I don't see why he would suddenly sign a deal with the first team to blink before giving anybody else the opportunity to match or beat the offer. Even if the argument is that he wanted LA or Chicago more than MN (which I partially subscribe to) it's in his best interest to allow teams to counter if for no other reason than to squeeze more out of his preferred suitors. 

 

While "we don't know," is correct, I also feel it's being presented as though all proposed scenarios are on equal footing, and that simply isn't true. The reality that these remote possibilities exist doesn't damage the fact that it's unbelievably more likely that the Twins offered less than the Cubs, and they weren't interested in beating $126 / 6. If anything, I think you could argue that the improbability of the other scenarios strengthens the argument that the Twins didn't compete with Chicago. Exceptions prove the rule right? 

[Riverbrian]

 

What if 10 teams come to that conclusion? They can't all have him for 5/105, or even buy X number of wins for 2018 for $105 mil elsewhere. So what to do? Is it worth it to spend a, say, $20 mil premium on top of this, spread over 5 years, to actually get the player?

Projections like this are a good sanity check, but they shouldn't be used to strictly limit an offer.

 

I hope that Falvey/Lavine didn't do something like this when determining comfort level. 

 

I'd actually prefer self imposed budget as the reason to some sort of inflexible metric valuation. 

 

Also... if GM's are moving to this model. Tighten your seatbelts... The next CBA is going to be painful.

 

The players union will be insistent that players are not under control during prime years.  

 

 

[bcs4]

 

What if 10 teams come to that conclusion? They can't all have him for 5/105, or even buy X number of wins for 2018 for $105 mil elsewhere. So what to do? Is it worth it to spend a, say, $20 mil premium on top of this, spread over 5 years, to actually get the player?

Projections like this are a good sanity check, but they shouldn't be used to strictly limit an offer.

 

Yes, that's the question.

[bcs4]

 

I think you missed this part:


"Steamer Projections predicts Darvish will outpace Arrieta in WAR in 2018 (3.6 to 2.7). If we were to use these marks as a starting point in a performance value model like those above, Darvish would be worth $126.88 million with Arrieta sitting at $82.12 million across five seasons. These values reflect a significant boost for Darvish and a slightly lower estimation for Arrieta, which happens to correlate with each pitcher’s recent production trends.

Darvish has been the more consistent pitcher of the two. He proved to be durable in 2017, but he wasn’t just strong — he was effective. Darvish’s strikeout rate was once again over 10.0 K/9 and for the second straight season his walk rate was 2.8 BB/9. But he did allow 1.3 home runs per game, the highest mark in his career. Darvish is widely considered to have much better “stuff” than Arrieta, which could lead to more dominating performances.

In the meantime, Arrieta’s production is quickly trending downward across most statistical categories from his 2015 Cy Young performance. Arrieta’s ERA+ decreased for the second straight season, his fastball velocity is in decline, hits allowed per nine has increased and he was also touched for a significant number of home runs per game in 2017 (1.2)."

 

Don't know how, but my reply got deleted.  So here it is:)

 

Not at all. The difference between your reading and mine is that I read it to conclusion:

 

I feel it’s reasonable to begin a performance value model with 3.3 WAR, which is the midpoint of the model above and his statistical projection for 2018. Doing so leads to a five-year breakeven point of $111.96 million. In that regard, a contract offer of five years and $105 million seems fair with a top end of $120 million. As with Arrieta, pushing to that final number or beyond (whether seasons or salary) is begging for issues as the contract concludes.

[twinssporto]

 

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. 

I love hanging out with other "smart people"!

[prouster]

How competitive was the offer, really? It doesn't appear Darvish was particularly close to accepting 5/110 from a random midmarket team. The Cubs were always looming. Milwaukee's similar offer was 3 weeks ago and went nowhere, which should have been a data point in favor of a more aggressive offer, if we actually wanted the player and minimize our chances of being "undercut". (And I might quibble with the term "undercut" as Darvish signed for less than any analyst predicted at the start of the offseason. Seems like *we* were trying to undercut *him* too severely.)

 

The fact that it would have been the biggest FA deal in Twins history is not particularly reassuring either. That is primarily a function of our franchise's past cheapness, which is something we knew we had to overcome when recruiting top level FA, not highlight. (And of course even this offer was greatly eclipsed by a soon-to-expire extension, further suggesting that the yardstick by which to measure our franchise's potential capacity to spend on top level FA would be closer to Mauer than Ervin Santana.)

 

Given the strangeness of the market, and the recency of Darvish's surgery, this may have been the Twins best/only opportunity ever to sign a top level FA. Given those circumstances, making a late conservative offer seems like a rather careless fumbling of the opportunity.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it. However, I think it does matter that the Twins, by Berardino's report, made an offer that was in line with other teams connected to Darvish. By definition, that's a competitive offer. He wound up signing for less than expected, which I think supports the idea that the Twins were serious about signing him. If he signed for 7 years and $200 million, then 5/110ish would absolutely be an unserious offer. From what I've gleaned, the sixth year likely seems to have been the sticking point. I don't think a reluctance to add that sixth year indicates incompetence or a cynical plan to trick the fan base, as many on here are suggesting or claiming outright.

 

Re how the offer fits into club history, it would also have been the largest FA contract for many teams. How many have actually signed $100 million free agents? I haven't done the research, but I'd guess it's less than half.

[Mike Sixel]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of WAR.

 

Your point seems to conclude that the Twins won't be in a wild card chase in the last 3 years of a 6 year contract when Darvish is adding an average of less than 1 marginal win per season for $21 mil a year. Or even $21 mil for 2 marginal wins in 2 years.

 

I would say instead of providing a value to the Twins, he would only be of value to the very best teams with a lot to spend because they would be more able to dump him when he's no longer producing. If they don't, and they sign all of their free agents this way, they'll be future wild card contenders at best.

 

It would lead me to believe that trades with non contenders would be a much better option than buying a free agent like Darvish.

People sure are sure Darvish will fall off a cliff, while trusting Santana.. .

 

And, here's likely worth way more than 21 million the first three years, do we get to count that when judging the contract? And, if you are trading multiple prospects for two pitchers, how do you plan to sustain competitiveness?

 

This is the window when Buxton and Sano are here and cheap. This is the time they are able to afford free agents.

[ashbury]

People sure are sure Darvish will fall off a cliff, while trusting Santana.. .

Is anyone proposing an extension for Santana that will tie him to the club through 2023?

[USAFChief]

Is anyone proposing an extension for Santana that will tie him to the club through 2023?

no, but he’s 35.

[Mike Sixel]

Is anyone proposing an extension for Santana that will tie him to the club through 2023?

They are saying Darvish will be bad by 34 or 35.... So, same or younger...

[ashbury]

They are saying Darvish will be bad by 34 or 35.... So, same or younger...

OK, fair enough, I misunderstood what you were getting at. But plenty of people have indeed expressed concern about Santana going forward; you can't expect unanimity here.

 

However, this ties in to what I was trying to get across regarding players' opt-out clauses. There is a big difference in the risk of forecasting what a 30-year old will do when he's 35, than the risk of forecasting what a 34-year old will do at 35. Because we know that the second guy managed to make it through his 31, 32, 33, and 34 year-old seasons with some degree of success.

[Mike Sixel]

It's simple, if you won't go long term, you won't get the best players. And if you get lucky and the short term guy is good, you need to replace him the following year. Good luck being right again and again.

[bcs4]

 

People sure are sure Darvish will fall off a cliff, while trusting Santana.. .

And, here's likely worth way more than 21 million the first three years, do we get to count that when judging the contract? And, if you are trading multiple prospects for two pitchers, how do you plan to sustain competitiveness?

This is the window when Buxton and Sano are here and cheap. This is the time they are able to afford free agents.

 

I'm confused by people that don't consider a decline with age.

 

I don't think Santana projects well this year, and that's why I feel we need 2 pitchers. He's likely worth the first 2, maybe the third, but not the final 3. If the value of marginal wins is variable, how can a pitcher's contribution be calculated? We would do better by signing a hitter instead of Darvish.

[amjgt]

?

Movie reference

[Mike Sixel]

Is anyone saying he won't decline? I doubt it. Those who don't want to sign him are pretty much assuming he's bad by 34 or 35. Useless. Negative value. I'm suggesting those same people have been saying they would extend Santana.

 

We don't know, but if you assume all pitchers will stink by that age, you are writing off pretty much every good free agent. If that is the case, fine. But then they need to be the best drafter and trader FO ever. Seems unlikely.