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

[drjim]

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.

This is an oft repeated line by you, but it's not especially accurate.

 

7 of the last 8 world series champions did not have a comparable signing to Darvish. It would be more the exception rather than the rule to win the world series after a signing like this.

 

There are many ways for a team to be successful.

[Mike Sixel]

This is an oft repeated line by you, but it's not especially accurate.

 

7 of the last 8 world series champions did not have a comparable signing to Darvish. It would be more the exception rather than the rule to win the world series after a signing like this.

 

There are many ways for a team to be successful.

Well, if you only look at the good teams as the one champion. There are four to six really good teams every year. Did all of them avoid free agents? I would guess not. If you won't sign free agents, you have to be really good at the other three ways to get talent. Or, I guess you can be Pittsburgh, or the Twins for the last decade.

[drjim]

Well, if you only look at the good teams as the one champion. There are four to six really good teams every year. Did all of them avoid free agents? I would guess not. If you won't sign free agents, you have to be really good at the other three ways to get talent. Or, I guess you can be Pittsburgh, or the Twins for the last decade.

So now it's about "good teams" and avoiding signing free agents?

 

So now the Twins don't sign free agents?

[DaveW]

Darvish throws like 10 different pitches, thus his 'demise' into his mid 30's won't be as drastic likely as someone who relies on a heater.

[Mike Sixel]

So now it's about "good teams" and avoiding signing free agents?

 

So now the Twins don't sign free agents?

I'm not interesting in parsing exact words. I'm pretty sure you know my stance. Four to six really good teams every year. Some of them sign expressive free agents. The end of the contracts are often bad. Sometimes the beginning makes up for that. Sometimes it doesn't.

[jimmer]

 

This is an oft repeated line by you, but it's not especially accurate.

7 of the last 8 world series champions did not have a comparable signing to Darvish. It would be more the exception rather than the rule to win the world series after a signing like this.

There are many ways for a team to be successful.

Like developing quality starters and/or using prospects to trade for quality starters?

[drjim]

 

Like developing quality starters and/or using prospects to trade for quality starters?

 

Those work. If they are going to win, the new front office better be better at the first and more willing to do the second. Both certainly remain to be seen. If they fail at the first, it won't be from a lack of infrastructure change.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Darvish throws like 10 different pitches, thus his 'demise' into his mid 30's won't be as drastic likely as someone who relies on a heater.

I'm not bashing Darvish - I thought the Twins should have beat Chicago's offer and signed him (provided he wanted to sign here at all) - but a variety of pitches does not negate aging.

 

Good pitches are good pitches; bad pitches are bad pitches. If Darvish loses 2-3 mph on his fastball, he'll likely lose 2-3 mph on the rest of his pitches as well, along with some movement. He wouldn't only lose a good fastball, it's likely that he'd also lose a few other good pitches as well.

 

Again, not arguing whether the Twins should have offered more, only arguing that Darvish's arsenal will prevent him from getting old, just like everybody else. The pitchers who succeed as they age either maintain velocity, gain more command, or make an adjustment and change their approach. As far as I know, there's no way to predict any of those things happening to any specific pitcher.

[The Wise One]

 

I'm not bashing Darvish - I thought the Twins should have beat Chicago's offer and signed him (provided he wanted to sign here at all) - but a variety of pitches does not negate aging.

 

Good pitches are good pitches; bad pitches are bad pitches. If Darvish loses 2-3 mph on his fastball, he'll likely lose 2-3 mph on the rest of his pitches as well, along with some movement. He wouldn't only lose a good fastball, it's likely that he'd also lose a few other good pitches as well.

 

Again, not arguing whether the Twins should have offered more, only arguing that Darvish's arsenal will prevent him from getting old, just like everybody else. The pitchers who succeed as they age either maintain velocity, gain more command, or make an adjustment and change their approach. As far as I know, there's no way to predict any of those things happening to any specific pitcher.

Injuries affect the aging curve. You can look at injury history

Command is related to the ability to repeat a motion within some consistency  That is likely measurable with technology. 

Approach. The honesty in the answers you get in discussing the pitcher's approach to the game and how it has changed over time is equal to your ability to sign them.

[Doctor Wu]

Like most of longtime Twins fans on this board, I suppose I'm conditioned to the concept that the Twins just don't sign top flight free agents. Too expensive, too risky, whatever the reasons; they just don't ever seem to even attempt it. Signing Jack Morris for the 1991 season was perhaps the only exception to that long-standing "rule." One would hope that with the new front office in place, a new mindset will evolve, but I'm not too optimistic that will happen in the near future.

[laloesch]

 

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..

 

I can't see Tampa trading either pitcher (Archer or Odorizzi) especially if Cobb signs elsewhere.  They would have to get a kings ransom from the Twins IMO and that would have to include multiple pitching prospects (Gonsalves, Romero, Enlow, thorpe) which i doubt the Twins are willing to trade. 

 

Twins had better be on the phone with Cobb and Lynn's agent ASAP!  And pray that one of them is open to the idea of playing in TC otherwise this is going to be a long long season. 

 

The only other options are low end stop gap starters such as Garcia and then there's Tillman whose a wild card at this point.

[Tomj14]

 

Just a reminder that the Twins signed Joe Mauer to a contract that remains one of the 15 largest in MLB history. 

and I believe Pucket's was the largest ever at the time. So Buxton, Berrios and Sano should feel good about those two.

[big dog]

 

1st... we don't know what the Twins offered Darvish. Where Darvish wants to go is always going to be a part of the equation so a complete rebuke of the organization isn't fair without that key information. 

 

2nd... I will withhold overall judgement until the off season is complete. If all eggs were in the Darvish basket then I think it is completely fair to say that they failed. 

 

3rd... If Plan B or C is decent enough... The benefit of the doubt is still reasonable. 

 

4th... Yeah... If the Twins couldn't top that offer and get a deal done this year in the current climate with the Dodgers and Yankees out. They may never sign a top free agent. I think feeling that way is completely fair. 

 

5th... I would have given him a 7th year or 6/150 but I'm not responsible for keeping the current and future math on the spreadsheets on target. 

I hope we offered him more, but I don't understand why so many people assume he would have taken it if we had, therefore we didn't.

 

Here's my approach to this problem, if I was big dog Darvish.

 

1)  I'm going to make $125 million.

2)  I could have a better chance of winning the World Series.

3)  I could make more money (unless I'm interested in endorsements).

 

I would pick the very best personal situation much faster than try to get a premium on the already other-worldly amount of money I'm about to get paid.  How much difference will each of these make in my life?

 

a) $125 million vs. $140 million

Good chance at World Series vs. positive chance at World Series

 

Again, I'll go with choice .

 

It sucks to be us, but players have choices.  At least free agent players do.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I've responded in snippets, but I just wanted to summarize my position of disappointment on the Darvish situation.

 

I've seen our offer characterized as "serious", "competitive", and even that we were basically one of two finalists for his services. Insofar as our offer was possibly about ~80% of the winning offer (roughly accounting for the value of the opt out clause), it was serious/competitive, but that greatly overstates our chances. For Darvish to actually sign with us for that figure, the following conditions would have ALL needed to be met:

1. Darvish would have had to change his mind. He'd been sitting on similar offers for 3 weeks, and probably would have been sitting on them since December if he had given any real indications of being willing to settle for 5/110. (Changing his mind like this could attract more suitors too.)
2. Darvish would have had to NOT change his mind too much -- if he can't get 6 years or even 5 years with a preferred destination, he could have decided a one-year deal would be acceptable, in which case he'd have a lot more potential suitors.
3. The Cubs or another preferred destination could not already be among the ~5 comparable offers.
4. The Cubs or another preferred destination would have had to decline or not be allowed the opportunity to match or beat the offer.
5. And even then, our offer still would have been only 1 of ~5 comparable offers. Assuming 5 and equal weighting (which is probably generous to the Twins), that would still only be a 20% chance of landing him, and remember that's only after the first 4 conditions are already satisfied.

All told, despite our "serious"/"competitive" offer, we had, what, a 5% chance of landing him at the end? Maybe 10%? We can debate around the margins, but it wasn't good. Better than what was projected for us at the beginning of the offseason, but not meaningfully so. Still a very long longshot.

 

However, if we had simply put forth the Twins Daily projected contract of 5/135, or ZiPS' 6/156, or one of many others projected by analysts, we quite likely would have upped those odds to 50% or greater. At the very least, that would have put *real* pressure on not only the Cubs, but also Darvish, his agent, and the MLBPA as a whole, who can't afford to turn down bigger contract offers in this climate of alleged collusion.

 

To me, it's the difference between keeping a game close in the early innings, versus keeping it close into the late innings. Or keeping a series close early, versus keeping it close late. (Like all of those postseason Twins-Yankees matchups...) We kept it close early, but that doesn't comfort me much. We had a real opportunity to keep it close late, and we *chose* not to, far more than we were defeated in competition or held back by factors outside of our control.

 

I know that proposed deal seems rich to a lot of people, but getting the top FA to come to a mid-market team, without having to blow away the projected market offer, was a rare opportunity that may never come along again. (By comparison, for Arizona to land Greinke, they had to overshoot MLBTR's projection by $38 mil in present-day value, or $50 mil before discounting deferrals.) That the top FA fit our greatest positional need, and we project to have an otherwise competitive squad, made it all the more significant.

 

I've repeated the phrase "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" a lot lately, but it really does apply here. Not that the risk of ~$25 mil in potential annual dead payroll 5-6 years down the line isn't a concern, but to me, the risk is far greater to pass on this rare opportunity, in the present time when more facts are known and we have more confidence in near-term projections, including those of Darvish, our prospects, the rest of our roster, the rosters of our competition, and available comparable alternatives (or lack thereof).

 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope this gets my position across clearly.

 

(edited to correct spacing)

[VirginSturgeon]

Yu Darvish was never coming to pitch for the Twinkies.   He wanted to be in a large market and preferably New York & Los Angeles.   That is why he got the opt out clauses he wanted.   I do not think that should be held against the front office or the owners.   Now if they don't do anything to improve the starting staff between now and the start of the season I can see some reasons to be pissed.   I also want to see what some of the prospects can do also.  

[DaveW]

Yu Darvish was never coming to pitch for the Twinkies. He wanted to be in a large market and preferably New York & Los Angeles. That is why he got the opt out clauses he wanted. I do not think that should be held against the front office or the owners. Now if they don't do anything to improve the starting staff between now and the start of the season I can see some reasons to be pissed. I also want to see what some of the prospects can do also.

FWIW:Never once did it come out that he insisted on playing in a “big” market.

 

He did like the Dodgers and his experience though, and maybe also because LA has a large Persian population?

[Nine of twelve]

I think what would have happened if the Twins offered him more is that the Cubs would have offered more and he'd still be in Chicago.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think what would have happened if the Twins offered him more is that the Cubs would have offered more and he'd still be in Chicago.

And I think what would have happened if Mauer's leadoff double counted in the 2009 ALDS is that we still would have lost the game and series. (We eventually loaded the bases with nobody out in that inning and still came away with nothing, and Teixiera led off the bottom of the inning with a HR anyway.)

 

Still doesn't mean I'm cool with Phil Cuzzi's inexplicable call.

[twinssporto]

I think the opt out clause was a real stumbling block for the Twins.  Falvey has mentioned before his dislike for them in the past.  It could come back to haunt the Cubs if Darvish plays above his expected value.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think the opt out clause was a real stumbling block for the Twins.  Falvey has mentioned before his dislike for them in the past.  It could come back to haunt the Cubs if Darvish plays above his expected value.  

Perhaps, but the real-world value of the opt out may only be something like ~$15 mil. There would still be some gaps between our offer and the Cubs offer.

 

The real pressure would have been guaranteed dollars. If the Twins offered $140 mil and the Cubs were at $126 mil plus the opt out, that would have still put some pressure on. And it would have been a clear signal that we were willing to up the ante in negotiation, far more than our 5/110 offer did.

[howieramone2]

 

Glad the Twins could get the taxpayers to give them a new stadium! But fail to pull the very very very reasonable trigger on Darvish.

So my question is:

Will the Twins ever be serious about brining in a top FA?

Or do we have to hope and pray we develop everything internally and hit lightning in a bottle?

They were serious this year. Sounds like you're getting ready to jump.

[ahart10]

I’m not gonna read 23 pages but yes we’re all wasting our time. It will never happen. Accept Chris Tillman and other bounce backs. Best we can hope for is a trade for and ace, Archer is no ace.

[howieramone2]

 

If they can't, or won't, they need to be 100x better at drafting, developing, and trading.

Dave's question is, will they? Not all the reasons they won't or can't..... Because if they literally can't, then they need to get a lot better at everything else.

I am not surprised at all. Disappointed, not surprised

It's impossible for them to do any better in drafting and development. Did you get a chance to review what the national experts said about our 2017 draft? Still, I can't help but think, our FO didn't get nearly the credit they deserve. As far as development, it was posted on this very board early last season, we had the 2nd youngest team in all of baseball, based on weighted playing time.

 

The jaggerrnaut is clearly on the move.

[Twins33]

It's impossible for them to do any better in drafting and development. Did you get a chance to review what the national experts said about our 2017 draft? Still, I can't help but think, our FO didn't get nearly the credit they deserve. As far as development, it was posted on this very board early last season, we had the 2nd youngest team in all of baseball, based on weighted playing time.

 

The jaggerrnaut is clearly on the move.

His point was the bad drafting and developing were a huge part of all those 90+ loss seasons. That certainly hurt them. You should always be able to point to a great year here and there. That should be expected.

 

At times they draft well, which has come in bunches and other times the draft poorly which has also come in bunches. The players drafted that gave us the division titles in the 2000s were the good. The ones who gave us the 90+ losses were the bad.

 

Someone on here did a look back on our drafts and it showed that we were middle of the pack at best in regards to drafting/developing compared to other teams. And I think middle of the pack is technically better than they actually did, was more middle bottom. If they're going to be so reliant on drafting and developing they are going to need to do better at it than middle of the pack.

[howieramone2]

 

I've already answered.  And it wasn't the entire market.  It was this modest contract that he signed.  

 

Money is what matters.  This was completely in the realm of being beat by the Twins.

That wasn't a modest contract, that was market value. All teams scoffed at it, except one. Money matters, as does location.

[howieramone2]

 

They didn't spend any money last year either, and everyone knew they had a bad pitching staff. Hoping they find a way to fix the starters this year, after failing to even try last year.

Did you know they were the first team in the history of baseball, to go from a 100 loss season, to the play-offs? Can't argue with success.

[howieramone2]

 

His point was the bad drafting and developing were a huge part of all those 90+ loss seasons. That certainly hurt them. You should always be able to point to a great year here and there. That should be expected.

At times they draft well, which has come in bunches and other times the draft poorly which has also come in bunches. The players drafted that gave us the division titles in the 2000s were the good. The ones who gave us the 90+ losses were the bad.

Someone on here did a look back on our drafts and it showed that we were middle of the pack at best in regards to drafting/developing compared to other teams. And I think middle of the pack is technically better than they actually did, was more middle bottom. If they're going to be so reliant on drafting and developing they are going to need to do better at it than middle of the pack.

For mid-market teams baseball is cyclical. All mid-markets teams must rebuild at some point in time. The marginal drafting position year after year will catch up with you. Surprisingly, another member said the same thing recently while terming it the competitive vs. the rebuild cycle. 

[Doomtints]

The Twins are trying to trade for a cheap #3. That's something, right?

[jimmer]

The Twins are trying to trade for a cheap #3. That's something, right?

who?

[howieramone2]

 

The worst part?  This is as passive a market as we're likely to ever see, the Twins had plenty of spending money, and available players that fit those needs who had interest in coming here.

 

And we passed.  There are no excuses for that.

You're thinking inside the box. Going forward, the market is unlikely to change. This offseason was a preview of the future. Twins will have plenty of spending money for quite some time.