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

[howieramone2]

 

The alternative being? How has not spending on great free agent players worked the last 26 years?

IMHO damn good.

[laloesch]

My impression in all of this is that the Cubs, Twins and Brewers had similar 5 year offers but only at the last second did the Cubs up theirs to 6 years, 126 mil after making one last ditch effort to see if Arrietta was interested in resigning and apparently he turned down BIG money. 

 

If that's the case Arrieta threw a monkey wrench into all of this and kinda was the deciding factor that made the cubs go all out for Darvish which the Twins should have countered (if they were given a chance).  We also don't know how geniune Darvish's interest was in playing baseball in the Twin Cities.  I'm still not convinced he was really interested other than to drive up the final price.

 

But what's done is done, water under the bridge, time to move on.

[DaveW]

IMHO damn good.

1 playoff series win in 26 years is not damn good IMVHO. But agree to disagree I suppose.

[DaveW]

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.

TO be fair they have had plenty of money for some time in the past as well. At some point you gotta wonder not when but if it will ever change.

[howieramone2]

 

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.

You cleverly skipped part of Pohlad's original quote. Just say no to myths!

[Twins33]

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.

 

Sure, but why be so dependent on only drafting and developing? Wouldn't all mid-market and small market teams want to not have to rebuild every 10 years or so? I would think the better the team, the more money the team makes but maybe that isn't right. If teams don't care about winning I guess they wouldn't care about having to rebuild and losing a lot. I'm glad we're not the Rays or A's. They feel like they are rebuilding every single year.

 

A team like the Cardinals hasn't had to rebuild in how long? Feels like it's been forever and they've had years of marginal drafting positions. If I'm remembering correctly, they have had the same marginal position or worse since they have won two World Series in the last 15 years. I don't recall them having to rebuild, but I can't say I've paid that close attention to them. I wouldn't consider them a big market team.

 

Why be so dependent on drafting and developing and not sign a big FA ever (so far) and almost never make a big trade? Unless I'm forgetting, Pierzynski was the last big trade and it's because they nailed the Joe Mauer pick. That's a way to replenish a team, either the farm or MLB team. They're not going to nail every first round pick, so why not add more avenues to up your chances of success/delay or speed up those rebuilds? They are guaranteed to have bad drafts, unless this front office has found some edge that others don't have. They can minimize their rebuilds by being better at drafting and developing and adding talent in other ways too.

 

If the Twins are going to be so reliant on drafting/developing where it's like 95% of how they operate they are going to have to be better at nailing those marginal picks. One year here and there or middle of the pack is not going to cut it. We at least agree on that, correct?

[Tom Froemming]

It's easy to get frustrated when looking at the Twins and their lack of landing a top free agent. I didn't see Darvish ending up here, but I'm still disappointed. Still, it's not like every other team in baseball has made big splashes into the deep end of free agency.

 

I don't believe the White Sox, Royals, Athletics, Pirates, Padres or Cleveland have ever given any player a $100 million contract. The Twins broke that barrier for Mauer. They offered Darvish a deal in excess of that mark.

 

Will the Twins ever sign a top free agent?

As in the top free agent? I doubt it.

 

Are we all just wasting our time?

Of course. We're talking about baseball. Its whole point is to waste or time and distract us from other crap we'd rather not be thinking about Signing top free agents would help the Twins' chances of being competitive, but as the 2016 Clevelanders and 2014/15 Royals showed, that's not a requirement. Draft well, make some savvy trades and get a few lucky bounces.

 

If you want to root for a club that's going to be signing top free agents, I'd suggest you pick a new team.

[Rosterman]

Like the Twins, I will think about a season ticket package and put aside the money and tell myself it will happen, and then NOT send in the form but dumpster dive for select tickets to certain games.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Like the Twins, I will think about a season ticket package and put aside the money and tell myself it will happen, and then NOT send in the form but dumpster dive for select tickets to certain games.

Don't forget the opt-out clause, so you can leave after 3 innings if we get a bad SP performance!

 

(Just kidding, I never advocate leaving a ballgame early.)

[Squirrel]

 

 

Will the Twins ever sign a top free agent?

As in the top free agent? I doubt it.

 

Well there goes all my hope for signing Machado next year. Damn you!

[howieramone2]

 

No one is arguing it is a "fact" the Twins offered less.  Here are the facts we do know:

 

Darvish did not sign with the Twins.

 

The deal he did sign was considerably below expectations.

 

The Twins front office themselves acknowledge FA ultimately comes down to dollars and cents.

 

MLBPA and players are not going around refusing larger contracts because it sets a bad precedent and they are heavily pressured to get the best they can by their peers.

 

So is it possible the Twins offered more?  Sure.  It's also possible I could pitch better than Yu Darvish this year by inventing a magic potion.

 

But what is the far more likely answer?  The fantasy land being put forward where the Twins just, aw shucks, can't get anyone to sign here no matter how much they offer is tired.  And incredibly unlikely.  

 

Almost as tired as Mauer value discussions.  And about as unlikely as those discussions going away in the middle of threads that have nothing to do with Mauer.

 

We failed our priority in a free agency period rife with bargains.  Stop with the excuses.  Please.

I would love to see where they said that. If I'm not mistaken, Addison Reed took a lesser offer to play in the Midwest. Also, I'm sure you have heard the expression, a team friendly deal.

[howieramone2]

 

There's a price for not overpaying. Ironically, it's usually overpaying for worse. Ryan frequently put himself in a pinch by low-balling, missing his target and having to sign or trade or of desperation. Put another way, you're going to sign someone anyway. You're going you over-pay anyway. They will be risky anyway, just the risk is production rather than value. We could have paid Darvish's current deal with the money dropped on Hughes, Nolasco, and Pelfrey. To me, that's more wasteful or moronic than paying through a known decline which you can likely trade away anyway (salary dump or eat salary for prospects). It's easy to call a contract moronic if you choose not to analyze the alternatives.

It's like low-balling on your dreamhouse. You don't get the house you want. Rent's going out the door. Now you're desperate to buy any house. You spend your money on the value home in need of repairs. Add the roof, kitchen, plumbing, and furnace and you're in almost as much, and now your cars gone because your neighborhood sucks. Move twice more, hire a tutor because the schools are awful and now your behind.

Hughes, Nolasco, and Pelfrey were All-Stars compared to Berrios in 2016. Hindsight is such a cool deal.

[ewen21]

There is a market correction that seems to have begun.  The experts and analysts did not see it coming, just as with the stock exchange, these things sometimes happen without the experts (or anyone else) seeing it.  SO the experts forecasted a higher payout to Darvish and likely all the other FAs who are sitting on the sidelines.  What does that say about forecasts?  They aren't always the reality.

 

Time to move on from this.  I am thinking Falvey and Levine have and now they REALLY need to knuckle down.

[howieramone2]

 

Agreed. And they could have afforded that.

Probably most teams in baseball could have afforded it. Only one offered it.

[howieramone2]

 

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.

Correct. They did not get done what they prefered to do. They don't have to rationalize to go to plan B or even plan C. Did you think they were going to fall on their sword if they didn't get that one guy?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Correct. They did not get done what they prefered to do. They don't have to rationalize to go to plan B or even plan C. Did you think they were going to fall on their sword if they didn't get that one guy?

Good response. The front office guys will not fall on their swords, but it puts them in a tighter spot with Darvish off the board. I don't believe they will make any meaningful trades, so that leaves free agency. We don't know what Cobb is asking, but we do know that he turned down an 3/42 offer (not sure where link is). We need Cobb more than he needs us, and he won't be offering us a discount. And the Twins aren't interested in Arrieta, or Lynn I don't think.

 

The whole league knows that the Twins badly need pitching, and will leverage that against us now.

[howieramone2]

 

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 been getting the exact opposite read. I've had to listen for 2 offseasons now that Santana will regress, when there has been absolutely no signs. 

[Nine of twelve]

Signing top free agents would help the Twins' chances of being competitive, but as the 2016 Clevelanders and 2014/15 Royals showed, that's not a requirement. Draft well, make some savvy trades and get a few lucky bounces.

This is ultimately what will allow a mid-market team to consistently contend. This is what Falvine should be, and I think are, trying to do. It's very easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of one free agent or one trade rumor target and lose sight of the long term goal. It's all about accurate scouting and optimal player development.

[Jham]

Hughes, Nolasco, and Pelfrey were All-Stars compared to Berrios in 2016. Hindsight is such a cool deal.

I'm not sure what your point is. Criticizing my use of hindsight by offering another example utilizing hindsight?

 

I'll fully admit I'm using hindsight. I'm not sure how else to view history. That said, I've openly defended all of those signings as well even when it wasn't cool. I think Terry Ryan came back to the game with a plan to speed the rebuild. We were trotting out awful arm after awful arm. Speaking of hindsight, who did Nolasco, Hughes, or Pelfrey block? We had to spend some money. We are required to put a pitcher out every game. Some people saw those signings as awful and unnecessary. But couldn't it have also been a realistic view of our farm system at the time, proven correct every time we brought up a young arm you pitch themself out of baseball or nearly so? The idea isn't to burn through every prospect in the system. It's to make accurate judgements and risk assessments so that you don't have to.

[snepp]

 

This is ultimately what will allow a mid-market team to consistently contend. This is what Falvine should be, and I think are, trying to do. It's very easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of one free agent or one trade rumor target and lose sight of the long term goal. It's all about accurate scouting and optimal player development.

 

The long term goal being winning a World Series I would hope, which isn't going to happen strictly through scouting and player development.

[Old Twins Cap]

From today's Strib article:

 

The Twins were 19th in the majors with a 4.59 ERA, 24th with 62 quality starts and 26th with a .266 batting average against. They have been unable to upgrade the starting rotation, and staff ace Ervin Santana is expected to miss up to the first month of the season following middle finger surgery.

 

Apparently, Santana's procedure was performed by a long-time Minnesota physician who has been doing middle-finger surgery on Twins' fans for many, many years.

[ashbury]

From today's Strib article:

 

The Twins were 19th in the majors with a 4.59 ERA, 24th with 62 quality starts and 26th with a .266 batting average against. They have been unable to upgrade the starting rotation, and staff ace Ervin Santana is expected to miss up to the first month of the season following middle finger surgery.

 

Apparently, Santana's procedure was performed by a long-time Minnesota physician who has been doing middle-finger surgery on Twins' fans for many, many years.

[jimmer]

 

From today's Strib article:

 

The Twins were 19th in the majors with a 4.59 ERA, 24th with 62 quality starts and 26th with a .266 batting average against. They have been unable to upgrade the starting rotation, and staff ace Ervin Santana is expected to miss up to the first month of the season following middle finger surgery.

 

Apparently, Santana's procedure was performed by a long-time Minnesota physician who has been doing middle-finger surgery on Twins' fans for many, many years.

25th in team FIP, 23rd in rotation FIP.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Some more thoughts on Darvish.

 

Many here have said the Twins simply couldn't afford the risks entailed by a larger contract, particularly the risk of "dead money" occupying significant payroll space in the final years and preventing us from retaining any homegrown stars.

 

The Twins ultimately offered 5 years at approximately $110 million, and assuming it was "serious", I was wondering, how much riskier would a larger contract offer have been? That deal would have risked $22 mil per season for 5 years into the future.

 

Had the Twins gone with the TD-prescribed contract offer of 5/135, that would have risked $27 mil per season for 5 years into the future. The marginal risk over our actual contract offer would have only been $5 mil per year difference! Unless you think the Twins were prepared to sell Buxton or Berrios into a Dickensian workhouse as soon as Darvish accepted their 5/110 offer, it sure seems like 5/135 and its +$5 mil commitment for year 5 would not have had an appreciable effect on our ability to retain homegrown talent in the future.

 

How about the much-maligned "6 year offer"? Say, 6/150 (effectively guaranteeing the $24 mil in hard-to-reach incentives from the Cubs deal)? That would be $25 mil per season for 6 years into the future. So, compared to the Twins actual offer of 5/110, it has +$3 mil marginal risk for years 1 through 5, plus $25 mil for year 6. Now, $25 mil is definitely more than $3 mil, or $5 mil, but for only 1 year, and with 5 years to plan for it, it still doesn't seem like much more than a speed bump in terms of retaining homegrown talent. Any long-term deal for Buxton or Berrios could be structured so the largest payments came after Darvish's year 6 (and it might get structured that way just out of convention anyway).

 

Now I am sure some will say, "But it's a slippery slope! Add a few million or an extra year a few times over and now it's significant!" But I'm not suggesting that we should have added to our offer without limits. In fact, I'm not suggesting we add to our offer at all, after the point of making it -- I am suggesting we make our one offer a more competitive one, with a meaningful chance to actually land the player and his projected 4 WAR for 2018. And it wouldn't have taken that much more marginal risk.

 

And I am sure some will also say, "But if you add $5 mil extra marginal risk for Darvish this year, then $6 mil extra for Free Agent X next winter, and $7 mil extra for Free Agent Y the following winter, those marginal values add up!" But I am not suggesting the Twins sign a contract like this every offseason, or even every couple of offseasons. The Twins chances of landing the consensus top FA on the market is probably a once in ten years kind of thing, at best. So we can easily afford to splurge a little when those rare conditions present themselves.

 

For a reference point, after the 2014 season, the Twins effectively added a $14 mil per year risk for Phil Hughes 3, 4, and 5 years into the future. Hughes at the time was almost 3 years younger than Darvish, but he was also coming off the first Darvish-like (4.3 bWAR) season of his career, after a string of mediocre ones including injuries (including "shoulder inflammation" that wiped out his first half of 2011). Now, the GM who signed the Hughes deal has been dismissed, but I don't think of the Phil Hughes deal as any kind of "upper limit" on acceptable risk either.

[Old Twins Cap]

The Twins ultimately offered 5 years at approximately $110 million, and assuming it was "serious", I was wondering, how much riskier would a larger contract offer have been? That deal would have risked $22 mil per season for 5 years into the future.

 

Had the Twins gone with the TD-prescribed contract offer of 5/135, that would have risked $27 mil per season for 5 years into the future. The marginal risk over our actual contract offer would have only been $5 mil per year difference! Unless you think the Twins were prepared to sell Buxton or Berrios into a Dickensian workhouse as soon as Darvish accepted their 5/110 offer, it sure seems like 5/135 and its +$5 mil commitment for year 5 would not have had an appreciable effect on our ability to retain homegrown talent in the future.

 

How about the much-maligned "6 year offer"? Say, 6/150 (effectively guaranteeing the $24 mil in hard-to-reach incentives from the Cubs deal)? That would be $25 mil per season for 6 years into the future. So, compared to the Twins actual offer of 5/110, it has +$3 mil marginal risk for years 1 through 5, plus $25 mil for year 6. Now, $25 mil is definitely more than $3 mil, or $5 mil, but for only 1 year, and with 5 years to plan for it, it still doesn't seem like much more than a speed bump in terms of retaining homegrown talent. Any long-term deal for Buxton or Berrios could be structured so the largest payments came after Darvish's year 6 (and it might get structured that way just out of convention anyway).

 

Now I am sure some will say, "But it's a slippery slope! Add a few million or an extra year a few times over and now it's significant!" But I'm not suggesting that we should have added to our offer without limits. In fact, I'm not suggesting we add to our offer at all, after the point of making it -- I am suggesting we make our one offer a more competitive one, with a meaningful chance to actually land the player and his projected 4 WAR for 2018. And it wouldn't have taken that much more marginal risk.

 

And I am sure some will also say, "But if you add $5 mil extra marginal risk for Darvish this year, then $6 mil extra for Free Agent X next winter, and $7 mil extra for Free Agent Y the following winter, those marginal values add up!" But I am not suggesting the Twins sign a contract like this every offseason, or even every couple of offseasons. The Twins chances of landing the consensus top FA on the market is probably a once in ten years kind of thing, at best. So we can easily afford to splurge a little when those rare conditions present themselves.

 

For a reference point, after the 2014 season, the Twins effectively added a $14 mil per year risk for Phil Hughes 3, 4, and 5 years into the future. Hughes at the time was almost 3 years younger than Darvish, but he was also coming off the first Darvish-like (4.3 bWAR) season of his career, after a string of mediocre ones including injuries (including "shoulder inflammation" that wiped out his first half of 2011). Now, the GM who signed the Hughes deal has been dismissed, but I don't think of the Phil Hughes deal as any kind of "upper limit" on acceptable risk either.

 

 

Darn it, Twins should have signed him.  I have a cousin who does Go Fund Me campaigns, like, all over the country.  Minnesota and Darvish, people would support it.  I'd chip in, before that other stuff, garage puppetry or old people with asthma.  Go Twins, all the way!

[Otto von Ballpark]

More thoughts on Darvish! (I really hope they find their Plan B soon!)

 

A common refrain here has been, "Even if the Twins offered more money, the Cubs would have beat it anyway and still signed the player."

 

First of all, "who cares if we didn't offer more, we still wouldn't get the player" is a rather fatalistic point of view. I don't mind if Charlie Brown takes this attitude when offered another chance to kick the football, but I don't really want this to be the mindset of my favorite baseball team when considering matters of talent procurement!

 

Secondly, while I am not a player, or agent, or front office member, I still don't think these negotiations play out so simply. Teams are generally submitting their bids "blind", and while there might be some negotiation, I don't think teams respond well if they are asked to increase their offer significantly -- even teams with the financial resources to do so. It implies their original offer and thus valuation was arrived at capriciously, which is bad for future negotiations. If the Cubs ultimately believed Darvish wanted to come to Chicago rather than Minnesota, the Cubs could have very well stood by their offer and called Darvish's bluff.

 

A lot of concessions in negotiations also probably take an indirect form, like opt outs, no-trades, and incentives. I don't have a crystal ball, or practice santeria, but a Twins guaranteed offer of 6/150, or even just 5/135, versus a lower Cubs offer or even a Cubs offer that only reached those levels through indirect benefits, could have also put Darvish and his agent into a pickle. The MLBPA frowns upon players turning down larger guarantees, and in fact the union has spent the bulk of this offseason alleging that larger guarantees have not been forthcoming from teams. Darvish and his agent deciding to take less guaranteed money from Chicago could have single-handedly torpedoed his union's entire collusion argument. Maybe Darvish goes "lone wolf" and doesn't care, but I'm sure his agent does, as it affects his reputation and future business. A larger offer almost presents a win-win for the Twins -- either Darvish accepts the offer and we get the player, or he turns it down and the Twins FO becomes union-busting folk heroes among baseball ownership.

[Brock Beauchamp]

One thing I don't understand is the apparent unwillingness to give Darvish an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 25 year old Clayton Kershaw to a seven year deal, I drag my feet on an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 32 year old Yu Darvish to a five/six year deal, I happily give him that opt-out. So what if you get two seasons at and the guy is so good that he leaves? Doesn't that mean you won? It's not as if he's going to get better as he crosses into his mid-30s.

[ashbury]

One thing I don't understand is the apparent unwillingness to give Darvish an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 25 year old Clayton Kershaw to a seven year deal, I drag my feet on an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 32 year old Yu Darvish to a five/six year deal, I happily give him that opt-out. So what if you get two seasons at and the guy is so good that he leaves? Doesn't that mean you won? It's not as if he's going to get better as he crosses into his mid-30s.

You know the Monty Hall Problem, right? On a giveaway show like Let's Make A Deal, there's 3 doors, behind which are two worthless goats and one Fabulous Prize - the contestant picks one at random, Monty (WHO KNOWS WHAT IS BEHIND WHICH DOOR) reveals one of the other doors has a goat, and then asks if the contestant wants to switch his choice to the other un-opened door. Should the contestant accept the swap? Does it matter? The answer is YES, which goes against many people's intuition. His chance of winning the prize goes up from 33% to 50%. A learning experience.

 

But, that's part of the showmanship. Monty knows that he's giving away more money by allowing the contestant to make that change. Absent showmanship, Monty is a fool to allow this swap.

 

It's a lesson in the economic value of revealed information. If Monty was in the dark about which door to open, then sometimes he'd accidentally reveal the Fabulous Prize. No, he always reveals one of the goats, because he's implicitly imparting new information to the contestant.

 

Different scenario with an opt-out clause, but same logic. Offering a second-guess after new information (say, 2 more years of performance data) is revealed, is costly to the person offering it.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to offer an opt-out. But recognize that the cost is hidden: the contract value is static but you've removed some of the upside. The upside being that, after a good Year 1 and 2, the pitcher might defy the odds and lead his team to the World Series in Year 3, Year 4, or even 5 and 6. But you're still on the hook for all the risk of the bad things in Year 1 and 2 that perpetuate through the 6-year contract period.

[USAFChief]

 

One thing I don't understand is the apparent unwillingness to give Darvish an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 25 year old Clayton Kershaw to a seven year deal, I drag my feet on an opt-out.

 

If I'm signing a 32 year old Yu Darvish to a five/six year deal, I happily give him that opt-out. So what if you get two seasons at and the guy is so good that he leaves? Doesn't that mean you won? It's not as if he's going to get better as he crosses into his mid-30s.

I'm told it's too difficult to plan for such a contingency.

 

[Doomtints]

 

The Twins ultimately offered 5 years at approximately $110 million, and assuming it was "serious"

 

I would wager the front office was very serious about trying to land Darvish. It's all they talked about. In a bubble, they probably would have loved to offer him six years and more money. What happened here was very likely Mr. Pohlad pulling them back a bit. Terry Ryan learned over the years never to ask for certain things, the new crew is learning why.

Now what will happen is the Twins will overpay for a #3/#4 rather than paying market rate for a #1/#2. Same old story.