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

[nicksaviking]

 

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.

 

Excuses? There's no excuses. Argue that the Twins should have offered the opt out. Argue that the Twins should have gone to six years. Argue that the Twins should have enticed him with Giminez or Napoli. Don't argue that the Twins are "cheap" or that it's about money. Those are guesses and it's counter productive. Why? We don't need to fall back on that old crutch that the Twins won't spend money. There are legit factual reasons to disagree with the team staring us in the face. Why take the easy argument which has zero substance? It's doing the real arguments disservice.

[TheLeviathan]

My only argument is to stop making excuses. The Twins had a variety of options to make this happen.

 

They chose not to after declaring it a priority. I fault them for their choice, regardless of the reason.

[Rosterman]

So they have $100 million willing to spend. Let's see what they can get for $20 million a year now for 4-5 rounds. 

 

Time to pony up the checkbook.

 

[theBOMisthebomb]

No, that would not be very Minnesotan of our Twins to sign the best player out there after all the stars aligned for them to not get outbid by the Dodgers and Yankees. Maybe they are setting their sights on Kershaw next offseason?!?! Well, at least we should be able to watch some kids get a shot at the rotation in 2018. The optimism is still there since spring training hasn't even started yet, let's hope some young guys step up on the mound and the young core takes a big leap forward with the bats (Kepler - I am sending that message closed circuit to you).

[Jham]

Over not signing Yu Darvish to a moronic contract?

 

OK, have a nice summer

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.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Excuses? There's no excuses. Argue that the Twins should have offered the opt out. Argue that the Twins should have gone to six years. Argue that the Twins should have enticed him with Giminez or Napoli. Don't argue that the Twins are "cheap" or that it's about money. Those are guesses and it's counter productive. Why? We don't need to fall back on that old crutch that the Twins won't spend money. There are legit factual reasons to disagree with the team staring us in the face. Why take the easy argument which has zero substance? It's doing the real arguments disservice.

I agree with you to a certain point. The Twins offered 5 years and weren't willing to do a player option. Those are undeniable and they call into question how serious the club was about signing Darvish. 

 

If posts are simply calling the team cheap and offer no elaboration, then you're right, it's counter productive. However, I think the notion that the Twins offered less than the Cubs can be considered factual as well. Others have posted this before me, but I can't imagine how, if Darvish turned down more lucrative offers, we haven't heard anything about it, especially given the tension between ownership and the union. Something could certainly come out in time, but for now I believe saying that MN offered less isn't simply a guess. If that's the case, money does play a prominent role in Darvish going elsewhere. 

[The Wise One]

 

For the sake of this convo: let’s say 9 figures. Or hell even $80 mil+

So signing Mike Leake would have been a good idea?  Wei Chen, Jordan Zimmerman? Darvish has as more of a chance to be that kind of signing than a Lester, Sherzer, orGreinke type signing. 

[Mr. Brooks]

There so no evidence that the Twins offered above or below 110M. So why are people arguing as fact the Twins lowballed?

 

We know they would not add the opt out. We are reasonably confident they wouldn't go six years. We know they didn't resign Giminez who may have been a key recruiter. There are other arguments to make, people pretending it's a fact that the Twins offered peanuts are only helping to undermine actual valid arguments.

Well, I don't know what was offered. But, if Darvish made it clear that it was going to take 6+ years to get a deal done, and we offered 5, then no, I don't think a legitimate offer was made.

Eventually someone was going to cave on the 6th year. The Twins had to know that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So the Twins miss out on probably their first ever major attempt to offer a free agent a $100M+ deal and they miss out... and now we're all blaming the Twins franchise history and the Pohlads that it didn't happen. 

 

Sure, I'm disappointed that the Twins couldn't get Darvish in on a deal around $21M per year. That's cheaper than I thought. But you know what? They took a swing and they missed. That's something that (since I've been watching in 2009) neither Bill Smith nor Terry Ryan ever attempted. It was unlikely Falvey and Levine were going to win their first big free agent and convince him to play in Minnesota over playing for the Cubs, but at least they were one of the finalists! 

 

Falvey and Levine are not TR 2.0. I believe they will get their big free agent at some point, probably not in 2018 (though signing somebody like Cobb/Lynn is a possibility). The lack of signings in free agency in Twins past means absolutely nothing right now for this regime. I also think this "Pohlads are cheap" rhetoric is just a overused meme at this point. 

 

I am confident the Twins will be making some moves very soon to fill in their holes in the rotation - my initial guess would be signing Cobb to a multi-year deal and giving Jaime Garcia a one year deal. Plan A has failed, and that stinks. The likelihood of getting Darvish was small anyways. Time for plan B to kick in.

I think this is a mostly fair take on this... with one exception.

 

The dollar amount that Darvish actually signed for tells me that the Twins cheaped out on this. They could have beaten that offer. Most of us assumed that the offers on the table beat that offer as they were in the 5/120 range, which was still traditionally low for a player of his caliber. From the sounds of things, we had something like 5/105 on the table. I'm glad they decided to play ball. I'm not happy that they didn't just spend the cash to get it. This team has a massive black hole in SP on an otherwise very promising team. A player like Darvish means they have a good shot at skipping the WC game altogether.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Not at all. Everyone is making assumptions and there isn't one that's more valid than another. I think Darvish didn't want to play for the Twins. I can't blame him.

I have no doubt that Minnesota was not on Darvish's desired destination list...

 

I think he'd have been far more interested in playing for the Twins had they had a better offer on the table. I'm pretty convinced we had the highest offer on the table prior to the cubs, but as RB stated many times, the longer this drags out, the more likely a team like CHI comes in and grabs him. That's exactly what happened.

 

Ultimately, I'm guessing there were about 20M reasons why it wasn't a top destination. If we had 5/120 on the table with a similar opt out/incentives (which would have been a no brainer), I think he takes our offer over Chicago.

[Platoon]

It's almost a given that the Twins did not match one, or all three legs of the Darvish stool. Dollars, years, opt out. This moots the argument that he didn't want to play here. There is simply no history of the Twins under either owner of ever going out on the FA market and buying the top dog out there. No history of a valid competition with the big boys based on dollars and cents. There were some that had a look of it. Mauer, Morris, Puckett, heaven forbid even Hughes. But there was always a caveat involved, or they were second tier in that year. But not the big fish. That history made me, when they signed Park out of Korea, "outbidding" all of baseball for his rights, say to my son, "somethings wrong here. The Twins never ever outbid everyone if the player is close to be being desired". And something was wrong. He couldn't hit MLB fastballs. It takes two pieces to make an orginisation competitive. The owner, and the GM. If one or the other is not totally invested in winning, it doesn't have a chance. I still think Pohlad made a good decision hiring Falvine. They seem to making some moves that make this a better overall operation. But JP is holding the final piece in his office desk. His checkbook.

[amjgt]

Ahh, the first use of Occam's Razor that I've seen in the forum.

First rule of free agent spending... why sign one free agent pitcher when you can sign two free agent pitchers at twice the cost? Only the second one can be kept secret. Signed by the Twins but built by the Japanese

[HitInAPinch]

Is Chris Archer the Twins best chance for a starter?  Too much competition?

 

Anyway, I'd be shopping for probably 3 starter this off-season.  I hope Santana comes back strong, but you never know.  I don't see a real reason to hang onto Gibson.  He's kind of a 'meh' to me.

 

The Hughes contract should be trade-able.  Don't know what we'd get, player-wise.  I just don't like him using up the roster spot. 

[USAFChief]

I know it's kind of a smartass response. If Dave were in my class, I'd ask him to rephrase the question. 

 

The most interesting thing to me about the Twins and free agency is how vociferously Twins fans bitch and moan about the Yankees' penchant for buying up mercenaries, but then rail against Twins management for not doing the same thing. I guess it's a convenient stance to take considering that the Twins aren't likely to make us look like hypocrites.

 

I bitch and moan about the Yankees, but not because I don’t want the Twins to spend money.

 

Holy cow, what a terrible take. I want the Twins to operate MORE like the Yankees, and I suspect I’m in the majority. I want ownership to value winning over profit.

[Otto von Ballpark]

There so no evidence that the Twins offered above or below 110M. So why are people arguing as fact the Twins lowballed?

 

$110 mil IS the lowball. Every observer predicted $135-$168 mil, and when you consider the present day cash value of the opt out and the incentives, he basically got a deal in that range. And the Twins didn't come particularly close to that, or even distinguish our offer from that of our smaller market neighbors to the east in Milwaukee.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Might it be that Darvish said no to BOTH the offer and being a Twin? That he didn’t want to come here AND the offer wasn’t the best? While I think there is enough evidence to suggest their offer wasn’t as good as Chicqgo’s, I think there is also evidence he didn’t want to come here.

Then that's on the Twins to figure out before Feb. 10, and not get their fans hopes up in the meantime. Especially given their "personal connection" in Levine, there is no excuse for letting Darvish string us along.

[Nine of twelve]

I bitch and moan about the Yankees, but not because I don’t want the Twins to spend money.

 

Holy cow, what a terrible take. I want the Twins to operate MORE like the Yankees, and I suspect I’m in the majority. I want ownership to value winning over profit.

You can't have winning without profit. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay the players, the tooth fairy?

[drjim]

Especially given their "personal connection" in Levine, there is no excuse for letting Darvish string us along.

This is more nonsensical than saying free agents won't sign with the Twins.

[Mike Sixel]

You can't have winning without profit. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay the players, the tooth fairy?

They have more profit than you can probably imagine. They aren't even close to the mythical 52 percent, nor have they been.

[USAFChief]

This is more nonsensical than saying free agents won't sign with the Twins.

It’s Feb 11th and the FO has not taken a single step to improve the rotation. That’s what is nonsensical.

[Otto von Ballpark]

This is more nonsensical than saying free agents won't sign with the Twins.

What? You are saying it was impossible for the Twins to tell whether Darvish was seriously interested in us, or just using us to improve offers from his desired destinations? I don't really care about the reported Levine "connection" in particular, but they should have been able to know, far better than they apparently demonstrated.

[USAFChief]

You can't have winning without profit. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay the players, the tooth fairy?

Carl Pohlad bought the team for $36m. It’s worth over a billion today. Is it really your contention the Twins don’t make enough profit to massively raise payroll, if ownership would choose to?

[TheLeviathan]

 

You can't have winning without profit. Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay the players, the tooth fairy?

 

It comes from having full stadiums and a fan base passionate for the team.

 

Which generally comes from winning.

 

Which we won't do with this rotation.

[Nine of twelve]

Pretending I'm a player, I would personally choose the Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, Cubs or Red Sox before I would even consider the Twins. They are easily better teams and that would be important to me. Obviously a good chunk of those teams weren't truly in on Darvish...but the Cubs are on that list.

 

I don't know if Darvish feels the same. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He did choose the Cubs who we know offered opt outs and an extra year. We know the Twins didn't do either of those.

 

Again, putting myself as a player, I'd have to get 25-50M more guaranteed to consider the Twins over those teams so the 5/135 wouldn't cut it for me. It wouldn't surprise me if Darvish or other top FA's feel the same. Until the Twins become a consistent deep playoff contender I don't think they're going to be near the top of any top FA's list.

 

Darvish is probably the closest we'll get to a top FA in the next five years and it didn't happen. Kershaw and Keuchel aren't coming here next year.

As I have said before, in free agency the player chooses the team. And I agree that the five teams listed above are by far the most desired FA destinations at this point. Falvine's primary objective is to build an organization that enables the major league team to consistently contend for a World Championship, and it's still very early in that process. If they succeed in that goal we will also become a desired FA destination. Here's hoping they can succeed in that sooner rather than later.

[drjim]

It’s Feb 11th and the FO has not taken a single step to improve the rotation. That’s what is nonsensical.

Multiple things can be nonsensical!

 

I'd personally start with the overall free agent market.

[Nine of twelve]

Carl Pohlad bought the team for $36m. It’s worth over a billion today. Is it really your contention the Twins don’t make enough profit to massively raise payroll, if ownership would choose to?

That's not what I said. I said that the team can't sacrifice profit because if there's no profit the team will cease to exist. Moreover, spending more on payroll just for the sake of doing so doesn't guarantee winning. It's not just how much you spend it's whom you spend it on.

[Mike Sixel]

Multiple things can be nonsensical!

 

I'd personally start with the overall free agent market.

But the free agent market is part of the game, and if they won't play in the deep end, or even close to it, they are at a significant disadvantage. Have we any evidence they can overcome that consistently?

 

We read here all the time that a mid market team goes in competitive cycles. That they can't afford to be great all the time. Well, here they are, nearing the peak years of great players, and they still did nothing last year, or so far this year, to fix their biggest problem.

 

If not now, when?

 

And are the same people that have told me for years that it is unrealistic to expect them to be great for more than five or six years in a row, now saying we should be patient, because they are building a team that can compete every year?

[Platoon]

While I could give a rats rear end about JP's bank balance, I know all business require some discipline. And I know most MLB teams run on the 51% payroll standard. So big market teams have more cash to spend. I get that. But at the same time, all teams have windows, and that's when you stretch the budget to take advantage of that time frame. That's when you spend the money you squirreled away in the down years. Baseball may be a business, but it's not a prototypical one. All good businesses have relationships with their customers. But pro sports franchises have a much greater responsibility to their customers given the nature of the relationship. When your DeWalt drill driver goes to hell, you are unhappy. When your team loses a big game, an awful lot of the state is unhappy. If the Pohlads can't grasp that distinction, then the new FO is mostly a fresh coat of paint.

[Mike Sixel]

That's not what I said. I said that the team can't sacrifice profit because if there's no profit the team will cease to exist.

That has never happened in modern sorts history, and no one is arguing they never make any profit. But that there are years to budget more on payroll, maybe even an uncomfortable amount.

[drjim]

What? You are saying it was impossible for the Twins to tell whether Darvish was seriously interested in us, or just using us to improve offers from his desired destinations? I don't really care about the reported Levine "connection" in particular, but they should have been able to know, far better than they apparently demonstrated.

I don't really understand what you are saying. If Darvish had no interest he would have told them.

 

Based on reporting, Twins had the second best offer out there, a representative offer. If Chicago or LA didn't match it, I suspect he would have come here.

 

I guess you can say Darvish was using the Twins, but that would be true of every negotiation ever. Personal connections are overrated here.

 

And none of the other starters were going to sign until Darvish did. (Which, unrelated to this, is why I don't really understand the angst of not doing something else, there were no other free agents ready to sign).