Article: Don't Panic Over Bad Breaks For Twins Rotation

[Mike Sixel]

The Twins being willing to take on the last year of Span's contract would give them a leg up on other trading partners interested in either Archer or Odorizzi and also lower the cost to the Twins to acquire either one in terms of players.

I'm betting anyone willing to trade for Archer will take span's money. I'm betting most teams don't like the other guy all that much.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Mike Sixel

[S.]

 

I can't see where it would be much of a positive if he did not opt out for under performing the contract.

If he pitches poorly, the end result is the exact same regardless of if there is an opt out or not. The opt out really only comes into play if he pitches well for 2 years. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Chief, but i think a big part of the issue is that we weren't even willing to offer it.

[USAFChief]

I can't see where it would be much of a positive if he did not opt out for under performing the contract.

Again...in that case you’re in the EXACT SAME POSITION as if there was no opt out clause. Paying for years 3-6.

 

Actually, you’re most likely in a BETTER position, since you probably paid less for a contract with an opt out.

[USAFChief]

You're looking at the favorable coin flips only.

Sorry Ash, I disagree. Strongly.

 

You’re ignoring the negatives of not signing him at all, and strongly overrating the guaranteed years 3-6 that nobody really wants anyway.

 

Not one person would be opposed to $2/42. But if it’s that because he DID TOO WELL.. now it’s a bad deal?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Suppose the FO has crunched all the numbers on a 5-year contract for an over-30 player, and feels like it barely is acceptable. It includes a risk that the player's performance is bad in year 1, another risk that he's what they hoped for in year 1 but drops off the cliff in year 2, and so on and so forth. Lots of combinations, flips of the coin so to speak, adding up to about the value they are offering.

 

Now, add an opt-out, and suppose 2 years later when the opt-out can be exercised that the player does indeed leave. That means, as we're all agreeing, that the team has done very well for itself and should be pleased with the return on investment so far.

 

However, what has this new information, about 2 more years of performance, done to the computation of risks going forward? Almost certainly, it means that the risk of a sudden decline to worthlessness in year 3 has become reduced greatly, ditto the succeeding years. But the team doesn't get to reap the benefits of these flips of the coin. The player has walked. Those "good" coin flips were part of the original computation.

 

Conversely if the player doesn't walk, the universe of outcomes relating to the remaining risks for years 3-5, respectively, have gone upward from the initial estimates. Because, if he doesn't walk, something bad has happened in years 1-2. All the "bad" coin flips remain on the club's debit sheet.

 

The risk doesn't remain static. It changes as you see the actual outcomes. That's the flaw in the argument.

 

It is the essence of the "heads I win, tails you lose" game, to the player's advantage. I have a hard time believing it's only a small difference in dollars. He can't earn less than $126M now, but if he does well for two years and the market goes nuts in some way (or just normalizes to what he thought he'd get), he could receive a lot more. And it leaves essentially unchanged the odds of the Cubs having to work around dead money, while reducing the positive value they potentially can receive from a mutually guaranteed contract instead. It helps the player, it costs the team. It probably puts the Cubs contract as an actuarial equivalent to, say, what a normal guaranteed $140M contract would bring him - close to what was originally forecast.

I understand there is a cost for missed opportunity if years 3-5 may have been better than expected, but I think the risk of decline in those years weights heavily as well. The slope of the decline curve isn't necessarily constant. Lets say years 1 and 2 are great, then he walks and has another good season in year 3. There is nothing to suggest his performance can't drop precipitously, especially at a position as volatile as pitcher.

 

I agree that the risk of negative performance hurting the team is the same in either scenario. Poor performance with an opt out guarantees the player stays and a contract without an option does the same. 

 

You're right, the risk is never static, but that works both ways. Really all we can work with is data that says performance dips as players age, when and how rapidly the dip occurs is anybody's guess. 

 

I wouldn't go as far as calling it "heads I win, tails you lose." If that player walks the team has received value beyond what they paid for. In the game of FA you can't ask for better. I wouldn't call that a loss. There is potential to lose out on future performance, but I think getting out from underneath the risk of decline, especially considering Darvish's will be in his late 30s, is at worst a fair trade off. From the player's perspective I would call it "we each win, but me a little more so." 

[Vanimal46]

I get why people tend to jump to this seemingly great outcome. But from a strategic standpoint, this kind of arrangement is just a real drag.

 

You can't plan around him opting out, so in practical terms there isn't much benefit to the possibility of a 2 year/$42 million deal. They WOULD, however, have to plan around the reality that if he doesn't opt out, it probably means they're stuck with a declining and not super-effective pitcher consuming ~20% of their payroll for four more years.

 

You know I'm with you in being put off by extreme risk-aversion, but I don't think this exemplifies that.

Well, if he doesn't opt-out, then they're on the hook for the terms they agreed to this off-season.

 

In regards to Darvish I think he will produce positive contributions to his team later in his career either in the rotation or bullpen.

 

If we're talking about bad contracts in general, most every team can afford 1-2 on a team. Is Hughes' relatively dead money hindering the Twins from going after Darvish types in FA?

Edited February 11, 2018 by Vanimal46

[Mr. Brooks]

I guess my issue here is the idea that Darvish is drastically more likely to "really good pitcher" than anyone else the Twins still have access to. Why are we being so presumptive about what they're doing with their "saved" money? And why are we all treating Darvish like he's a bona fide ace?

 

This post seems contradictory to the following, which you wrote in your previous article:

 

"Darvish would be an awesome fit on the Twins and would lift them to serious championship contender status almost instantly."

 

What FA pitchers remaining do you think lift the Twins to serious championship contenders immediately?

[twinssporto]

This is something to consider:  The Twins have been very quiet on the topic of not signing Darvish.  I have looked at numerous web sites, Startrib, Pioneer Press, ESPN, etc...very few comments from the Twins FO.  Has anyone seen a quote or post from the Twins FO?  

 

My guess is there is a lot going on right now.  I'm not thrilled with their plan B or C but something is cooking in a big way.

 

If the FO doesn't do anything the pitch forks will be coming out of the hay stacks (to quote River Brian in another post)...

 

You heard it here first. Trust me. 

 

I'm a Twins fan!

[terrydactyls]

The Twins missed out on Darvish:  maybe 18 wins at $22M.  What if they sign both Cobb and Lynn:  maybe 28 wins at $26M???

[KirbyDome89]

 

I'd like to at least have the possibility that he pitches really damn well and plays out the deal he signed. This setup basically eliminates it. 

 

IMO when a guy pushes for a contract like this he's betting against himself, and it doesn't strike me right. We all know he could easily sign a 3/4-year deal worth ~33% more annually and have yet another shot at getting paid afterward. He's looking for a team to take on all his risk, and now the Cubs are doing so. 

What player, when he hits FA for the first time (or any time,) doesn't push for the longest and/or most lucrative contract he can get? I don't think Darvish wanting the security of a long term contract is in any way unique to him, or an indictment on how he views himself going forward. I don't see that as betting against himself. 

 

If the option is the bet you're talking about I would argue he's in fact gambling on himself. If he performs at or above market value he has the opportunity to strike another big deal. 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

The Twins missed out on Darvish: maybe 18 wins at $22M. What if they sign both Cobb and Lynn: maybe 28 wins at $26M???

I'm not sure that's a great way to evaluate their impact. They aren't replacing guys who would have won 0 games.

It's better to try to analyze how much each player gains you over who they would have replaced.

[jimmer]

 

I'm not sure that's a great way to evaluate their impact. They aren't replacing guys who would have won 0 games.
It's better to try to analyze how much each player gains you over who they would have replaced.

Not to mention there is no way they sign both.

[ashbury]

Not one person would be opposed to $2/42. But if it’s that because he DID TOO WELL.. now it’s a bad deal?

It is not only a GOOD deal, it's probably the DESIRABLE outcome. I don't discount the value of buying yourself a chance at that.

 

But it is only one (or a conglomeration of several) among the many possibilities, and it represents a multi-stage optimization under uncertainty. I'm repeating myself now, so I'll bow out of this tangent.

[ND-Fan]

Santanna's injury is not good but its at right end of the season and when the Twins need 5 pitchers the least with only couple of dates for the 5 pitcher. Second I think if I remember right Santanna hasn't pitched in colder weather of beginning of the season. This also will let them give some younger pitchers a chance to perform to see what they have if they need to go into minor leagues.

The missing out on Darvish looks like a miss but I truly believe going past 5 years on 31 year old pitcher is just huge mistake. We already can see what happens to pitcher in very short period of time look at Phil Hughes basically same age as Darvish resigned at 29 years of age for 4 more years see what happened. If you had pitcher with Phil Hughes numbers available at age 29 to be locked up people would be hollering at management to get him signed up for the future. Now look at the reaction and public signing of Phil Hughes now. I think it would be better if teams would pay just higher amounts on short term deals when they are in their window  of opportunity. Like paying him close to 30 million plus incentives with creative options both ways for the player and team. Say you have 3 year contract at 30 million with extra incentives to push it to 100 million or little more with opt out after 2 years for the player and option after 3 year for the team to keep the player. Also you add real incentives for getting to world series and then again for winning the world series. Because basically if you look at most of top line pitchers recently in the world Series it has been on rental basis for their services. If you feel your in your window pay high price in that window and doesn't tie up payroll commitments for ever and block path for young pitchers coming up through the system.

The Twins should maybe look at now signing couple of pitchers in level of 3 to number 4 pitchers with idea they hope to hit on one them and other may have to be let go or see if they can clear waivers to minors if they don't pan out. The way the market is shaping up now they could sign them for less money than Darvish would have cost on per year basis and likely could sign them to one year deal with option. I think this what LA has been doing lately just piling up pitching talent. If pitchers are not performing they just rotate until they find who is performing.

But getting back to this management group its still not a lot different than previous management group because they are still working under same business model by ownership and business side of the Twins. They have spent a lot more money on analytics which has had some improvement on who's playing and where they are playing and how they are drafting talent. Terry Ryan wanted to expand scouting department and basically this new management group has done this but with analytical people where Terry wanted more people in the field. We will see if this way of scouting improves quality of players being acquired but this won't be know for at least another 5 years. The adding of Free agents under the Twins ownership philosophy will never will be where the Twins are leaders in signing FA in MLB. They will always will be well run business where they are returning a profit and will be enjoyable place to come watch baseball and every so often they may have chance to win championship if cards fall their way. They will be a team on average just a bit over mid point of major league clubs in long run.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Can we please attempt to trade for Realmuto!  Then we would be solid up the middle. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Santanna's injury is not good but its at right end of the season and when the Twins need 5 pitchers the least with only couple of dates for the 5 pitcher.

Twins play 9 straight days after their first series, then go to Puerto Rico, then 19 straight days into May. Not much opportunity to skip the 5th spot.

[USAFChief]

Twins play 9 straight days after their first series, then go to Puerto Rico, then 19 straight days into May. Not much opportunity to skip the 5th spot.

Skipping the 5th starter is pretty much a thing of the past anyway.

[jud6312]

 

The Twins being willing to take on the last year of Span's contract would give them a leg up on other trading partners interested in either Archer or Odorizzi and also lower the cost to the Twins to acquire either one in terms of players.

If taking on Span's contract is the piece that gets it done to get Archer, fine.

 

If it's a requirement (along with trading Kepler) to land Odorizzi, no chance.

[Deduno Abides]

The biggest silver linings are that the returning team should be better than last year, the bullpen should be much better and the rotation is no worse than it was a week ago. The biggest weakness is potentially having too much hope resting on a 35 year-old starter who just stayed really healthy and outperformed his peripherals. The law of averages suggests that one or both of those factors weren’t going to be as good this year.

 

I truly know little about the flock of AA and AAA starters from last year, other than their stats and ratings, which are relatively optimistic. Assumedly, management has seen a lot more of them than I have and has a more fully-formed assessment. Also, the music is about to stop in free agency musical chairs, and a decent starter may be left without a seat. The Twins also have some trade chips, more than they have in the past (Zach Granite to the A’s for Jharel Cotton?). Something good could come from one of these buckets.

 

The Astros didn’t acquire an expensive starter until the end of August last year. (BTW, Darvish is good, but he’s not as good as Verlander or Kuechel.) Let’s see how things play out.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I guess my issue here is the idea that Darvish is drastically more likely to "really good pitcher" than anyone else the Twins still have access to. Why are we being so presumptive about what they're doing with their "saved" money? And why are we all treating Darvish like he's a bona fide ace?

 

 

 

Thanks, and good question. I realize I've swung quite a bit since writing the piece you mentioned.

 

While I was clearly optimistic a month ago, through talking to some people around the team as January progressed, it became fairly clear to me that Darvish wasn't gonna happen. So I'm past the denial and anger stages. And now, seeing the deal he ended up with, it's easier to find acceptance. I get why people disagree, but to me that's an unattractive contract for a team in Minnesota's position.

 

Seems to me they made a solid effort to get him and came up short against a legendary big-market franchise. Doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the Twins nor doom them.

 

No, but nice try

 

In December you wrote the Twins must get creative to lure Darvish. How so? By being open minded to an opt out provision, and even sillier, suggesting that the Twins should consider signing Chris Gimenez too. (The very things the Cubs did.) You concluded the article by projecting Darvish to sign at 5 years, 135 million.

 

So it really stretches the imagination that Twins Daily, or you, or whoever, is "fine" with Darvish signing elsewhere for 6 years and 126 million. That's right, more years, less money. Not a peep of protest or regret from anyone in there??

[Dantes929]

"But here's the thing: Minnesota absolutely should NOT have been counting on the same impact in 2018. For a variety of reasons, Santana was all but certain to see regression this year. I've been banging that drum all offseason, and the recently released PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus express similar reservations, forecasting Erv for a 4.76 ERA and 1.41 WHIP.

Even before this injury news came out, expecting the same Ervin Santana from 2017 to return in 2018 was folly. If the Twins held any such expectations (and their lack of urgency to add rotation help would seemingly suggest it), those are now out the door."

So he was really lucky last year?    His ERA, WHIP and SO/BB were almost identical in 2016.  Was that lucky?   He keeps himself in really good shape, has great control and apparently is using his slider, which is one of the best in baseball more effectively.   You and PECOTA might be right.   I put it at about the same odds as you and PECOTA being wrong.

[jimmer]

 

"But here's the thing: Minnesota absolutely should NOT have been counting on the same impact in 2018. For a variety of reasons, Santana was all but certain to see regression this year. I've been banging that drum all offseason, and the recently released PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus express similar reservations, forecasting Erv for a 4.76 ERA and 1.41 WHIP.

Even before this injury news came out, expecting the same Ervin Santana from 2017 to return in 2018 was folly. If the Twins held any such expectations (and their lack of urgency to add rotation help would seemingly suggest it), those are now out the door."

So he was really lucky last year?    His ERA, WHIP and SO/BB were almost identical in 2016.  Was that lucky?   He keeps himself in really good shape, has great control and apparently is using his slider, which is one of the best in baseball more effectively.   You and PECOTA might be right.   I put it at about the same odds as you and PECOTA being wrong.

His FIP was up a half run as was his xFIP. His Ks were slightly down and his BABIP was very low while his LOB% was very high.  Yeah, lucky, but part of that luck was due to the quality D behind him.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

 

Twins play 9 straight days after their first series, then go to Puerto Rico, then 19 straight days into May. Not much opportunity to skip the 5th spot.

Where is Chris Giminez when we need him?

[rdehring]

Thanks for a great article, Nick.

 

Hopefully, you can have a beer and go to bed to rest your head.  It has to be a bit sore right now from all the pounding you have taken.  

 

No one will know, but there is a good chance the Twins were always the pawn Darvish's agent was using to drive up other offers.  Had no one moved, he may have come here but along with Milwaukee...was probably his last choices.

 

And the Twins have something they didn't have a year ago.  They have Trevor May coming back in May.  So with Santana, they could/should have two quality starters added to the rotation six to eight weeks into the season.   

 

There are also several ok prospects who got a bit of experience last year...Jorge, Slegers and Enns.  Who knows, maybe one of that trio will shock the hell out of us and EARN that 5th spot out of ST.  Personally, would love to see it.

[Thrylos]

 

Can we please attempt to trade for Realmuto!  Then we would be solid up the middle. 

 

Can he pitch?

[RaymondLuxuryYacht]

Oh the humanity!!!

[Brandon]

The Twins could have frontloaded the contract a little. Say 25 million the first 2 years and year 3 and 4 at 21 and 5 at 18 with 6 at 16. With opt out after 2 years.

 

If he opts out, he was worth 25 million. We get a draft pick with QO and someone else gets risk of decline years. This is most likely scenario.

 

He doesn't opt out, he won't be as big a drag the end years because we front loaded the contract.

 

How much spread is there between Darvish opting out and not opting out that we risk losing?

 

I thought this FO was statistically inclined to optimal options. Also how are we afraid to go 6 years and be afraid he may be good for 6 years so we won't include an opt out?

[TheLeviathan]

"Don't worry about the ship sinking, I hear the life rafts stay afloat for at least ten minutes!"

[Squirrel]

"Don't worry about the ship sinking, I hear the life rafts stay afloat for at least ten minutes!"

But are there enough of them?

[jimmer]

 

"Don't worry about the ship sinking, I hear the life rafts stay afloat for at least ten minutes!"

maybe there will be a nice sturdy wooden board to float on.