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

[TheLeviathan]

 

But are there enough of them?

 

Of course!

 

Until there isn't.

 

Then we can talk about how death by shark isn't as bad as you've heard.  There's always another way to spin things!

[Mike Sixel]

But are there enough of them?

. Next year, don't worry

[old nurse]

 

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.

The end result is you have Jordan Zimmerman rather than Sherrzer.  If the player does not take the opt out it means they have busted. Hence a team is worse off with a player with an opt out. You have 2 years of a great player or a bust. A situation like Cueto could also arise. One good year and then a very questionable one

[Riverbrian]

 

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.

 

 

 

[Squirrel]

. Next year, don't worry

Yeah, I’m rowing off and leaving you to deal with that.

[Squirrel]

Of course!

 

Until there isn't.

 

Then we can talk about how death by shark isn't as bad as you've heard.  There's always another way to spin things!

Well, better than polar bear or alligator.

[Nick Nelson]

 

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??

Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

 

Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

 

Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

 

Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out. 

[Mike Sixel]

The end result is you have Jordan Zimmerman rather than Sherrzer. If the player does not take the opt out it means they have busted. Hence a team is worse off with a player with an opt out. You have 2 years of a great player or a bust. A situation like Cueto could also arise. One good year and then a very questionable one

Isn't that true if there is no opt out?

 

I will try to explain what I think chief is saying.

 

People don't want old players

If you give an opt out...

If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player

If he's bad, he stays

 

If you don't give an opt out

If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

 

If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

[TheLeviathan]

You know what might help alleviate some of the brooding and pessimism?  

 

If we weren't trying to force feed optimism and understanding into this.  If we just accepted, even for a day, that this sucks.  No one pretending it's fine.  No one making excuses.  We all just accept it stinks.

 

Then move forward with what's next. 

 

It's like watching your house start on fire and turning to your spouse to talk about how nice the fire makes your landscaping look. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

 

you have so many good articles keeping this site going, easy to understand how you might get them confused

 

True, we don't know the details. Maybe the Twins were warming to an opt-out but were slow to the draw. Who knows. The Twins really did hype the possibility of Darvish signing here, and it's been the topic of discussion all winter, so I don't think it's a big thing to spend 24-48 hours blowing off steam now that it's over. The Twins could still make something of this offseason. We'll see.

[Nick Nelson]

 

People don't want old players
If you give an opt out...
If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player
If he's bad, he stays

If you don't give an opt out
If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

 

The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors. 

 

If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out. 

[Mike Sixel]

It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

 

The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors.

 

If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out.

All those people are saying pitchers will decline. If now they won't be bad, then why not sign them? You can't say don't sign pitchers to long term deals because they will be bad for sure at the end, then say they only don't want bad players. Are you now seeing it isn't inevitable he declines? Edited February 12, 2018 by Mike Sixel

[USAFChief]

Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

 

Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

 

Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

 

Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out.

Falvine wanted Gimenez and couldn't get THAT done?

 

Even I don't think they're that incompetent.

[ashbury]

especially if offering one reduces the salary...

It reduces the salary, while at the same time reducing the upside of the contract. I thought we weren't trying to win the War-per-dollar Pennant.

[DaveW]

Panic is the wrong word. Disappointing and hoodwinked are the words.

The Pohlads told us that the new stadium would bring us into the 'big world' of contending, major free agency signings etc. 

But nope, the city gets put on the hook for a ton of money they will never see again>

We were told that Falvine and co would change things, it's a whole new Twins front office and a brand new day!

Over 365 days in and I don't see any real 'move' that makes them a whole lot different then the last regime.

Reed and Castro are ok signings, other than that it's been a pretty big bag of 'meh'

[Mike Sixel]

It reduces the salary, while at the same time reducing the upside of the contract. I thought we weren't trying to win the War-per-dollar Pennant.

I'd rather have the long term deal. Many here fear old pitchers. I'd think they would like opt out. I would have offered 6 150. And let Mauer walk next year.

 

Plus, I was explaining chief's point, I think.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Isn't that true if there is no opt out?

I will try to explain what I think chief is saying.

People don't want old players
If you give an opt out...
If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player
If he's bad, he stays

If you don't give an opt out
If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

The circle is complete.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Panic is the wrong word. Disappointing and hoodwinked are the words.

The Pohlads told us that the new stadium would bring us into the 'big world' of contending, major free agency signings etc. 

But nope, the city gets put on the hook for a ton of money they will never see again>

We were told that Falvine and co would change things, it's a whole new Twins front office and a brand new day!

Over 365 days in and I don't see any real 'move' that makes them a whole lot different then the last regime.

Reed and Castro are ok signings, other than that it's been a pretty big bag of 'meh'

Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....

[Deduno Abides]

It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

 

The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors.

 

If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out.

 

I’m fine with not getting Darvish, but I don’t understand the Twins’ position on opt-outs. Assumedly, giving an opt-out allows the team to reduce the price. Therefore, there are two possible money trees.

 

1. A locked-in contract at price ‘X’.

2. A contract with an opt-out at price ‘X-1’.

 

Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, both trees have a 50% chance of the player performing well in his first two years and a 50% chance he busts. If he busts and stays for the duration of the value-negative contract, the team loses money under each tree, except that it actually pays MORE in the tree without the opt-out.

 

Now, teams have skilled statisticians who perform much more sophisticated analysis, so there are probably nuances not covered in these scenarios. These statistics may even show that the presence of an opt-out increases the odds of busting, although it seems unlikely. However, in this simple analysis, it appears that giving an opt-out reduces the team’s financial risk from busting, instead of increasing the risk.

 

One increased risk of an opt-out is that it could make it harder to trade the player if he is good, but the team is bad, if there is an upcoming opt-out, but I would think the Twins aren’t planning for tear-downs in the next few years. Other than that, it would be good to get an explanation as to how an opt-out increases risk.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Deduno Abides

[DaveW]

Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....

I mean yeah that’s why I called it an ‘ok’ signing. Which is fine as long as he isn’t the biggest signing.

 

I will admit the Reed signing appears to be great.

 

Rodney/Pineda TBD but at least we are trying to fix the pen.

 

Rotation is a disaster though.

[Mr. Brooks]

If opt-outs are such a bad deal for teams, then why are they seemingly handing them out like candy these days?

[KirbyDome89]

 

I mean yeah that’s why I called it an ‘ok’ signing. Which is fine as long as he isn’t the biggest signing.

I will admit the Reed signing appears to be great.

Rodney/Pineda TBD but at least we are trying to fix the pen.

Rotation is a disaster though.

Including Castro in the bag was tongue in cheek. Agreed on the rotation and bullpen though. 

[frightwig]

 

 

He's looking for a team to take on all his risk, and now the Cubs are doing so. 

 

The nice thing from the Cubs' point of view is that the AAV is so much lower than expected, they're essentially getting at least one year for free. Maybe even two, if they wouldn't have minded paying $126M/4yrs to get him, anyway.

 

Unless his arm blows up in Year One, there isn't much risk for the club.

 

I didn't really expect the Twins to get Darvish. It's just a little disappointing that they didn't make a serious offer. Everybody figured that they would need to offer 6 years to stand a chance, and they just didn't do it. Luckily, none of the fallback options are off the table, yet. Then again, there isn't really another starting pitcher on the FA market who is likely to move the needle as much as Darvish.

 

We'll probably see the Twins give 4 years to some #3-4 starter. Is that going to push them back to the postseason? Eh.

[nicksaviking]

 

Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

 

Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

 

Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

 

Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out. 

 

I agree and have refuted those that said we know the Twins offer and that they lowballed Darvish, we don't know. But Lavine was quoted in Berardino's piece basically saying they would not offer the opt out and Berardino implied that the Twins would not offer 6 years.

 

I don't care how Lynn, Cobb or Arrieta pitch in the next six years. I don't even care how they pitch this summer. Find me the pitchers who can legitimately square off against the best pitchers the AL has to offer come October. It ain't those other guys.

[RaoulDuke]

 

The goalposts keep being moved.  Every time we go into an offseason, we read people who constantly defended the organization say 'well, if THIS offseason they don't do anything to truly address the rotation as it needs to be, THEN I'll complain'  Then the team's lack of doing anything meaningful to address THE major concern we've had for years once again gets defended or even lauded as the right move after all, or as no biggy. And with Santana out for awhile, our rotation is even worse.

 

It gets old.

 

I understand this is a new FO, and it has done some things to help the bullpen as needed, but the rotation is just as much in shambles and nothing has been done, and two days from now, pitchers and catchers report.  Maybe we sign a #3 or #4 type to add to our ever growing list of uninspired options. These kind of moves don't get it done.

 

And it's not like I ever thought we'd get Darvish, that's not my point.  NOTHING has been done. But then, I'm sure NEXT offseason, they'll really address the rotation.  Just wait...

 

Holding out for Kershaw.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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. 

Isn't the opposite true that he's betting on himself?

 

Again, I don't get the logic. It's not too much to plan around this, especially given the context that we have a lot of decent prospects in AA/AAA. Two years from now, it's quite possible these guys will be out of options and need to be traded or added. If they aren't that good, then the worst case with an opt out is that we are back on the FA market looking for an arm. If he doesn't opt out, then it means he hasn't outperformed his contract, but that's a risk we take anyways. I can see scenarios where an opt out isn't a smart idea, but I don't think this is one of them.

[Doctor Wu]

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Spring Training is starting soon. Hell, the regular season is starting soon! Yeah, too bad we couldn't sign Darvish, but I always thought that was very unlikely. But now the Twins DO need to find another "quality" starter --- or two --- and do it ASAP! Of all the names bandied about, Archer would be my first choice, but I'd also be very reluctant to trade away 3 or 4 good prospects for him.

[Blackjack]

Is the glass half full or half empty??

 

I'll side with Nick and say half full, the two points that he made about saving wear and tear on Santana's arm and letting the prospects eat up those spring training innings AND even getting a couple starts are both positives. 

[TheLeviathan]

We could also save wear and tear on Buxton by sitting him until June.  Anyone down for that?

[Vanimal46]

We could also save wear and tear on Buxton by sitting him until June.  Anyone down for that?

I'd prefer forfeiting every game in April... That way ALL of our pitchers save wear and tear on their arms! Games in April are silly anyways.