Twins make offer for Chris Archer

[gunnarthor]

 

I was going to try to answer this argument by using Game Score as a tie-breaker.  But now I can't find a source for that....I thought Baseball-reference used to have it....

 

I guess resume the fWAR/bWAR/ERA/FIP/SIERA/WHIP/W-L arguments  

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=archech01&t=p&year=2017

[Riverbrian]

Nothing in life is free

 

The Twins could have paid cash to get Darvish

 

or the Twins could pay in talent to get Archer

 

Talent seems to be a much steeper price to pay because ultimately you hope to turn cash into talent. 

 

I'll never understand not going a 6th year but whatever... the Twins have to do something. 

 

 

[laloesch]

 

We would still have a team option on Ervin for next year, regardless.

 

Oh okay i didn't realize it was a team option 2019 and a vesting option in 2020.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Oh okay i didn't realize it was a team option 2019 and a vesting option in 2020.

Nothing for 2020. The 2019 option vests with 200 IP, otherwise it is a team option.

[TheLeviathan]

Remember when I said this:

 

Again, just start resigning yourself to Tillman and Garcia.(And even taht might be wishful thinking)

 

 

And then I got mocked for being too cynical?

 

Oh. Okay. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Nope.  Turns out I was being ridiculously optimistic.  We'd all kill for Tillman and Garcia about now.

[bird]

 

Remember when I said this:

 

And then I got mocked for being too cynical?

 

 

Nope.  Turns out I was being ridiculously optimistic.  We'd all kill for Tillman and Garcia about now.

 

 

You were right, Levi. I was wrong for not being more cynical. Keep up the optimism.

[TheLeviathan]

Hard to be optimistic when I'm told I shouldn't take them at their word and their actions give me no reason to be.  

 

[bird]

 

Hard to be optimistic when I'm told I shouldn't take them at their word and their actions give me no reason to be.  

 

 

It's okay to be pessimistic or cynical, my friend. 

 

I'll push back when you again confuse things and accuse people of going against their word. Rip them for failure, not for dishonesty, please.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's okay to be pessimistic or cynical, my friend. 

 

I'll push back when you again confuse things and accuse people of going against their word. Rip them for failure, not for dishonesty, please.

 

All any of us were doing were holding them to what they said.  The FO and even the ownership committed several times publicly to a path of action.  And we've seen nothing that backs it up.

 

So either those statements were dishonest, naive, or inadvisedly stupid.  I haven't determined which, but a few more signings like Anibal Sanchez and I might have an answer for you.

[KirbyDome89]

I've seen plenty of posters, myself included, question how serious the Twins were about adding Darvish, which IMO is akin to questioning their honesty. 

 

They labeled the guy a "priority," and continued to push the narrative that they were pursuing him throughout the offseason. Then they failed to make an even remotely competitive offer. MN knew what Darvish was projected to command going into the offseason yet they failed to come close to the winning offer which was significantly less than that projection. $100 M/ 5 years is a joke, and it wasn't even a ballpark offer in a depressed market. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they knew from the get go that they didn't have a shot at Darvish if that was the best offer they could make.

 

Unless the FO is absolutely incompetent and thought 5/100 was going to get it done, it's hard to look at what they said vs. what they did and interpret it as anything other than misleading. 

[Mike Sixel]

Is it better they were unrealistic about what it would take, or were not serious? At least with the second, we can have confidence in their competence....

[bird]

More than a couple of people have come to conclusions and have assaulted the GM's character to one degree or another on this thread and other threads covering our disappointment regarding Darvish and the FO results more generally. I'm going to start calling Falvey Ryan 2.0 if this persists. As a fellow community member, I am appealing to everyone to think twice, and try to isolate your objections to their inaction and actions. Words are just words. Cut Falvine a little slack, please?

 

If we all held ourselves to the same standards some of you are holding the FO, I'm confident there would not be one honest human being commenting on these threads.

 

We all say things we mean and then find that we fail to deliver to everyone's satisfaction. If you hold a management or leadership position anywhere, you know this. None of us likes it when we haven't pleased everyone. That hurts enough, but then to be called dishonest, or lazy, or incredibly stupid on top of it?

 

I for one escape to TD to try and avoid some of that stuff.

 

Okay, I'm done. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ashbury]

They labeled the guy a "priority," and continued to push the narrative that they were pursuing him throughout the offseason. Then they failed to make an even remotely competitive offer.

This gets to the heart of it for me.

 

If you plan to sign a free agent, you know you are going to pay too much. Why? Because other teams can offer "cost effective" and "market price" offers just as well as you can. Information is incomplete in this marketplace. You will have to outbid each and every one of those bids, save for the occasional exception where a player has a specific geographic preference. The better the free agent, the more this will be true.

 

There are various economic terms for it. Winner's curse. Buyer's remorse. My nomination remains, "stupidity tax for not having developed your own player". Pay it; I say to ownership, past profits from false economies have come back to bite you.

 

If you state that you are going after the top free agent, you know in advance that these are the ground rules. So don't talk about Darvish if you don't intend to pay the price. Make a compelling bid, not a lowball, and if you lose anyway, then so be it.

 

In sum, my message to the front office:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/089/062/thumbsup6.png

[bird]

 

Is it better they were unrealistic about what it would take, or were not serious? At least with the second, we can have confidence in their competence....

 

 

Unrealistic please. Every time. Question my competence. Please.

[Mike Sixel]

Unrealistic please. Every time. Question my competence. Please.

I would prefer they were competent, frankly. But offering what has been reported is just not a realistic offer at all. So, were they really trying in your opinion?

[TheLeviathan]

If you think they were unrealistic than you are concluding they were naive.  I left that open as an option.

 

I don't know what their thinking was at the time(s) they made those statements, I just know their actions have fallen woefully short of their rhetoric and I have no problem holding them to that.  Just like I would hold anyone in management to account if they walked into a meeting, promised a bunch of things, and then failed to deliver on them.

 

Yes, you'll fail expectations, but when you deliberately and clearly set those expectations yourself, you need to own some (most) of the blame. 

[TheLeviathan]

Rather than comp this to a manager, I think a politician is a better comparison.  

 

Campaign promises are sometimes made deliberately to mislead.  Sometimes the person is unrealistic/naive about what they can do once they get in office.  Sometimes, they just say stuff with no discernible idea of what they are talking about.  

 

I won't claim to know which one of those better characterizes our FO and their "priority" talk, but I would suggest that none of those outcomes are particularly favorable.  Only the middle one could be said to have the chance, but it requires them to have put forth an honest, determined effort.  It's hard to see 5/110 as meeting that criteria either.

 

I'm not sure how to spin those comments in a positive way and I'm confused why anyone would take issue with fans being upset with the gap between promises and results.  Just like in politics, we (try) to hold people accountable.

[ashbury]

Rather than comp this to a manager, I think a politician is a better comparison.

Few analogies are perfect, but IMO it's not wrong to compare to any business that sells to a given market. "Back in the day," I learned not to promise what would be in the next release of our product - it was painful to not answer customers' natural questions, but it would be more painful to promise something that R&D might not be able to deliver (even if it's already in QA), and if you're in business for the long haul it's better to have the reputation for under-promising than under-delivering.

[bird]

 

I would prefer they were competent, frankly. But offering what has been reported is just not a realistic offer at all. So, were they really trying in your opinion?

 

 

Yeah, we're beating a dead horse perhaps, but here's why I (again) am less conclusive in my criticism, and (again) I'm okay with others thinking they possess all the necessary facts to draw a different conclusion:

 

1. "Rhetoric". Levine made one ill-advised word choice: "priority". Harsh critics want to tell me it can only mean one thing, which is an intention to sign Darvish. To them, anything other than Darvish agreeing to terms not only represents failure, but indicates the perpetration of a lie. These people dismiss or ignore any other interpretation of the word. Levine didn't mean Darvish was their first choice. Or their first step. Some critics are really exaggerating in their own minds a view that the FO was out there, night and day, deliberately promoting some "narrative", intentionally raising our expectations, disingenuous in their statements. They get confused about who really owns the narrative. They've been so personally consumed with our own discussions about Darvish and lose sight of the fact that there hasn't been much in the way of comments from the FO. They themselves own most of the "narrative". I personally believe that frustration is clouding people's judgment and causing a bit of demonization. Suddenly one "promise" devolves into a false accusation that they have promised a bunch of things and continually fail to keep their promises.

 

2. "Realistic offer." Yes, we know the marketplace set "realistic" values on virtually every FA in the market. Among all of the FA's, is Darvish not one of the very few who appears to be the recipient of an offer close to what was projected? If one chooses to believe that the FO should have known that, because Darvish was uniquely valuable, that he would be one of the few to get a "realistic" bid, then fine, label the FO naive, or question their judgment, even their prowess. But are not most offers, if made at all, coming in at very "unrealistic" numbers? Is it at all possible that the market for Darvish was stubbornly suppressed, only to quickly pop? We have certain rumors (not reports!) about there being "multiple" offers, late in the process, a few that exceeded what we believe, without actually knowing, the Twins eventually offered. To state very simplistically that the Twin's offer fell "woefully short" without considering for a moment that perhaps the offer didn't become "woefully short" until the final rapid stages, perhaps fails to capture the context of what went on, to most of which we aren't privy? I don't know, it just feels like a pretty harsh judgment to me.  I fully get the position my friends here are taking when they say, go for it. I respect that argument, and almost embrace it, frankly.

 

But I also respect the organization if it draws lines in the sand too. I tend to think that, over the long haul, that sort of financial discipline and willingness to take the heat in the short term, as Falvey surely knew he would, is something I can live with.

 

I respect your opinion if you believe you have enough to go on to think they screwed up. Or if you think they should have signed him for 7/175 or something. Despite what a handful will think, those of us who judge less harshly are not apologists, so I hope people refrain from characterizing a viewpoint different from their own as "an excuse" or as "bizarre", two descriptions I've seen too often. I was a critic for this FO's previous bullpen failings, for Haley, for Breslow, for Burdi, for the trade deadline indecision and cuteness, and will criticize them, I'm afraid, soon enough for failing to acquire a front line starter for 2018. They'll get no excuses from me on that one. I just tend to be naturally predisposed to being contextually sensitive and open to the possibility that screwups, like stove burns, can be painful and yet mild. It's a really hard job and they're going to screw up.

 

Be harsher if you want, but (again) be careful of assigning character deficiencies to those who disappoint you.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Yeah, we're beating a dead horse perhaps, but here's why I (again) am less conclusive in my criticism, and (again) I'm okay with others thinking they possess all the necessary facts to draw a different conclusion:

 

1. "Rhetoric". Levine made one ill-advised word choice: "priority". Harsh critics want to tell me it can only mean one thing, which is an intention to sign Darvish. To them, anything other than Darvish agreeing to terms not only represents failure, but indicates the perpetration of a lie. These people dismiss or ignore any other interpretation of the word. Levine didn't mean Darvish was their first choice. Or their first step. Some critics are really exaggerating in their own minds a view that the FO was out there, night and day, deliberately promoting some "narrative", intentionally raising our expectations, disingenuous in their statements. They get confused about who really owns the narrative. They've been so personally consumed with our own discussions about Darvish and lose sight of the fact that there hasn't been much in the way of comments from the FO. They themselves own most of the "narrative". I personally believe that frustration is clouding people's judgment and causing a bit of demonization.

 

2. "Realistic offer." Yes, we know the marketplace set "realistic" values on virtually every FA in the market. Among all of the FA's, is Darvish not one of the very few who appears to be the recipient of an offer close to what was projected? If one chooses to believe that the FO should have known that, because Darvish was uniquely valuable, that he would be one of the few to get a :'"realistic" bid, then fine, label the FO naive, or question their judgment, even their prowess. But are not most offers, if made at all, coming in at very "unrealistic" numbers? Is it at all possible that the market for Darvish was stubbornly suppressed, only to quickly pop? We have certain rumors (not reports!) about there being "multiple" offers, late in the process, a few that exceeded what we believe, without actually knowing, the Twins eventually offered. To state very simplistically that the Twin's offer fell "woefully short" without considering for a moment that perhaps the offer didn't become "woefully short" until the final rapid stages, perhaps fails to capture the context of what went on, most of which we aren't privy? I don't know, it just feels like a pretty harsh judgment to me.  I fully get the position my friends here are taking when they say, go for it. I respect that argument, and almost embrace it, frankly.

 

But I also respect the organization if it draws lines in the sand too. I tend to think that, over the long haul, that sort of financial discipline and willingness to take the heat in the short term, as Falvey surely knew he would, is something I can live with.

 

I respect your opinion if you believe you have enough to go on to think they screwed up. Or if you think they should have signed him for 7/175 or something. Despite what a handful will think, those of us who judge less harshly are not apologists, so I hope people refrain from characterizing a viewpoint different from their own as "an excuse" or as "bizarre", two descriptions I've seen too often. I was a critic for this FO's previous bullpen failings, for Haley, for Breslow, for Burdi, for the trade deadline indecision and cuteness, and will criticize them, I'm afraid, soon enough for failing to acquire a front line starter for 2018. They'll get no excuses from me on that one. I just tend to be naturally predisposed to being contextually sensitive and open to the possibility that screwups, like stove burns, can be painful and yet mild. It's a really hard job and they're going to screw up.

 

Be harsher if you want, but (again) be careful of assigning character deficiencies to those who disappoint you.

 

Dude... Your Mellowing my HARSH!!! 

[notoriousgod71]

 

 I'm going to start calling Falvey Ryan 2.0 if this persists.

 

What's he done differently? He sells during a playoff race, drafts someone other than the consensus number one pick at number one, and refuses to address team weaknesses.

[TheLeviathan]

and if you're in business for the long haul it's better to have the reputation for under-promising than under-delivering.

You are right, this analogy works very well.

 

We are used to the under-delivering, but the over-promising was a new development. I genuinely want to know why they seemed ready to give that impression, without the subsequent action to back it up.

[darin617]

To be clear I never wanted the Twins to sign Yu Darvish. But if they would have given him 6 year deal with an opt out after 2 or 3 years I would have been fine with that.

 

But, with the Twins luck with long term deals Darvish would have turned into Phil Hughes and would be hurt & would never opt out putting the Twins on the hook for 6 long years.

[bird]

 

Dude... Your Mellowing my HARSH!!! 

 

 

I never liked you.

[bird]

 

You are right, this analogy works very well.

We are used to the under-delivering, but the over-promising was a new development. I genuinely want to know why they seemed ready to give that impression, without the subsequent action to back it up.

 

 

Again, one person's promise is another person's stated objective. I heard the latter.

 

My theory is that the new kids might get just a little overconfident on occasion, and might get a little too cute once in awhile, Levi. I'd suggest the "priority" comment might indicate the former while the Garcia trade at the deadline might indicate the latter.

 

How's that for harsh, eh?

[TheLeviathan]

"Overconfident" might just be the positive spin to my "naive". Im not sure its saying anything different. And i might be more inclined to that conclusion had Molitor and ownership not echoed it.

 

That, to me, indicates something more.

[Otto von Ballpark]

"Overconfident" might just be the positive spin to my "naive". Im not sure its saying anything different. And i might be more inclined to that conclusion had Molitor and ownership not echoed it.

 

That, to me, indicates something more.

I'm not sure Molitor and Pohlad quite "echoed" it. They actually added a ton of qualifiers.

[tvagle]

 

Few analogies are perfect, but IMO it's not wrong to compare to any business that sells to a given market. "Back in the day," I learned not to promise what would be in the next release of our product - it was painful to not answer customers' natural questions, but it would be more painful to promise something that R&D might not be able to deliver (even if it's already in QA), and if you're in business for the long haul it's better to have the reputation for under-promising than under-delivering.

Using the standard uPoD (under Promise over Deliver) metric:

 

For those of you not familiar with uPoD it has long been used as a trend analysis tool for everything from dinner choices (Chili's with the wife uPoD +50) to business ventures/proposals (Apple's 1984 commercial claim...Joe Namath's prediction uPoD +100) or financial promises (local sports team's claim to budget 50% of revenue for payroll uPoD +/-100 depending on who calculates the result)

 

An average uPoD score is 0...which is equivalent of doing absolutely nothing and promising not to do anything...kind of like the Cincinnati Reds)

 

The Twins SP moves this offseason to date come in at -1000 uPoD

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure Molitor and Pohlad quite "echoed" it. They actually added a ton of qualifiers.

Fair enough.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yeah, we're beating a dead horse perhaps, but here's why I (again) am less conclusive in my criticism, and (again) I'm okay with others thinking they possess all the necessary facts to draw a different conclusion:

 

1. "Rhetoric". Levine made one ill-advised word choice: "priority". Harsh critics want to tell me it can only mean one thing, which is an intention to sign Darvish. To them, anything other than Darvish agreeing to terms not only represents failure, but indicates the perpetration of a lie. These people dismiss or ignore any other interpretation of the word. Levine didn't mean Darvish was their first choice. Or their first step. Some critics are really exaggerating in their own minds a view that the FO was out there, night and day, deliberately promoting some "narrative", intentionally raising our expectations, disingenuous in their statements. They get confused about who really owns the narrative. They've been so personally consumed with our own discussions about Darvish and lose sight of the fact that there hasn't been much in the way of comments from the FO. They themselves own most of the "narrative". I personally believe that frustration is clouding people's judgment and causing a bit of demonization. Suddenly one "promise" devolves into a false accusation that they have promised a bunch of things and continually fail to keep their promises.

 

2. "Realistic offer." Yes, we know the marketplace set "realistic" values on virtually every FA in the market. Among all of the FA's, is Darvish not one of the very few who appears to be the recipient of an offer close to what was projected? If one chooses to believe that the FO should have known that, because Darvish was uniquely valuable, that he would be one of the few to get a "realistic" bid, then fine, label the FO naive, or question their judgment, even their prowess. But are not most offers, if made at all, coming in at very "unrealistic" numbers? Is it at all possible that the market for Darvish was stubbornly suppressed, only to quickly pop? We have certain rumors (not reports!) about there being "multiple" offers, late in the process, a few that exceeded what we believe, without actually knowing, the Twins eventually offered. To state very simplistically that the Twin's offer fell "woefully short" without considering for a moment that perhaps the offer didn't become "woefully short" until the final rapid stages, perhaps fails to capture the context of what went on, to most of which we aren't privy? I don't know, it just feels like a pretty harsh judgment to me.  I fully get the position my friends here are taking when they say, go for it. I respect that argument, and almost embrace it, frankly.

 

But I also respect the organization if it draws lines in the sand too. I tend to think that, over the long haul, that sort of financial discipline and willingness to take the heat in the short term, as Falvey surely knew he would, is something I can live with.

 

I respect your opinion if you believe you have enough to go on to think they screwed up. Or if you think they should have signed him for 7/175 or something. Despite what a handful will think, those of us who judge less harshly are not apologists, so I hope people refrain from characterizing a viewpoint different from their own as "an excuse" or as "bizarre", two descriptions I've seen too often. I was a critic for this FO's previous bullpen failings, for Haley, for Breslow, for Burdi, for the trade deadline indecision and cuteness, and will criticize them, I'm afraid, soon enough for failing to acquire a front line starter for 2018. They'll get no excuses from me on that one. I just tend to be naturally predisposed to being contextually sensitive and open to the possibility that screwups, like stove burns, can be painful and yet mild. It's a really hard job and they're going to screw up.

 

Be harsher if you want, but (again) be careful of assigning character deficiencies to those who disappoint you.

You're right, a lot of this is beating a dead horse, but I do want to clear a couple things up.

 

1. Priority simply means greater importance or precedence, I'm not sure what other interpretations there are. I haven't heard many claim it was a "promise," to sign Darvish, but if that exists in the threads then it's an extreme minority. You're conflating the absence of a signing with the effort made to procure the signing when talking about the feelings of disappointment on the boards. Nobody would have bet on the Twins winning the Darvish sweepstakes; the issue wasn't that they didn't win the bidding. They labeled Darvish as one of the most important parts of the offseason, a notion that was reiterated throughout the winter. The FO certainly sparked the Darvish fire, and they stoked it all offseason. Those articles and quotes had to come from somewhere.It wasn't the media fabricating the continued interest. The problem is with what they said vs. their actions. If MN had made the best offer, or at least something competitive then I could see hanging your hat in the Twins corner, but they failed to even come close to a moderate (and very beatable) bid by Chicago. It really makes you wonder what their actual priority was, and how serious they were about pursuing Darvish.

 

2. It doesn't matter when or if the market for Darvish "popped." Whether the Twins offer was low from the get go or not isn't important either. They failed to beat a deal that was significantly lower than what Darvish was projected to sign for. They had to know those projections entering the offseason while they exclaimed how serious they were about signing him. Nobody is faulting them for submitting an initial bid lower than 6/160 or 6/126. The angst is because they didn't want to move off 100ish/5. 

 

3. No, none of us are privy to all the details involving negotiations, nor are we likely to hear the "narrative," from the Twins side. I just don't see those as any sort of defense. We have the outcome. The Twins can release whatever press statements they want to fill in some gaps but in the end we know what offer they were unwilling to beat. 

 

4. I have to give you credit for holding your position. It certainly isn't easy right now.