Article: Twins Sign RHP Anibal Sanchez... No, Really

[ashbury]

Nothing

I feel an Abbott and Costello routine coming on.

[kab21]

 

I'm glad you have optimism because I used to have it and I'm glad its in good hands. .

 

I'm in the "Had" category right now but I realize there is time for the front office to recover. 

 

If they couldn't go a 6th year on Darvish... I don't think they go a 4th year on Lynn or Cobb.

 

 

Someone else will 

I really have no idea what the FO is thinking but 4 years of Lynn/Cobb ends at age 35 and 6 years of Darvish ends at age 38. In addition to that the organization has a history of 4 year contracts to pitchers in their 30's. The sticking point for me though is if Lynn/Cobb still expect to get paid 18+/yr and how long they will wait.

[Elliot]

The worst move the FO can make is to commit 20% of the payroll for the next 5 to 6 years to a bad, large contract.  The hope is that over the next few years they will be locking up Buxton, Sano (??), Berrios, Rosario, Kepler, Polanco ...; as well as dealing with vets such as Dozier and Mauer; a process that will require considerable payroll space.  I much prefer a flier on Sanchez to overpaying for any of the pitchers in this incredibly flawed FA market.  The consensus top pitcher available was a sub .500 starter who almost single handedly cost the Dodgers the WS.  The next three in line are even more flawed; in no way worth anything more than a three year deal, and even that is a stretch.  An incentive laden 2 year is more like it.  Hearing that the top FA pitchers are all looking for 4 years plus and $15M/yr type of money, I sincerely hope that the FO steers clear and continues to "dumpster dive".

I hate to ever see the Twins give up prospects but my guess is that if a big move is coming it will be a trade for a lesser known starter (not Archer) and will involve moving a young major leaguer as well as some highly rated prospects.

[twinssporto]

You know a free-agent signing is weak when the front office says this:

 

"Sanchez is also considered a veteran leader who can help mentor younger pitchers. He could be valuable in that role this spring, even if he doesn't make the club".

 

If I read one more time about an older FA bringing veteran leadership to the team I'm gonna be sick.  Can't Kaat fill that role?  I thought thats why we hired him...

[Mr. Brooks]

Just a guess...

the Kyle Gibson effect. nibble at the edges with very hittable stuff and when you get in trouble with walks, throw it down the middle?

 

Over his career his hard hit rate has gone from 25(ish) percent to 37. His hr/fb has gone from 10(ish) percent to 20 percent. Homers are up across the league so it’s hard to give the homer trend too much weight, but it doesn’t look like there’s much upside here. He’s cooked

Gibson's best k rate is still worse than all of Sanchez' last 10 years. Gibson's best bb rate is still worse than all of Sanchez' last 7 years.

 

Your explanation doesn't explain why his bb and k rates have mostly held.

If he's throwing it down the middle (to avoid walks) he shouldn't be getting strikeouts.

If he's nibbling, he should be giving up walks.

 

Of course the hard hit rate is troubling, and likely leads at least in part to the higher babip and hr rate. But, some of those increases are probably also bad luck, and the FO might see an adjustment that could lower that hard hit rate.

 

It's not like I love the signing.

Like I said in my first post, when I saw it, I wanted to hate it. But, IMO, there are plenty of open rotation spots.

I don't even think Gibson should be a lock.

This move shouldn't prevent them from signing anyone else.

They may not, but that's independent of this. It's not like he's blocking anyone, nor is the salary restricting payroll in any way.

Do we have some examples of pitchers who have pretty much held their career k and bb numbers, while suddenly becoming super hittable?

Maybe it happens more often than I'd guess, I dunno.

But, it's enough for me to think that maybe a small adjustment, coupled with some better luck, and a much better defense than he's had in Detroit, could lead to a productive season.

 

With Santana out a month, there's likely going to be a spot in the rotation that isn't ideal, regardless of how many guys they sign.

Gonsalves and Romero aren't starting the year in the rotation. In addition to the limited time at the high minors, they also get an extra year of control by waiting 3 weeks.

So, if at least 1 spot is going to be less than ideal regardless, I don't mind the roll of the dice on a guy who has way more upside, IMO, than someone like Slegers or Hughes.

[Mr. Brooks]

The worst move the FO can make is to commit 20% of the payroll for the next 5 to 6 years to a bad, large contract. The hope is that over the next few years they will be locking up Buxton, Sano (??), Berrios, Rosario, Kepler, Polanco ...; as well as dealing with vets such as Dozier and Mauer; a process that will require considerable payroll space. I much prefer a flier on Sanchez to overpaying for any of the pitchers in this incredibly flawed FA market. The consensus top pitcher available was a sub .500 starter who almost single handedly cost the Dodgers the WS. The next three in line are even more flawed; in no way worth anything more than a three year deal, and even that is a stretch. An incentive laden 2 year is more like it. Hearing that the top FA pitchers are all looking for 4 years plus and $15M/yr type of money, I sincerely hope that the FO steers clear and continues to "dumpster dive".

I hate to ever see the Twins give up prospects but my guess is that if a big move is coming it will be a trade for a lesser known starter (not Archer) and will involve moving a young major leaguer as well as some highly rated prospects.

W/L is a team stat, and the Dodgers aren't likely even in the WS without Darvish pitching as well as he did in the previous series'.

[jorgenswest]

The debate should be whether a Sanchez is worth a spot on the 40. I am having a hard time finding a spot. I don’t think I want to add him and risk losing a player with options. We are going to need pitchers with options to shuttle back and forth. I really need two spots since I would plan to sign another starter even if it is a one year deal to Tillman.

 

We can use the 60 day DL. That clears at least one spot and maybe more. If only one, it needs to be for a better signing and not Sanchez.

 

Pineda

May(?)

Hughes (?)

 

I need a second spot for Sanchez. Players without option flexibility I might remove to add Sanchez.

 

Kinley

Vargas

Hughes

 

Worst case I add Sanchez and lose Kinley. I think I would do that.

[olivia11]

I think giving Sanchez a 40 man spot, when there are plenty of other similar (or better) quality pitchers they could've signed to an MiLB deal, has to mean something.

 

Yes, they could still sign Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta and then try and pass Enns, Kinley, or Vargas through waivers.  But, if that's the plan, why would they sign Sanchez then? They clearly want to get a look at Kinley in camp.  They were interested enough in Enns to trade for him.  And they need to keep Vargas around as Sano insurance.  I'm wondering if something else is going on.

 

 

Option 1: They are going to acquire a SP through trade and this trade will include at least one 40 man guy.  Archer (not going to happen), Odorizzi, Corbin, McHugh could all fit this profile. 

 

 

Option 2: They really are targeting 2019 as the true opening of the winning window and are going to use 2018 to try out as many internal guys as possible and see who steps up.  This is a defensible strategy in the sense that it could work out best in the long run. Maybe you find out that a 2019 rotation of Berrios, Pineda, May, Gonsalves, and Romero will be above league average (and super, super cheap). But, if this is true, it's really going to try fans' excitement for both the product they're putting on the field and the new "savvy" front office.

 

 

Either way, it feels to me like they are not sold on Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta and the combination of years/money/draft pick compensation that signing them entails. 

[TheLeviathan]

Didn't waste any time selling us on the ol' veteran leadership either huh?

[Otto von Ballpark]

The worst move the FO can make is to commit 20% of the payroll for the next 5 to 6 years to a bad, large contract. The hope is that over the next few years they will be locking up Buxton, Sano (??), Berrios, Rosario, Kepler, Polanco ...;

Darvish's contract was front-loaded, so it would represent less than 20% of payroll in later years.

 

It also includes an opt out clause, which reduces the potential long-term upside, but also potentially nullifies the riskiest years 3-6.

 

Its no-trade restrictions are loosened in years 5-6 too, so potentially the team could swap it for a different asset near the end, spreading out the owed salary over more years.

 

And any long-term deals for Buxton, etc. would be structured with the Darvish commitment in mind, with salaries plateauing through his year 6, and increasing after his deal is over.

 

With 6 years to plan, the deal would have been no serious impediment to Twins efforts to lock up homegrown talent, should the need arise. It may have precluded a similar elite FA signing over the next few years, but the odds of multiple such opportunities being available to the Twins in a short time span are virtually zero anyway.

Edited February 17, 2018 by spycake

[Einstein1]

Same old Twins. 

[Mike Sixel]

Didn't waste any time selling us on the ol' veteran leadership either huh?

Two leaders per young guy, almost have enough now.

[Riverbrian]

 

I really have no idea what the FO is thinking but 4 years of Lynn/Cobb ends at age 35 and 6 years of Darvish ends at age 38. In addition to that the organization has a history of 4 year contracts to pitchers in their 30's. The sticking point for me though is if Lynn/Cobb still expect to get paid 18+/yr and how long they will wait.

 

They turned down 17.4 QO. I realize that is only a one year QO but I'm guessing they will want the AAV to be above that or else they got bad advice from the agent. 

[USAFChief]

If a 40 man roster spot is your only concern with this move then you shouldn't be concerned. It isn't worth zero but it also isn't anything to get bent out of shape for.

It’s a 40 man spot that now wont go to an acquisition that can help the Twins.

 

THIS is the plan for one rotation spot. Make no mistake. If (when) he’s cut during spring, there goes the rotation upgrade.

[kab21]

 

They turned down 17.4 QO. I realize that is only a one year QO but I'm guessing they will want the AAV to be above that or else they got bad advice from the agent. 

Players have misread the market and signed for less than the QO that they turned down. This isn't a rare circumstance.

 

It’s a 40 man spot that now wont go to an acquisition that can help the Twins.

THIS is the plan for one rotation spot. Make no mistake. If (when) he’s cut during spring, there goes the rotation upgrade.

There are other mediocre players on the 40 man that can be cut if necessary. The amount of teeth knashing over Rule V, 40 man spots, #5 starter competition, etc... is baffling.

 

My concern right now is only about the bigger signing/trade for the rotation. If there isn't one then that is when my pitchfork comes out. Not having a 40 man roster spot is not a reason that prevents them from making another move.

[ashbury]

You know a free-agent signing is weak when the front office says this:

 

"Sanchez is also considered a veteran leader who can help mentor younger pitchers. He could be valuable in that role this spring, even if he doesn't make the club".

In fairness, I found this quote at the end of Rhett Bollinger's report of the trade. The phrasing is unattributed, and thus I interpret it as his own synthesis of what he has heard and what he independently dug up.

https://www.mlb.com/twins/news/anibal-sanchez-twins-agree-to-contract/c-266622502

 

The relationship between reporters for mlb.com and the teams themselves is not clear to me. This quote may reflect the front office's planning, or it may be a slight fun-house mirror version of their actual thinking.

[Riverbrian]

 

Players have misread the market and signed for less than the QO that they turned down. This isn't a rare circumstance.

 

 

 

Yes they have. Misreading the market is not rare... especially since it was complicated by the qualifying offer and the accompanying draft pick. 

 

And every time it happens... the agent risks losing current and future clients because they are not supposed to misread the market... ever. 

 

If a player turns down a QO... They are probably expecting higher AAV.

 

Agents will try to show they gave good advice and hold out for it and as Darvish and others fall off the board and less similar options are available to clubs...  they might get it. 

[wabene]

Sometimes it's just the order of the way things play out that can cause a certain reaction. Rodney, Duke then Reid if it had been reversed would have eased some of the pain of the now quiet bullpen complaining. Same here. If they do sign someone like Lynn then as this will quiet down. If that happened first then Sanchez the Sanchez signing would have just produced yawns. All that said i think the remaining FA pitchers are not worth four year deals. I'm especially leery of middle of the road national league starters.

[USAFChief]

Yes they have. Misreading the market is not rare... especially since it was complicated by the qualifying offer and the accompanying draft pick. 

 

And every time it happens... the agent risks losing current and future clients because they are not supposed to misread the market... ever. 

 

If a player turns down a QO... They are probably expecting higher AAV.

 

Agents will try to show they gave good advice and hold out for it and as Darvish and others fall off the board and less similar options are available to clubs...  they might get it.

 

It’s also possible the agent said “I probably can’t get the AAV of the QO, but I can get you four years at something close to it. Otherwise we’re back doing this next year.”

[ashbury]

They turned down 17.4 QO. I realize that is only a one year QO but I'm guessing they will want the AAV to be above that or else they got bad advice from the agent. 

I don't believe it's automatically bad advice. Depending on the age of the player, a guaranteed 2-year deal for even as low as, say, $25M, might be preferable to 1 at $17.4M. Ditto, 4 years for $50M. These numbers of mine are purposely low; but bring them up a little, and they still are a lower AAV and yet preferable.

[USAFChief]

I don't believe it's automatically bad advice. Depending on the age of the player, a guaranteed 2-year deal for even as low as, say, $25M, might be preferable to 1 at $17.4M. Ditto, 4 years for $50M. These numbers of mine are purposely low; but bring them up a little, and they still are a lower AAV and yet preferable.

I ninja’d you.

[twinssporto]

 

Yes they have. Misreading the market is not rare... especially since it was complicated by the qualifying offer and the accompanying draft pick. 

 

And every time it happens... the agent risks losing current and future clients because they are not supposed to misread the market... ever. 

 

If a player turns down a QO... They are probably expecting higher AAV.

 

Agents will try to show they gave good advice and hold out for it and as Darvish and others fall off the board and less similar options are available to clubs...  they might get it. 

Totally agree.  People misreading the market is not rare.

 

I'm no exception.  Loved Enron at $56, Worldcom at $44....wife put me on stock probation too.

[Mike Sixel]

Totally agree. People misreading the market is not rare.

 

I'm no exception. Loved Enron at $56, Worldcom at $44....wife put me on stock probation too.

I very much enjoyed this post

[Riverbrian]

 

It’s also possible the agent said “I probably can’t get the AAV of the QO, but I can get you four years at something close to it. Otherwise we’re back doing this next year.”

 

And if the QO is 17.4 and possible that Lynn and Cobb turned it down expecting to be around that neighborhood. 

 

Darvish signing for 21M AAV seems rather bargain like. 

[ashbury]

I ninja’d you.

I was about to make note of that, but you ninja'd me.

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't believe it's automatically bad advice. Depending on the age of the player, a guaranteed 2-year deal for even as low as, say, $25M, might be preferable to 1 at $17.4M. Ditto, 4 years for $50M. These numbers of mine are purposely low; but bring them up a little, and they still are a lower AAV and yet preferable.

 

Yeah Understood... There are shades. I really didn't want to give the impression that it was above 17.4 or bust. 

 

I guess my point in a nutshell should have been this: 

 

Agents promise players results in order to convince them they should choose them over other agents who are also making result based promises. 

 

If you don't get the results? That agent has a current and future problem when it comes to the retention and acquisition of clients.  

 

If a player is advised to turn own the QO... It better turn out to be good advice. 

[rv78]

If there is $2.5 million to throw away on Sanchez then why not use that EXTRA money that can be thrown away and add it to an offer for a good pitcher? These guys think quantity is better than quality. What a joke!

[slash129]

 

I don't agree with the they don't "owe" us an explanation as to what they see or are doing. Why not? That kind of attitude by the FO in regards to the fans that make it all work, is disgusting.

 

The only people that care about these fringe roster moves are all us commenters on these threads.  Most of the fans could care less about the the 40th guy on the 40-man roster, if they even pay attention the 15 guys not on the 25-man roster.  Most of the fans don't care about who the Twins didn't sign. Yu Darvish is wearing a Cubs jersey, so who cares about him.

 

If you're so disgusted that you choose to go to less games or not buy that Buxton jersey because say Anibal Sanchez is the 40th man instead of say Luke Bard this spring, I'm sure that giddy fan - who makes it all work - that's excited about a team that made it to the playoffs will more than make up for your cut back on Twins expenditures.

 

[mikeee]

 

Maybe we can sign Kevin Correia and Tommy Milone too.

And Big Pelf

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The only people that care about these fringe roster moves are all us commenters on these threads.  Most of the fans could care less about the the 40th guy on the 40-man roster, if they even pay attention the 15 guys not on the 25-man roster.  Most of the fans don't care about who the Twins didn't sign. Yu Darvish is wearing a Cubs jersey, so who cares about him.

 

If you're so disgusted that you choose to go to less games or not buy that Buxton jersey because say Anibal Sanchez is the 40th man instead of say Luke Bard this spring, I'm sure that giddy fan - who makes it all work - that's excited about a team that made it to the playoffs will more than make up for your cut back on Twins expenditures.

and then the casual fan who takes her family to that second Twins game in summer 2018 is seeing not an 89-73 team, but a 78-84 team, and with the excitement gone in 2019, this casual fan decides to do something else besides go to the Twins game.