Manny Machado

[Otto von Ballpark]

there is a ton of data available that says these long term FA contracts either don't work out very well over time or laden with so much risk the return doesn't justify the means.

 

"These long term FA contracts" seems to be painting with too broad of a brush. For example, if I am analyzing a potential deal for the 26 year old infielder Machado, I don't really care that the Angels gave a 10 year deal to a 32 year old 1B/DH (Pujols). I don't really care that the Rockies gave an 8 year deal for low-K starting pitcher to come to Coors Field (Hampton). Even the Cubs 8 year deal for a fellow 26 year old (Heyward) -- a premium defender in an outfield corner with questionable offense -- was for a very different profile than Machado. There's a lot of noise around trying to analyze "these kind of contracts" in the aggregate.

 

That doesn't mean Machado is a slam dunk decison, of course. But at his age and position, it's worth some strong consideration. I really object to dismissing it out of hand.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You guys keep holding your breath for a utopian world where business owners don't try to maximize profit.
Me choosing to live in reality doesn't mean I'd rather the billionaires keep it over the millionaires, but there isn't a single successful business that pays more than they have to out of the kindness of their heart.
Some pay more than they have to, but it's to retain the talent and working conditions that maximize their profits, not just because they are really generous.

 

I don't have a problem with them profiting personally.  All parties involved are doing this.  

 

I'm no fan of the players as a whole either because they are quick to screw over the minor leaguers.  However....the billionaires also double soak us.  They increase the costs to go to a game and demand our taxes pay for their stadiums.  I know we subsidize a lot of businesses like that, but it doesn't mean I like those either.

 

Frankly, both sides of this are about to force an ugly strike.  And I have a feeling they'll both lose tons of money and fans in the process.  There may be no steroid era to save them this time.  And they'll deserve every ounce of their misfortune.  It's just too bad we the fans keep paying for it as much or more than they do.

[FargoFanMan]

so having a perennial all star for his prime years at a bargain isn’t worth paying for? Who is then? You don’t want to be stuck with him for his age 30 season? This guy isn’t 31 and signing a 7 year deal. He’s 26. He hasn’t even hit his prime years. Why do you think Cano was able to be traded? He produced. Wasn’t a bad deal. Just a bad team. He has character issues? Why? How many reasons are needed to not sign a guy that we should absolutely be in on?

[Otto von Ballpark]

If Machado (or Harper, or Trout for that matter) by themselves can make a team win a World Series, their teams would have won, no?

 

The Twins are better distributing that $ and taking example by teams like the Astros and the Cardinals. Even the Yankees won only one World Series with Arod and the Giants only one with Bonds (but 2 after he left...)

 

A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.

There is no "Grecian ideal" for team building. If the early 2000s Cardinals didn't find Pujols, maybe they invest in a big FA to fill the gap. Same for the current Astros -- would they still eschew big FA additions if their core didn't come together so well?

 

And FYI, the Giants never won a series with Bonds. But they managed to win 3 after signing a big FA bust in Zito...

[twinssporto]

 

"These long term FA contracts" seems to be painting with too broad of a brush. For example, if I am analyzing a potential deal for the 26 year old infielder Machado, I don't really care that the Angels gave a 10 year deal to a 32 year old 1B/DH (Pujols). I don't really care that the Rockies gave an 8 year deal for low-K starting pitcher to come to Coors Field (Hampton). Even the Cubs 8 year deal for a fellow 26 year old (Heyward) -- a premium defender in an outfield corner with questionable offense -- was for a very different profile than Machado. There's a lot of noise around trying to analyze "these kind of contracts" in the aggregate.

That doesn't mean Machado is a slam dunk decison, of course. But at his age and position, it's worth some strong consideration. I really object to dismissing it out of hand.

You are correct. I was referring to the aggregate in my posted comment.  The point I was trying articulate but failed in doing so was this.  After you've seen 10 or more 30 year old 1B/DH types get big FA contracts and underperform or 10 CF type players aged 29 get big FA contracts and either under perform or get injured, etc. it causes some baseball people to hesitate before going the big FA route.  

 

Certainly Machado is an outlier to my above example.  The way the FA market has dropped off a cliff for two years in a row makes me wonder if someone in the private equity, financial risk industry or some actuary type came up with a risk/reward model for the FA market and went around and sold it individually to the various teams...

[Mike Sixel]

If Machado (or Harper, or Trout for that matter) by themselves can make a team win a World Series, their teams would have won, no?

 

The Twins are better distributing that $ and taking example by teams like the Astros and the Cardinals. Even the Yankees won only one World Series with Arod and the Giants only one with Bonds (but 2 after he left...)

 

A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.

Distributing money across four mediocre players is better how?

 

And no one is saying one player can carry a team. No one made that argument.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The Pohlads are the reason we get to watch the Twins and not select a random professional team from another state to cheer for.  I am thankful they haven't tried to squeeze the Twins into the state of California or Texas.

Well, they did try to squeeze the Twins into North Carolina in the 90s

[PseudoSABR]

The question for me isn't so much whether or not Machado is worth the value of an outsized contract, but rather, should Machado not turn out (say like Mauer, but worse?) can the Twins, with its market and revenue, sustain such a happenstance.  If the answer is no, it's reasonable to not take the risk.  That doesn't mean it's the right decision, but it is one I understand.  

[SomeGuy]

Don't worry, your boy Jim will only pay a fraction of the sum he signed to and insurance will take care of the rest in case of a devastating injury. The Pohlads are safe from needing food stamps.

How much does an insurance policy cost on a 300 million dollar investment???

 

Who foots the bill on that insurance policy???

[Mike Sixel]

The question for me isn't so much whether or not Machado is worth the value of an outsized contract, but rather, should Machado not turn out (say like Mauer, but worse?) can the Twins, with its market and revenue, sustain such a happenstance. If the answer is no, it's reasonable to not take the risk. That doesn't mean it's the right decision, but it is one I understand.

Well, they haven't exactly recovered from signing bad player after bad player. Like, the three contracts listed above. Same money, on three players.

 

If you won't take risks, you won't win often.

[SomeGuy]

This is a fair argument, but -- the Twins didn't do this, and I don't think they have ever done this (multiple $50+ mil FA contracts in one offseason). So while you may prefer your scenario, I do wonder if you would also prefer just signing Machado at 8/250 over doing nothing.

 

Additionally, the odds that Machado "fails" on a 8 year contract beginning at age 26 are probably lower than the failure odds on McCutchen and Eovaldi on 4 year deals with their respective ages/positions/health histories. But on the flip side, the odds that Machado produces multiple all-star quality seasons, or even an MVP quality season, are dramatically higher. You've got to balance everything. The job of the front office is not just risk avoidance -- and if they focus too much on risk avoidance, they will probably find themselves out of a job!

 

Heck, the Twins did something like this back in 2013-2015 -- spreading out their FA dollars on Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana -- but I'd still rather have Scherzer. Or even Greinke.

 

I could see an argument for a different allocation of this kind of payroll, but it would probably have to start with a better class of player -- maybe Corbin or Keuchel this offseason?

I cant believe no one has mentioned the Twins own 8 year contract yet. I believe that was the 4th largest contract of all time back in 2011.

 

Seems like the general consensus is that the contract was a terrible idea.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well, they haven't exactly recovered from signing bad player after bad player. Like, the three contracts listed above. Same money, on three players.

If you won't take risks, you won't win often.

I'd actually like to see evidence of lower-to-mid-market teams signing a player/contract of this sort which results in World Series trophies.  

 

This is kind of the opposite of what, say, the Cardinals do; they do make big acquisitions but when it comes to this scale they usually cut bait (I'm thinking of Pujols).  The Twins signed their superstar and lost the roster flexibility that has largely allowed the Cardinals to remain competitive in Pujols' wake.  

[Mike Sixel]

I cant believe no one has mentioned the Twins own 8 year contract yet. I believe that was the 4th largest contract of all time back in 2011.

 

Seems like the general consensus is that the contract was a terrible idea.

Not by the industry, and not by many here. How has not taking risks worked? They have how many playoff wins in the last twenty years?

[Mike Sixel]

I'd actually like to see evidence of lower-to-mid-market teams signing a player/contract of this sort which results in World Series trophies.

 

This is kind of the opposite of what, say, the Cardinals do; they do make big acquisitions but when it comes to this scale they usually cut bait (I'm thinking of Pujols). The Twins signed their superstar and lost the roster flexibility that has largely allowed the Cardinals to remain competitive in Pujols' wake.

The Cards offered Pujols a monster deal, LA just offered more. The twins lost their flexibility by choice. They could have spent more, but chose not to.

 

They also signed Halliday for 120 million, and Carpenter for big bucks. During the same time frame. It's not like they didn't sign long deals, or spend real money.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The Cards offered Pujols a monster deal, LA just offered more. The twins lost their flexibility by choice. They could have spent more, but chose not to.

They also signed Halliday for 120 million, and Carpenter for big bucks. During the same time frame. It's not like they didn't sign long deals, or spend real money.

I can't square the criticism that "the twins lost their flexibility by choice" with your underlying point that the Twins should lose their flexibility by choice now in signing Machado.

 

Is Machado so much more valuable (and worth that much more in cost) than Mauer at the time of his deal?  

[Mr. Brooks]

I can't square the criticism that "the twins lost their flexibility by choice" with your underlying point that the Twins should lose their flexibility by choice now in signing Machado.

 

Is Machado so much more valuable (and worth that much more in cost) than Mauer at the time of his deal?

When Mike says they lost their flexibility by choice, I don't think he means by signing Mauer.

I think he means, the team doesn't have a budget, because billionaire.

 

That's just not reality, Mike.

It's a business to the Pohlad's, no matter how much we think it shouldn't be. The front office has a hard budget. So no, they can't just go spend more money just because their boss is a billionaire.

[Mike Sixel]

I can't square the criticism that "the twins lost their flexibility by choice" with your underlying point that the Twins should lose their flexibility by choice now in signing Machado.

 

Is Machado so much more valuable (and worth that much more in cost) than Mauer at the time of his deal?

He's a lot less likely to have to move to first base. And, has a longer offensive track record. I'd say yes, much more valuable. It is moot. They aren't signing him.

[Danchat]

I certainly don't think Machado is going to accept this deal and I think he'll keep asking for more. I am surprised that more teams aren't jumping into the fray... there are a lot of factors to consider. I wonder if Machado's unsportsmanlike play at times has turned off some teams?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Harper waits to sign his deal until the middle of the season because he'll want more and might not (read: should not) get it.

[Mike Sixel]

When Mike says they lost their flexibility by choice, I don't think he means by signing Mauer.

I think he means, the team doesn't have a budget, because billionaire.

 

That's just not reality, Mike.

It's a business to the Pohlad's, no matter how much we think it shouldn't be. The front office has a hard budget. So no, they can't just go spend more money just because their boss is a billionaire.

Of course they have a budget. Of course they should make money. The question is, how much money, and will they ever succeed if they don't spend?

 

Not everyone agrees, but they can sign a big contract, and still make money. And still have other players on the roster that makes money. IMO.

 

I don't expect them to, however.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I cant believe no one has mentioned the Twins own 8 year contract yet. I believe that was the 4th largest contract of all time back in 2011.

 

Seems like the general consensus is that the contract was a terrible idea.

I'm not sure you are reading the general consensus very well. I think most fans endorsed the Mauer deal when it was signed, and many have also concluded that it didn't turn out that poorly, even if we wanted more. 21.9 bWAR for $184 mil = $8.4 mil per WAR, or roughly the average cost per WAR on the FA market at that time.

 

To the extent that there were any reservations about the contract at the time, or disappointment with how it turned out, it likely centered around the heightened injury potential for catchers. Or if we would have been better off locking up Mauer to a longer deal earlier in his career. Both of which are points not exactly relevant to signing Machado today...

[TheLeviathan]

I thought this article was worth a read.

[Mr. Brooks]

Of course they have a budget. Of course they should make money. The question is, how much money, and will they ever succeed if they don't spend?

 

Not everyone agrees, but they can sign a big contract, and still make money. And still have other players on the roster that makes money. IMO.

 

I don't expect them to, however.

Well I actually do agree. They could.

I even think they should. You have to spend money to make money. Invest in the product, more people will buy it.

 

But, they aren't going to. I've accepted that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I can't square the criticism that "the twins lost their flexibility by choice" with your underlying point that the Twins should lose their flexibility by choice now in signing Machado.

 

Is Machado so much more valuable (and worth that much more in cost) than Mauer at the time of his deal?

I disagree with the notion that the Twins lost flexibility with the Mauer contract. We had plenty of payroll flexibility from 2012 onward, had we needed it. Sadly the org was bereft of talent from bad drafts and trades.

 

Likewise, I think we could add a Machado now, or could have added Corbin + others, and still maintain enough flexibility to supplement any homegrown talent developed over the next few years.

 

Obviously we won't have the ability to sign a big contract like this for the next few years, but I see that as a limitation of reality more than flexibility. There aren't so many young talented FA that one team out of 30 can sign that many anyway. (But that also means you can't overlook any opportunity either.)

[PseudoSABR]

 

He's a lot less likely to have to move to first base. And, has a longer offensive track record. I'd say yes, much more valuable. It is moot. They aren't signing him.

That's supposition.  We don't know what Machado's health would hold.  Only Mauer's position portended health concerns (when did bilateral leg weakness occur?).  I don't dispute that Machado is more valuable, and he's likely to get paid as such (70 million more or so than Mauer). 

 

The point about whether the Twins could actually operate with a contract that size isn't moot, whether we are talking about Machado or someone else in the future.  (But I'm fine with letting the argument be.)

[PseudoSABR]

 

I disagree with the notion that the Twins lost flexibility with the Mauer contract. We had plenty of payroll flexibility from 2012 onward, had we needed it. Sadly the org was bereft of talent from bad drafts and trades.

Likewise, I think we could add a Machado now, or could have added Corbin + others, and still maintain enough flexibility to supplement any homegrown talent developed over the next few years.

Obviously we won't have the ability to sign a big contract like this for the next few years, but I see that as a limitation of reality more than flexibility. There aren't so many young talented FA that one team out of 30 can sign that many anyway. (But that also means you can't overlook any opportunity either.)

The Twins carried over a 100 million in payroll (near or at record levels) for the entirety of Mauer's contract (iirc); the loss flexibility is felt squarely in not being able to make up for poor drafts and trades. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

The question for me isn't so much whether or not Machado is worth the value of an outsized contract, but rather, should Machado not turn out (say like Mauer, but worse?) can the Twins, with its market and revenue, sustain such a happenstance. If the answer is no, it's reasonable to not take the risk. That doesn't mean it's the right decision, but it is one I understand.

I don't see why that answer would be no. With a better farm system, we could have been fine under Mauer's deal, and even survived worse. And Machado has lower risk factors in terms of position and age (Mauer's extension started at age 28, 2 years older than Machado is now).

 

I think trading Machado down the road could also be easier than dealing Mauer ever could have been. Plus, if it turned out much worse, insurance could kick in some relief.

[old nurse]

 

I get that nobody wants top-tier talent to go to the rival team, but we need to think rationally about this.

 

What does Minneapolis have to offer a professional athlete that Chicago can't?

 

We like to tout the outdoors and natural beauty of our state to outsiders, but do we really think any of that matters to a kid that grew up in Miami? Is he spending his off-days during the season rollerblading round Nokomis? Do we really think Manny's sticking around to go ice fishing in the winter?

 

As much as I'm not a fan of Chicago, the dining, the nightlife, etc. (you know, the things that are likely to appeal to a 26-year-old) are better there. I don't think that's even debatable. 

 

Outside business interests? Do you think more endorsement deals and media exposure are coming from the 4th largest media market in the country, or the 15th? Sure, we've got those lucrative Carrier and Old Dutch endorsements to offer up, and maybe Sid can convince the fine folks at Murray's to get Manny some steaks, but do we think it's enough?

 

All of those things are about "building a brand," which is what most of these guys are looking to do these days.

 

The amount the Twins would have to pay to overcompensate for taxes, quality of life (perceived or otherwise), endorsements, etc. would be staggering, in both years and AAS.

 

Now, take everything I said above and swap Manny for Harper and it's the same discussion.

 

Honestly, if they wanted to make a huge splash with one of the league's big names, they'd probably have a better shot at landing Trout in a couple of years ... and the odds of that won't be great, either.

They play baseball mostly at night. I do not think the nightlife thing matters to him as much being married for the last 4 years.  Eating out during the baseball season would not be a big thing, see nightlife.. Even then there are more than enough great eating establishments in this area you could go to a different one every day the 3 1/2 months you are actually here and not hit a bad one.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't see why that answer would be no. With a better farm system, we could have been fine under Mauer's deal, and even survived worse. And Machado has lower risk factors in terms of position and age (Mauer's extension started at age 28, 2 years older than Machado is now).

I think trading Machado down the road could also be easier than dealing Mauer ever could have been. Plus, if it turned out much worse, insurance could kick in some relief.

I don't think your caveat is reasonable--"with a better farm system"; there's too many unknowns, both in terms of the health of your system (sure you can put in a scouting/development process that produces good results, but that process needs to adapt, which is just really hard to do) and the health of the player you are signing.  

 

Sure, if we could sign an Machado and get everything else right, we'd be golden.  But my sense is you try to plan in the error rate of things going wrong when you make a signing of this sort, which I'm not sure the Twins can sustain.  Prospects and stars sustain career injuries, the game changes in a way your front office didn't anticipate, your FO hit on some but not at all of your first round picks, on and on.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Twins carried over a 100 million in payroll (near or at record levels) for the entirety of Mauer's contract (iirc); the loss flexibility is felt squarely in not being able to make up for poor drafts and trades.

The poor drafts and trades preceded the contract. We were pretty aware of them when the contract was signed, hence why we dumped our GM during the first season of Mauer's extension. That's not an issue right now,we have a solid system.

 

Cot's says payroll dipped to $82 mil under Mauer, and only bounced back over $100 mil after the shaky investments in Nolasco and the Hughes extension.

 

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

[jud6312]

 

They play baseball mostly at night. I do not think the nightlife thing matters to him as much being married for the last 4 years.  Eating out during the baseball season would not be a big thing, see nightlife.. Even then there are more than enough great eating establishments in this area you could go to a different one every day the 3 1/2 months you are actually here and not hit a bad one.

No matter how much we like it, Minneapolis is not Chicago in the eyes of the rest of the world - not in terms of size, prestige, media, or really anything else that's offered up. We need to drop the pipe dream that it's not flyover country.