Derek Falvey Discusses Returns, Future

The FO did a good job. And even better, now they can get a head start on next year.

The guy has been GM for two years now. Think he deserves a little time before he is hung out to dry.

The moves he made with exception of Esky didnt really have much affect on the team and I still believe Esky might be back.

I for one am glad that we have a regime that does not sit on its hands at deadline time, one way or the other.

This team clearly could not contend without Sano and Buxton being healthy and productive, among other things, and had little chance to catch the Indians. So they turned expiring contracts into a bunch of prospects. Good. Makes it more fun as a fan and gives the team assets to use in the future.

This is a defining off-season coming up for Falvine. More financial flexibility and prospects to trade than I can ever recall.

I want them to put their stamp on this team and be BOLD. The boldest move they could do is recruit and sign Machado. Front load the hell out of that contract and give him $60 million next year if that's what it takes.

Be creative. Be bold. Put your stamp on this organization Falvey.

The defining draft was 2017. The defining trade deadline was 2018. Seems like you're missing a good show. 

The boldest move they could make is signing Kershaw and Harper.

I'm cautiously optimistic. Reportedly they tried to keep Escobar but his agent wouldn't bite with free agency a few months ahead, so they traded him. In return for players who, aside from Eskie, wouldn't be back anyway, they got a small boatload of prospects. This is how Houston did it. It paid off. If this year made one thing clear, it's that there aren't very many sure-fire free agents. Last year was exciting; this year, meh. Better to cut bait and prepare for next year. The Indians are too far ahead, they've been a .500 team, at best, ever since they started 9-15, and there are no wild cards to be had. Disappointing. Se la vie.

The only way they sign Kershaw or Harper or Machado is if Falvey hits them over the head with a bat and Levine forges their signature. Guys like that aren't going to sign with the Twins just like Lebron James doesn't sign with the Timberwolves, there are better places for them to ply their services. First we need to start winning, then (and only then) will top free agents seriously consider Minnesota.

I don't know. They were in on Darvish to the end and simply couldn't match the Cubs financial might. They also made fair market offers to Lynn and Morrison, dropping $20 million to take advantage of the market. I think all three of those set the stage for the Twins to be players in free agency. They're not going to get Bryce Harper or Machado but they'll be able to make some moves.

The Darvish situation was a black eye all around for the FO.

They were "in," on him to the tune of $100isM over 5 years, which was an offer that was never likely to get a deal done. Darvish eventually signed a deal that was still considerably under expected market value. If he truly was a priority and the organization was actually willing to make a serious offer heading into FA then I have a hard time believing they couldn't have beaten the Cub's offer. 

That quickly morphed into the FO being wise not to sign him. If they could foresee his struggles this season then why bother with the 5 year offer + media hype in the first place? 

They dug Lynn and Morrison out of the bargain bin, which isn't anything new for this organization. They'll be players in FA ,if for no reason other than they won't be able to fill all their roster holes internally. The goal should be to aim higher than "value signings." IMO there isn't much to suggest that'll happen. 

The Darvish situation was a black eye all around for the FO.

It was? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would sign Darvish if I were GM. I said all along he is too injury prone. Look at how many innings he has logged for the Cubs so far this year.

The Cubs have a good roster and can overpay for a guy like Darvish and still win games. The Twins are do not have that kind of depth. Giving Darvish what he wanted would have sunk this team for a long time. The Cubs are stuck with him until 2023!

As an anti Free agent commentator I am constantly against the big signing for players over 30. Someday I hope that someday we can get a study on the actual return for free agents signed by age and position. Pujols is a good example. For what he's getting paid he's a shell of his Hall of Fame self. I believe that you have to gather and develop the young players and when they're at a position where one or two changes can put them over the top that's when you make the investment but not like we did this year with Morrison and Lynn and Rodney and Duke and read and odorizzi

Glad the Twins didn't but I won't pretend I thought 5 for $100 was a stupid gamble for the Twins. It actually felt just about right to get a potential ace pitcher. (and FWIW I would've done the Arietta deal in a heartbeat as well).

I would have been all over Arrieta with no hesitation. The Twins could have pulled off the contract he got, too.

Oh man, I think this is revisionist thinking,

 

First of all, no one saw Darvish struggling this year. People thought the end of that deal would be a bear and people overreacted to Game 7 and said he wasn’t a true #1 pitcher but no one said “Darvish is going to get hurt year 1.” I don’t think we’re saying anything bad about the FO in saying they were in on Darvish. If the Twins had gotten him for 5 at $100 million, everyone would’ve thought that a good deal. Anything else is MMQBing. Front office personnel never pretend to be omniscient, it’s the fans talking afterwards who do (and then expect the FO to have been so beforehand).

 

And I also think you’re forgetting that the Twins were very much in. They had the top offer on the market for a good amount of time (3-5 days?) Darvish’s agents did the right thing and used that offer to drive up the price but it took a long while for the Cubs to bite. No one else was in on it – Yanks and Dodgers were watching luxury tax, Red Sox were interested in hitting, Astros went with a trade. The Twins came much closer than you’re giving them credit for to getting Darvish. (Thankfully they didn’t!)

 

That deal almost did get it done. Arietta got three years $75 and that was the other big arm out there. The market was depressed last offseason and it was a chance for a smaller market to be able to afford the biggest pitching name on the market. If not for the Cubs, we’d be bemoaning the albatross contract and Target would be selling Darvish T’s on the clearance rack.

You're missing the point. We agree that 5/100isM would've been a steal. We agree that the market was depressed. IMO that's all the more reason to question the desire to spend the $$ it takes to bring back elite talent. If they're making offers that clearly aren't likely to get a deal done in a depressed market, where as you said, the big FA players are sitting out, why should we believe they'll pay sticker price in 19'? 

Of course they wouldn't have predicted Darvish would have the season he has. The "foresee," part was tongue in cheek. What that means is they shouldn't be given credit for "avoiding signing Darvish," because they submitted a lowball bid, and they shouldn't in turn be praised for that low offer.

C'mon. Lynn and Morrison weren’t the bargain bin. How long have you been a Twins fan? Rondell White was bargain bin. Tony Bautista was bargain bin. Juan Castro was bargain bin.

 

Lynn and Morrison were two guys who the market fell out on. Lynn’s qualifying offer, the (over?)valuing of draft picks, the desire of big markets to stay under the tax for this offseason, and increasing analytics meant that Lynn and Morrison weren’t going to get the long-term deals they wanted.

 

At that point, the Twins paid fair market value for one year deals. Both guys saw a chance to come to a team that could contend and build up their value for 2019 when teams are likely spending again. The Twins didn’t play it cheap – they played it conservative. They weren’t in on either guy long term because they have a young team and wanted to keep payroll flexible. They waited out the market and made two smart signings.

 

Neither worked out but that’s the way it goes sometimes. They weren’t in the bargain bin though. Maybe the sale aisle but that’s just smart shopping.

They weren't huh? I guess I missed where they had interest around the league and the Twins were able to convince them to forego better deals to sign with them for 1 year and 1 year + a team option. 

"The market fell out on," i.e. bargain bin. 

They retained that illustrious payroll flexibility because nobody was willing to hand either of those guys a long term deal.

It was? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would sign Darvish if I were GM. I said all along he is too injury prone. Look at how many innings he has logged for the Cubs so far this year.

The Cubs have a good roster and can overpay for a guy like Darvish and still win games. The Twins are do not have that kind of depth. Giving Darvish what he wanted would have sunk this team for a long time. The Cubs are stuck with him until 2023!

That's great for you but it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Reality is that the Twins made an offer, albeit low, and weren't successful. We shouldn't be praising them for avoiding an apparent mistake that they obviously had some intention to make.