Report: Darvish Decision Expected This Week, Twins In Consideration

Otto von Ballpark · January 30, 2018

I can only state my beliefs and as you have seen I try to find whatever I can to substantiate them so let me offer this blog - https://www.fangraphs.com/community/be-wary-of-long-term-deals-for-free-agents/
The title is beware of long term free agents - to which I say - AMEN brother. "The overall numbers for the group though was not promising. Whether this is due to many of these players aging which could be highly likely, or just never getting settled with a new ballclub. It seems teams looking at signing Free Agents to deals of 3 years or longer should not expect much out of the players."

Or the next report that says, "Seven players signed deals worth at least $100 million in guaranteed salaries. Eight players signed contracts that gave them the right to opt-out of their deal at some point and re-enter the free agent market if their value goes up. Middle relievers and bench players made multi-year deals a standard for players who used to have to go year to year. This past winter was, by any definition, a league-wide spending spree.
But as we approach the end of the first year of these contracts, there seems to be one developing theme; the teams that spent the most money in free agency probably wish they hadn’t.
With only a couple of exceptions, the high-end range of last winter’s free agent class have been soul-crushing disappointments. Let’s just get right to some numbers. Here are the 13 players who signed for at least $70 million over the winter, and how they’re performing this season." https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-so-far-disastrous-crop-of-2016-free-agents/

This is where I stand. Since I cannot influence the Twins I only stand on the side lines and say - don't do it.

The first blog post you link is pretty vague, but I notice it doesn't cover pitchers at all, only position players. And using averages across a group of players seems like a terrible methodology for this -- if 10 free agents sign, and 9 of them perform exactly as expected and 1 crashes like Chone Figgins, guess what? The average of the whole group of 10 will show a decline. Does that mean all free agent contracts are bad? And ultimately, how does the fact that Chone Figgins flopped on a free agent deal 10 years ago really affect the Twins pursuit of Yu Darvish today?

The second article you reference was judging those signings on the first 4 months. Justin Upton and Zack Greinke were both judged as flops at that time, and both were ~6 WAR all stars the next year. I don't think the author of that article would at all endorse your interpretation of it (which seems to be, never sign free agents, ever).

Otto von Ballpark · January 30, 2018

No team does better by taking someone else's player than they do by developing their own.

So... should we give back Ervin Santana?

Mike Sixel · January 30, 2018

No - I understand what you are saying, but I am not excited by these either. See what I posted for Spycake. No team does better by taking someone else's player than they do by developing their own. I prefer a Mauer contract for someone we develop than a Pujols contract for someone else's star that is about to fade.

no one is disputing that.......but no team is built w/o FA or trades, well, no winning team. At some point, you have the money, you spend it or pocket it. The Twins aren't going to develop their way to a championship, or much of anything else, this year. They have no one in AAA that is ready to come up in the first half, and no big time prospects in AA or AAA that look likely to dominate this year.

Again, no one is disputing that players a team develops are cheaper, and more efficient. No one.

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

I prefer a Mauer contract for someone we develop than a Pujols contract for someone else's star that is about to fade.

Given we are talking about a potential contract about half the length and value of Pujols' deal, and we don't have an equivalent of 2009 Mauer to extend to avoid impending FA, I am not sure if this statement is particularly relevant.

The options are: sign Darvish, sign an arguably lesser FA pitcher for less (but still probably $60-70 mil), trade a lot of talent for a SP (Lewis+ for Archer?), or do nothing.

Those are your options. You can't just hide behind the fantasy of finding another player or contract that doesn't exist. There is a very real chance that Darvish is your best chance at a net improvement for the Twins in the near future, even at 5/125 or whatever. You may not like Darvish, or free agency, or the economic structure of baseball in general, but that doesn't change that basic fact.

Riverbrian · January 31, 2018

No - I understand what you are saying, but I am not excited by these either. See what I posted for Spycake. No team does better by taking someone else's player than they do by developing their own. I prefer a Mauer contract for someone we develop than a Pujols contract for someone else's star that is about to fade.

I respect your opinion... but you are basically saying that you are out on Free Agency. Not only turning off the spigot but removing it from the house followed by welding the pipe shut.

In my opinion... you are right and also wrong at the same time.

Right: The basic outline of your opinion really can't be argued. Teams are indeed signing long term contracts to players who often don't perform at a level that the terms of the contract suggest they should.

Wrong: Your fear of a less than optimal result isn't reasonable despite being correct on your basic point. The cost of these contracts is baked into the ledgers so teams are mitigating the end result... whatever that may be. All teams should be able to afford a big contract or two regardless if they work out because the CBA keeps those young players that make up the majority of a roster at the league minimum or at least somewhat affordable while they are controlloble. If a team can't afford a big contract or two... the churn will be hard to stomach. I don't want my Twins to take the approach that the Rays and A's take. We are a small market but I don't think we have to act quite as small as Oakland and Tampa.

You have used Pujols as an example of a bad contract numerous times. Open it up and take a look at the payments by year.

2012: Age 32 - 12M

2013: Age 33 - 16M

2014: Age 34 - 23M

2015: Age 35 - 24M

2016: Age 36 - 25M

2017: Age 37 - 26M

2018: Age 38 - 27M

2019: Age 39 - 28M

2020: Age 40 - 29M

2021: Age 41 - 30M

I'm sure you don't believe that Jerry Dipoto was thinking that Albert Pujols was going to have his best year at age 41 and therefore paid the most in that final year.

I'm also sure that you probably believe that Jerry Dipoto was probably fully aware that Pujols may actually be a liability at age 41.

Yet... the Angels paying him more that final year. Dipoto and Arte Moreno went ahead, offered and signed the contract anyway.

That should tell you that the clubs are baking the cost, the risk, the decline... all of it into the process or they wouldn't pay him the highest dollar amount at age 41. It would make them ridiculous.

I feel it is a mistake to assume that the Pujols contract is "damaging" or horrible. The Angels had their eyes wide open and were not duped or tricked. They did it because he was available and he entered free agency with a .328 career average and 445 home runs over 11 seasons. He was a once in a generation type of player. They did it because the other teams also wanted him.

I've read comments from time to time suggesting that the Cards were smart to let Pujols go. However... The Cards reportedly offered Pujols a 10 year deal as well for 210 million. Same length and close to 4 million less AAV so the Cards were also willing to pay Pujols a lot of money into the age of 41 to keep him in St. Louis. They both wanted the player and who wouldn't want him.

With the CBA... If you want the player it's nearly impossible to control the terms unless nobody else wants the player. You simply determine... Do you want him? If you do... You have to put the algorithms down. You have to put the actuary tables down.

If the answer is NO... it simple... let somebody else pay... If the answer is kinda but you like some other options... then you can mess around a little. But if the Answer is Yes... or in the Twins case... The Answer is Yes and he is really the only player you seem to want... You can't mess around. Regression, injury risk... none of that matters anymore.

I know you understand all of this but... in the end... it really weakens your point when you say that you would do 3 years for Darvish because it is similar to saying I'll give you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for that Cadillac Escalade.

Your Answer to the question "Do you Want Him?" is clearly NO.

I'm answering the question "Yes". I'm just hoping to convince you that you are letting the dollar amount get in your way.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

The first blog post you link is pretty vague, but I notice it doesn't cover pitchers at all, only position players. And using averages across a group of players seems like a terrible methodology for this -- if 10 free agents sign, and 9 of them perform exactly as expected and 1 crashes like Chone Figgins, guess what? The average of the whole group of 10 will show a decline. Does that mean all free agent contracts are bad? And ultimately, how does the fact that Chone Figgins flopped on a free agent deal 10 years ago really affect the Twins pursuit of Yu Darvish today?

The second article you reference was judging those signings on the first 4 months. Justin Upton and Zack Greinke were both judged as flops at that time, and both were ~6 WAR all stars the next year. I don't think the author of that article would at all endorse your interpretation of it (which seems to be, never sign free agents, ever).

That's okay, I understand your frustration with my stand, but I remain a FA skeptic.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

So... should we give back Ervin Santana?

Nope, we should just recognize that we also signed Corriea, Pelfrey and Nolasco. Batting 25% is not that great, but I am happy to have Ervin.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

no one is disputing that.......but no team is built w/o FA or trades, well, no winning team. At some point, you have the money, you spend it or pocket it. The Twins aren't going to develop their way to a championship, or much of anything else, this year. They have no one in AAA that is ready to come up in the first half, and no big time prospects in AA or AAA that look likely to dominate this year.

Again, no one is disputing that players a team develops are cheaper, and more efficient. No one.

I remember the 87 world champions - number 1 Viola, number 2 Blyleven - number 3 Les Straker. We have some time to develop more and better arms.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

Given we are talking about a potential contract about half the length and value of Pujols' deal, and we don't have an equivalent of 2009 Mauer to extend to avoid impending FA, I am not sure if this statement is particularly relevant.

The options are: sign Darvish, sign an arguably lesser FA pitcher for less (but still probably $60-70 mil), trade a lot of talent for a SP (Lewis+ for Archer?), or do nothing.

Those are your options. You can't just hide behind the fantasy of finding another player or contract that doesn't exist. There is a very real chance that Darvish is your best chance at a net improvement for the Twins in the near future, even at 5/125 or whatever. You may not like Darvish, or free agency, or the economic structure of baseball in general, but that doesn't change that basic fact.

I can accept your logic and still reject the action. Give me Darvish for three years and I am fine - more and I walk away.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

I respect your opinion... but you are basically saying that you are out on Free Agency. Not only turning off the spigot but removing it from the house followed by welding the pipe shut.

In my opinion... you are right and also wrong at the same time.

Right: The basic outline of your opinion really can't be argued. Teams are indeed signing long term contracts to players who often don't perform at a level that the terms of the contract suggest they should.

Wrong: Your fear of a less than optimal result isn't reasonable despite being correct on your basic point. The cost of these contracts is baked into the ledgers so teams are mitigating the end result... whatever that may be. All teams should be able to afford a big contract or two regardless if they work out because the CBA keeps those young players that make up the majority of a roster at the league minimum or at least somewhat affordable while they are controlloble. If a team can't afford a big contract or two... the churn will be hard to stomach. I don't want my Twins to take the approach that the Rays and A's take. We are a small market but I don't think we have to act quite as small as Oakland and Tampa.

You have used Pujols as an example of a bad contract numerous times. Open it up and take a look at the payments by year.

2012: Age 32 - 12M
2013: Age 33 - 16M
2014: Age 34 - 23M
2015: Age 35 - 24M
2016: Age 36 - 25M
2017: Age 37 - 26M
2018: Age 38 - 27M
2019: Age 39 - 28M
2020: Age 40 - 29M
2021: Age 41 - 30M

I'm sure you don't believe that Jerry Dipoto was thinking that Albert Pujols was going to have his best year at age 41 and therefore paid the most in that final year.

I'm also sure that you probably believe that Jerry Dipoto was probably fully aware that Pujols may actually be a liability at age 41.

Yet... the Angels paying him more that final year. Dipoto and Arte Moreno went ahead, offered and signed the contract anyway.

That should tell you that the clubs are baking the cost, the risk, the decline... all of it into the process or they wouldn't pay him the highest dollar amount at age 41. It would make them ridiculous.

I feel it is a mistake to assume that the Pujols contract is "damaging" or horrible. The Angels had their eyes wide open and were not duped or tricked. They did it because he was available and he entered free agency with a .328 career average and 445 home runs over 11 seasons. He was a once in a generation type of player. They did it because the other teams also wanted him.

I've read comments from time to time suggesting that the Cards were smart to let Pujols go. However... The Cards reportedly offered Pujols a 10 year deal as well for 210 million. Same length and close to 4 million less AAV so the Cards were also willing to pay Pujols a lot of money into the age of 41 to keep him in St. Louis. They both wanted the player and who wouldn't want him.

With the CBA... If you want the player it's nearly impossible to control the terms unless nobody else wants the player. You simply determine... Do you want him? If you do... You have to put the algorithms down. You have to put the actuary tables down.

If the answer is NO... it simple... let somebody else pay... If the answer is kinda but you like some other options... then you can mess around a little. But if the Answer is Yes... or in the Twins case... The Answer is Yes and he is really the only player you seem to want... You can't mess around. Regression, injury risk... none of that matters anymore.

I know you understand all of this but... in the end... it really weakens your point when you say that you would do 3 years for Darvish because it is similar to saying I'll give you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for that Cadillac Escalade.

Your Answer to the question "Do you Want Him?" is clearly NO.

I'm answering the question "Yes". I'm just hoping to convince you that you are letting the dollar amount get in your way.

You know I am enjoying these exchanges and I like the fact that everyone is working to justify their choices - I hope the Twins are doing the same. Give me Cobb and Lynn for the same amount or less and I am better off - that is my choice. A Cadillac without tires is no better than a Ford and Chevy that has tires and full tanks.

But thanks for the great response.

jimmer · January 31, 2018

Darvish in his six years has produced 19 fWAR for 56M...and he missed one season. So he gave roughly 85M in surplus value (again, even with missing a year). He was a steal. And, btw it's funny people are ragging on a guy for his 2017 W Series appearance when he made 11M in 2017 which is relative peanuts in today's game .

ANYWAY, is a 6 year contract bad if a pitcher makes, say, 22M a season and is worth:

Year One: 30M

Year Two: 28M

Year Three: 25M

Year Four: 18M

Year Five: 16M

Year Six: 13M

Yeah, towards the end, it'll look bad, but the team still gets it's money's worth AND hopefully during our window of opportunity he's doing his best work (if you figure our window is now).

Edited January 31, 2018 by jimmer

jimmer · January 31, 2018

I remember the 87 world champions - number 1 Viola, number 2 Blyleven - number 3 Les Straker. We have some time to develop more and better arms.

And boy we have a great track record of doing that...one in the last 11 years or so.

Riverbrian · January 31, 2018

You know I am enjoying these exchanges and I like the fact that everyone is working to justify their choices - I hope the Twins are doing the same. Give me Cobb and Lynn for the same amount or less and I am better off - that is my choice. A Cadillac without tires is no better than a Ford and Chevy that has tires and full tanks.
But thanks for the great response.

LOL

Norm's Tire Sales in Roseville open's at 7:30 every morning.

Riverbrian · January 31, 2018

To Mikelink, on a personal note. I do tip my hat to you.

You have doggedly stuck to your opinion against all comers and you have done so respectfully and that shows you are first class guy.

Your courage and grace deserves that respect... the same type of respect that I would offer to that brave guy or gal who rushes into a burning building to save a salamander.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

And boy we have a great track record of doing that...one in the last 11 years or so.

That is why we changed the leadership.

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

Nope, we should just recognize that we also signed Corriea, Pelfrey and Nolasco. Batting 25% is not that great, but I am happy to have Ervin.

Worth noting that Correia and Pelfrey met the expectations of their modest contracts -- the problem was the front office was aiming too low. Failing to make even a competitive offer for Darvish would seem to increase the likelihood of that problem reoccurring (with greater negative effects now given the rest of our roster).

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

Give me Cobb and Lynn for the same amount or less and I am better off - that is my choice.

Thanks for the clarification. I feel like you might now be under-rating the difficulty of actually landing free agents by targeting a combination of two. The Cobb plus Lynn plan has more moving parts outside the Twins control -- if you only manage to land one but not the other, you will be suboptimally using your resources anyway. Imagine a fantasy draft, and you have 50 dollars to spend, you might think you are being smart by passing on the 40 dollar guy and planning to draft two 20 dollar guys instead, but if someone else swoops in and drafts the 2nd guy before you can, you may wind up with $20 that you are unable to allocate on anything useful.

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

I also realized in the other thread that Steamer projects Cobb and Lynn to about 3.8 WAR combined in 2018 (prorated to 31 starts each, or 62 total), and Darvish at 3.8 WAR per 31 starts all by himself. The latter would be significantly more valuable than the former.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

Thanks for the clarification. I feel like you might now be under-rating the difficulty of actually landing free agents by targeting a combination of two. The Cobb plus Lynn plan has more moving parts outside the Twins control -- if you only manage to land one but not the other, you will be suboptimally using your resources anyway. Imagine a fantasy draft, and you have 50 dollars to spend, you might think you are being smart by passing on the 40 dollar guy and planning to draft two 20 dollar guys instead, but if someone else swoops in and drafts the 2nd guy before you can, you may wind up with $20 that you are unable to allocate on anything useful.

Right now the swooping is around Darvish - Brewer's, Cubs, Yankees. I would move on the lower level while all the discussion is on Yu.

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

Right now the swooping is around Darvish - Brewer's, Cubs, Yankees. I would move on the lower level while all the discussion is on Yu.

That assumes Cobb and Lynn are willing to move much at this point. If Darvish gets 6 years, Cobb and Lynn probably think they could leverage that into 5 year deals for themselves. With a ton of guys still unsigned, there is not much risk for Cobb and Lynn to continue to wait too.

Also, the Yankees talk around Darvish is just that, talk. Same for the Dodgers. There is no way those teams can move the Ellsbury or Kemp contracts at this point, and they need to reset the luxury tax penalties before next offseason.

laloesch · January 31, 2018

Right now the swooping is around Darvish - Brewer's, Cubs, Yankees. I would move on the lower level while all the discussion is on Yu.

I agree. If the Twins aren't willing to pay whatever the cost ends up being to get Yu, even going six years, then they need to move to the next tier of free agent starters ASAP.

Cobb, Lynn, and possibly Arrieta. I just hope they don't get stuck with someone like Tillman because no-one wants to go to Minnesota. If that's the case I would rather not sign anyone and let the young kids play in 2018, if he's the only option left on the table at the end of all of this.

That said, I think they'll come away with someone here of significance. It may not be Yu but i could see them signing Lynn or Cobb.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

That assumes Cobb and Lynn are willing to move much at this point. If Darvish gets 6 years, Cobb and Lynn probably think they could leverage that into 5 year deals for themselves. With a ton of guys still unsigned, there is not much risk for Cobb and Lynn to continue to wait too.

Also, the Yankees talk around Darvish is just that, talk. Same for the Dodgers. There is no way those teams can move the Ellsbury or Kemp contracts at this point, and they need to reset the luxury tax penalties before next offseason.

I have learned to never underestimate the Yankees - getting Stanton was over the top, reminds me of 1961 - the year the Twins and Vikings came in to being. We celebrated the new teams - they had Mantle and Maris.

laloesch · January 31, 2018

I have learned to never underestimate the Yankees - getting Stanton was over the top, reminds me of 1961 - the year the Twins and Vikings came in to being. We celebrated the new teams - they had Mantle and Maris.

Yeah those must have been great times. I can only imagine the excitement that Vikings and Twins fans felt in 1960 / 1961 when it all started and seeing marquee names such as Mantle and Maris come to Metropolitan Stadium for the first time.

Otto von Ballpark · January 31, 2018

I have learned to never underestimate the Yankees - getting Stanton was over the top, reminds me of 1961 - the year the Twins and Vikings came in to being. We celebrated the new teams - they had Mantle and Maris.

The Stanton trade was great (for them!), but they pretty much used up all their flexibility to do it.

ashbury · January 31, 2018

I also realized in the other thread that Steamer projects Cobb and Lynn to about 3.8 WAR combined in 2018 (prorated to 31 starts each, or 62 total), and Darvish at 3.8 WAR per 31 starts all by himself. The latter would be significantly more valuable than the former.

It is hard to overstate the constraint that the 25-man roster represents, when trying to contend as a top team. Much less of a limiting factor when you're just putzing around as a bottom-feeder.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

Yeah those must have been great times. I can only imagine the excitement that Vikings and Twins fans felt in 1960 / 1961 when it all started and seeing marquee names such as Mantle and Maris come to Metropolitan Stadium for the first time.

I loved the excitement. Vic Power was the person who most impressed me - great glove, great smile.

mikelink45 · January 31, 2018

The Stanton trade was great (for them!), but they pretty much used up all their flexibility to do it.

I wish. But remember I have been around to see the Yankees pilfer Maris. They do not just sign free agents - they trade too - http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/wheeling-dealing-9-biggest-trades-yankees-history-article-1.3688394 And of course they are not too bad with Free Agents, but more selective than people might think - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2309283-new-york-yankees-5-best-offseason-signings-of-the-last-decade

twinssporto · January 31, 2018

Note to Moderators - This thread should be re-titled: "Still Waiting..."

ashbury · February 1, 2018

Note to Moderators - This thread should be re-titled: "Still Waiting..."

We'll get to it, sometime this week.

Mike Sixel · February 1, 2018

We'll get to it, sometime this week.

"this"....riiiiiight.....

Sign In

Report: Darvish Decision Expected This Week, Twins In Consideration

Twins Video

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

The Players Project

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites