The Darvish Contingency Plan

FormerMinnasotan · February 11, 2018

Well to be blunt we need to sign Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb or our free agency is a bust, and the Twins organization once again proves they aren’t “in it to win it”. We probably will sign a free agent pitcher, but he will probably be worth less than a replacement player but the Twins brass will spin the signing (like Chris Tillman or Wade Miley) as finding a “diamond in the rough” when in reality they might be gone as early as June as they will preform poorly. Trading for Chris Archer is interesting yet with our current depth issues on the rotation and the uncertain future of Archer (his win/loss mark the last 2 yrs is poor, same with his ERA, and batting average against), the thing is could we afford to trade Gonsalves, Romero, or Thorpe if Archer bombs here? Look if we get nothing for our rotation this year it speaks poorly of our front office and wanting to ever “go for it all”.

Mr. Brooks · February 11, 2018

Turning down the Twins 5 year off er was my first clue.

Perhaps the offer wasn't good enough.

NewClearHarley · February 11, 2018

Only way I'd trade Kepler to TB is if it's straight up for Archer. I think sending Kepler, Gordon and either Gonsalves or Romero would be ridiculous.

and in response TB would not accept just Kepler for Archer. Kepler has yet to prove he is more than a platoon-level OF'er at the MLB level. I think he will be, but SP is our position of need LHB RF is not.

Otto von Ballpark · February 11, 2018

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/10/whats-next-for-twins-after-falling-short-in-yu-darvish-derby/

Berardino's piece regarding missing on Darvish. The quote that I don't like:

“By definition doesn’t a player stay with you if he’s performing at a value less than what you’re paying him and he’ll walk if he’s performing at a value above it?” Levine said. “So I don’t know where the benefit is to the club. It seems to me very, very advantageous to the player and would have to take something unique in a negotiation to feel like that’s the right move.”

The benefit to the club is that you got the player you wanted. I was really hoping with the new regime we were over the idea that the team had to "win" every trade and free agent signing.

This is a troubling quote from our front office. The comparison shouldn't be, this contract vs the exact same contract with an opt out. The correct comparison is the contract with an opt out vs. a more expensive / less valuable contract offer without an opt out.

NewClearHarley · February 11, 2018

yeah, you missed my point.

In any event, I wouldn't trade Kepler for Odorizzi.

I got your point and know that Gibson has zero value to anyone outside this organization as anything more than a reclamation project. Odorizzi has a career 8.2 k/9 and the twins analytics team has insight to the pitching prospects from TB. In fact the team was connected to him even before last season. Is he an ace? No. Would he be a top-3 starter this season for us? Yes. With Santana out to start the season, he would probably even be our opening day starter. Would I rather have Archer? Yes, but we could do a lot worse than getting Odorizzi as part of a package.

As for holding on to Kep, I'd love to keep him, but I know that he is a player that TB is interested in. If we got Archer, I'd feel better about trading him - but I'm not going to sweat a #6 hitter that struggles with LHP and who very well could be a career platoon-option. Besides in any deal to better this team, we could agree to take on Denard Span's ugly contract in lieu of dealing additional prospects. Span wouldn't be too large of a dropoff in production from Kepler next year and hopefully we could then use some of this "FA money" that we didn't throw at Darvish to sign another decent starter (Cobb/Lynn) and a potent RHB for the bench.

NewClearHarley · February 11, 2018

I got your point and know that Gibson has zero value to anyone outside this organization as anything more than a reclamation project. Odorizzi has a career 8.2 k/9 and the twins analytics team has insight to the pitching prospects from TB. In fact the team was connected to him even before last season. Is he an ace? No. Would he be a top-3 starter this season for us? Yes. With Santana out to start the season, he would probably even be our opening day starter. Would I rather have Archer? Yes, but we could do a lot worse than getting Odorizzi as part of a package.

As for holding on to Kep, I'd love to keep him, but I know that he is a player that TB is interested in. If we got Archer, I'd feel better about trading him - but I'm not going to sweat a #6 hitter that struggles with LHP and who very well could be a career platoon-option. Besides in any deal to better this team, we could agree to take on Denard Span's ugly contract in lieu of dealing additional prospects. Span wouldn't be too large of a dropoff in production from Kepler next year and hopefully we could then use some of this "FA money" that we didn't throw at Darvish to sign another decent starter (Cobb/Lynn) and a potent RHB for the bench.

Consider it from a replacement level argument - Would you rather have Odorizzi/Archer as our #1 or #2 option along with Span (or other replacement level individual - Maybin/CarGo in RF) or Kepler at RF most of the time (not likely full-time) and Gibson as our #2 option.

KirbyDome89 · February 11, 2018

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/10/whats-next-for-twins-after-falling-short-in-yu-darvish-derby/

Berardino's piece regarding missing on Darvish. The quote that I don't like:

“By definition doesn’t a player stay with you if he’s performing at a value less than what you’re paying him and he’ll walk if he’s performing at a value above it?” Levine said. “So I don’t know where the benefit is to the club. It seems to me very, very advantageous to the player and would have to take something unique in a negotiation to feel like that’s the right move.”

The benefit to the club is that you got the player you wanted. I was really hoping with the new regime we were over the idea that the team had to "win" every trade and free agent signing.

Just saw this....wow....

Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together. I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2.

IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue.

Edited February 11, 2018 by KirbyDome89

rdehring · February 11, 2018

There are several players in the lower level of the organization you do not trade. First is Lewis. You do not trade a potential hall of famer. You also do not trade Javier or Graterol. Both are so far away from the big leagues you are not going to get enough value in return to offset you may be trading your next all-star shortstop or ACE.

As for Darvish signing with the Cubs. Great for him. Six years at that type of money is beyond what the Twins should be giving anyone on the market this year.

TheLeviathan · February 11, 2018

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/10/whats-next-for-twins-after-falling-short-in-yu-darvish-derby/

Berardino's piece regarding missing on Darvish. The quote that I don't like:

“By definition doesn’t a player stay with you if he’s performing at a value less than what you’re paying him and he’ll walk if he’s performing at a value above it?” Levine said. “So I don’t know where the benefit is to the club. It seems to me very, very advantageous to the player and would have to take something unique in a negotiation to feel like that’s the right move.”

The benefit to the club is that you got the player you wanted. I was really hoping with the new regime we were over the idea that the team had to "win" every trade and free agent signing.

Doesn't this all but settle the fact that the Twins knew they were offering a lesser contract (by not offering the opt out) and did so anyway?

Jham · February 11, 2018

Santana will only miss a handful of starts so our rotation of Berrios Gibson Meija Gonsalves? Duffey? Or new signing??? vs. 2017 of Santana Santiago Hughes Meija Gibson (Berrios was called up in May) looks in as good as shape to me to start the year. Keep the faith Twins fans all is not lost! Gonsalves and Romero have a lot of UNPROVEN talent so add them to Berrios and we will see the makings of a young core that we can grow with hopefully sometime in 2018.

Gonsalves and Romero are nice prospects. They are not Sano, Buxton, or even Berrios or Gibson as prospects. Gonsalves has hardly cracked a top 100 list in his career. Ditto the Romero, although this site seems to hold him in much higher regard than others. These aren't blue chippers. I don't think anyone would bet on either of those two being better than Darvish over the next six years. There's a solid chance that neither of the two will have a season as good as Darvish's worst season over that same stretch. But more to the point, we're trying to win this year. World Series runs take talent and luck. Giving up seasons where you could have enough talent to get lucky is disappointing.

I'm concerned that we're gearing up to be sellers at the deadline at this point.

The Wise One · February 11, 2018

The money may not have been the issue. They may have been fine with offering more money. The opt out clause was the issue. I don't see why anyone should have an issue with not wanting to give an opt out clause. If the player is confident they can exceed the contract they should have the conviction in themselves to sign a short term deal.

TNTwinsFan · February 11, 2018

It may have already been said, but I think the Twins need to try to sign Garcia and one of Cobb/Lynn. With ESan out for a couple months, the depth-quality needs to be increased. No other Ace types out there (Arrieta is not that guy.)

Rotation:

Santana

Cobb/Lynn

Berrios

Garcia

Gibson

AAA/DEPTH:

Mejia

Gonsalves

Littel

Romero

May

Hughes

Duffey

Slegers

(Probably forgetting a couple)

Without 2 FA signings, that pushes Mejia/Duffey/Slegers/May/Hughes into slugging it out for 1 spot. Obviously there is a lot of uncertainty with that group and they report this week!

drjim · February 11, 2018

Just saw this....wow....

Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together. I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2.

IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue.

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.

You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.

drjim · February 11, 2018

Doesn't this all but settle the fact that the Twins knew they were offering a lesser contract (by not offering the opt out) and did so anyway?

Depends if they offered before or after the Cubs, which isn't clear, so doesn't really settle anything.

USAFChief · February 11, 2018

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.

You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.

What’s the worst case scenario? The player isn’t performing, and continues on with the contract, just as if there WASNT an opt out clause?

Because that’s what would happen.

And if the player DOES opt out, you’ve gotten two years of him exceeding expectations and now don’t have to pay for the last couple years of the original contract. And I needn’t remind you, those last couple years of a long contract are cited here daily as the big scary boogie-monster to be avoided at all costs.

notoriousgod71 · February 11, 2018

I'm concerned that we're gearing up to be sellers at the deadline at this point.

That's practically a given considering we were sellers in a year we participated in the play-in game.

notoriousgod71 · February 11, 2018

Just saw this....wow....

Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together. I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2.

IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue.

At least he's a clever texter.

TFRazor · February 11, 2018

Gold lining: This means there isn't going to be a Party at Napoli's: Twins Edition now... Hopefully.

drjim · February 11, 2018

What’s the worst case scenario? The player isn’t performing, and continues on with the contract, just as if there WASNT an opt out clause?

Because that’s what would happen.

And if the player DOES opt out, you’ve gotten two years of him exceeding expectations and now don’t have to pay for the last couple years of the original contract. And I needn’t remind you, those last couple years of a long contract are cited here daily as the big scary boogie-monster to be avoided at all costs.

Yes, injury or bad performance and then being stuck with the backend is a worse case scenario. But part if that risk is mitigated by the chance that the player performs and stays healthy and you keep him locked in at a reasonable contract.

I agree with the second part, that was my point. It would be a great outcome to get 2 years at a high but reasonable rate.

An opt out puts all the risk on the team and removes most if the upside. It stands to reason a franchise with ~50% revenue/payroll advantage is more willing to take on that risk.

TheLeviathan · February 11, 2018

Depends if they offered before or after the Cubs, which isn't clear, so doesn't really settle anything.

What does it matter? If philosophically we seem opposed to even treading in those waters we have our answer either way.

And look, the team can draw the line in the sand where it wants and if we find where that line is we can discuss it then. What I'm done hearing is the same old song and dance about how players are turning down our superior offers because it's Minnesota.

The only thing about Minnesota that makes players turn down offers here is our consistent approach of offering inferior contracts. Period.

HitInAPinch · February 11, 2018

Just my thoughts....

I don't like keeping Gibson around any longer. I think we can do better.

Although I question the Rays use in the past 4 years, I'd definitely take a shot at Archer. Reduce his innings from 200+ to around 180 and get his legs back under him.

After that I'd try to sign Cobb and/or Garcia.

Of the 3, I believe Archer is the only one with a contract. If a couple starters in the MiLB are ready during the season, well, there could be room.

drjim · February 11, 2018

What does it matter? If philosophically we seem opposed to even treading in those waters we have our answer either way.

And look, the team can draw the line in the sand where it wants and if we find where that line is we can discuss it then. What I'm done hearing is the same old song and dance about how players are turning down our superior offers because it's Minnesota.

The only thing about Minnesota that makes players turn down offers here is our consistent approach of offering inferior contracts. Period.

I agree it doesn't matter, but you pretty clearly implied they made an offer they already knew was beat. That's an interesting assumption.

I personally don't buy that players won't come to Minnesota. Lots of free agents sign here!

I think it was a mistake for the front office to play this up the way they did, I don't know what they hoped to gain (and it's especially bad if they don't sign one of the other 3 main pitchers). I do think there was reason to hope that the big markets wouldn't go 6 years or opt out, but if LA and Chicago really wanted Darvish, Twins weren't going to outbid them. But I don't agree with you it predestined that this was the outcome, just that the odds the Twins would get him was small.

olivia11 · February 11, 2018

Any idea on what it would take to get McHugh from Houston?

Rosenthal suggested Twins might have interested in trading for him after the Darvish news broke. The Dodgers basically have 7 starters right now so it seems like it would make a lot of sense. They're ML team is loaded, so maybe they'd be looking for some high-upside, high-risk prospects who are further away to continue their window. Either way, the price has to be considerably cheaper since McHugh isn't as good as Archer, is a year older and has fewer years of team control (at likely at more money). Maybe most importantly, Houston isn't in a situation like Tampa Bay where they'll only trade him if they can get a franchise-saving return that's worth the risk of not having Archer while also trying to build a new stadium.

TheLeviathan · February 11, 2018

I agree it doesn't matter, but you pretty clearly implied they made an offer they already knew was beat. That's an interesting assumption.

I personally don't buy that players won't come to Minnesota. Lots of free agents sign here!

I think it was a mistake for the front office to play this up the way they did, I don't know what they hoped to gain (and it's especially bad if they don't sign one of the other 3 main pitchers). I do think there was reason to hope that the big markets wouldn't go 6 years or opt out, but if LA and Chicago really wanted Darvish, Twins weren't going to outbid them. But I don't agree with you it predestined that this was the outcome, just that the odds the Twins would get him was small.

Fair enough, your last paragraph is a part people really don't seem to get:

The big markets were largely non-factors this season. It's not like we went into the usual FA fight armed with a butter knife against the tanks of NY and LA. Everyone came to this fight with sporks and we couldn't even muster up the courage to get out the butter knife.

Dave The Dastardly · February 11, 2018

Does anyone actually have any evidence that Darvish didn't want to come here?

Evidence? On a fans' site? I thought we were restricted to hyperbole, uninformed opinions and pure speculation! At least that's been my modus operandi.

Otto von Ballpark · February 11, 2018

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.

You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.

Actually, another worst case is you don't land the player. Or you have to guarantee more up front to land the player ($160 mil, in this case?).

Dave The Dastardly · February 11, 2018

“By definition doesn’t a player stay with you if he’s performing at a value less than what you’re paying him and he’ll walk if he’s performing at a value above it?” Levine said.

I haven't yet been "sold" on the new Twins regime, but I don't understand the controversy over that remark. As a man who has in the past been involved in numerous salary negotiations, I think Levine is spot on. The trick is to find that point where the organization is getting exactly what they're paying for and the player is being paid for exactly what they're contributing to the organization. If you can't find that point, its best to walk away from the deal because one side or the other will be disappointed. Disappointment leads to disarray.

Hosken Bombo Disco · February 11, 2018

I thought I would wake up to the news that the Twins signed Cobb. He's the contingency, right? Is Cobb also refusing to offer the Twins a discount? Damn him!

drjim · February 11, 2018

Fair enough, your last paragraph is a part people really don't seem to get:

The big markets were largely non-factors this season. It's not like we went into the usual FA fight armed with a butter knife against the tanks of NY and LA. Everyone came to this fight with sporks and we couldn't even muster up the courage to get out the butter knife.

A big market signed him for a pretty big contract.

TheLeviathan · February 11, 2018

A big market signed him for a pretty big contract.

Now you're not even trying. Or trying too hard.

Sign In

The Darvish Contingency Plan

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

Join the conversation