Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Forums

Nick Gordon and G-Cinco

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 01:23 AM
Yahoo Sports! has a really good article on Nick Gordon's budding rap career. He's got an album now. He's had three videos. It's been a bu...
Full topic ›

Article: Twins Acquire Jake Odorizzi From Rays For Jermai...

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 01:00 AM
According to multiple reports, the Twins have acquired RHP Jake Odorizzi from the Tampa Bay Rays in exchange for shortstop prospect Jerma...
Full topic ›

Article: Twins Daily 2018 Top Prospects: #5 Alex Kirilloff

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 12:51 AM
Tommy John surgery can be a scary proposition especially for young players going under the knife. Luckily, the Twins have seen players su...
Full topic ›

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

Minnesota Twins Talk Yesterday, 11:50 PM
News came out late Friday afternoon that the Twins have reached an agreement with free agent right-hander Anibal Sanchez. The veteran wil...
Full topic ›

T-Wolves Regular Season Thread

Minnesota Timberwolves Talk Yesterday, 11:17 PM
Let's get this mother started.    
Full topic ›

Don't Panic Over Bad Breaks For Twins Rotation

If you're freaking out about the Twins rotation right now, that's understandable.

The past week has brought a couple of seemingly grave developments. Ervin Santana will probably miss the first month of the season, and Minnesota has officially lost out in the Yu Darvish sweepstakes. No one could deny that the present layout of the rotation looks grim.

But there are some silver linings at play here.
Image courtesy of Brad Rempel, USA Today
First, let's talk about Santana. Losing your top starter for a chunk of the season hurts, there's no other way to slice it.

It's troubling to imagine where the Twins might have been at the end of May last year without Santana carrying the staff through the first two months, when he logged 77 innings with a 1.75 ERA over 11 starts.

But here's the thing: Minnesota absolutely should NOT have been counting on the same impact in 2018. For a variety of reasons, Santana was all but certain to see regression this year. I've been banging that drum all offseason, and the recently released PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus express similar reservations, forecasting Erv for a 4.76 ERA and 1.41 WHIP.

Even before this injury news came out, expecting the same Ervin Santana from 2017 to return in 2018 was folly. If the Twins held any such expectations (and their lack of urgency to add rotation help would seemingly suggest it), those are now out the door.

Even if the right-hander rejoins the team after a relatively short absence, there's no assurance his surgically repaired middle finger will enable him to throw sliders with the same superior spin and command. Any diminishment for that pitch – easily the most critical in his arsenal – would be very bad news. The Twins have to recognize this risk, and it should theoretically increase their motivation to add another high-caliber starting pitcher.

That's good.

Also, the timing of Santana's missed time could be viewed as a hidden blessing. Some fans have expressed frustration that the issue wasn't dealt with surgically last fall, but getting it done ahead of spring training should minimize his lost regular-season time, and might even prove helpful in ways for him and the club.

For a veteran player like Santana, spring training doesn't have much value. Obviously he needs to ramp up his pitch counts and prepare for the summer's workload, but as far as actually competing in games? He's just throwing hundreds of meaningless pitches, and taking away innings from younger players who have something to prove, and to gain.

Now, Santana will rehab and ramp up on his own terms. The team's official statement asserts that the hurler's "expected return to Major League game activity is 10-12 weeks" from the date of the surgery. That phrasing is a little odd, but if we take it at face value, then the Twins anticipate having Santana back on the mound starting games before the first of May.

Meanwhile, his innings in spring training can go to others, and Santana's well-traveled arm gets an extra break to open the campaign, potentially keeping him fresh later on.

That's good.

One final thing to note: Santana has a clause in his contract that would have guaranteed his $14 million salary in 2019 if he reached 200 innings this season. That was a possibility Twins decision-makers needed to account for in their planning, and it might've made them more hesitant to commit payroll for next year. Now, as it it will be virtually impossible for Santana to eclipse the 200 mark, Minnesota has a true team option for 2019, when he'll be 36.

That's good.

Of course, as mentioned above, the Twins absolutely do need to add at least one more starter to the mix. And sadly, the dream of Darvish has ended. The most coveted player on the free agent market finally found a home on Saturday, agreeing to terms with the Cubs on a six-year deal worth $125 million plus incentives.

In terms of total money, that sure looks like a figure the Twins could have responsibly beat, leading to some familiar lamentations. But when you zoom out, and look at all that Chicago's contract for Darvish entails, you see an arrangement that is far from team-friendly.

The Cubs are now committed to the righty through 2023. He'll be 37 when the pact expires. Although $21 million in annual salary is lower than most expected but it still becomes a hindrance quickly if he underperforms or battles injury. And those are legitimate apprehensions since Darvish is arguably a bigger long-term health risk than many of his peers.

Darvish's huge pitch counts in Japan were a much-discussed topic when he initially came over to the States. As recently as last season, writers in Texas were noticing his workload – especially the heavy slider usage – and wondering if it was cause for concern.

He was healthy and throwing hard last summer, quieting any serious alarm sirens, but Darvish was pretty clearly wearing down by the time the World Series rolled around. And the fact remains: he hasn't reached 190 innings since 2013.

Darvish reportedly has an opt-out built into his deal after just two years, so if he does outperform his pay in 2018 and 2019, there's not really much upside for his team. He'd go back to the market in pursuit of more money and the Twins would be once again in search of a frontline starter to replace him, at the crux of their winning window.

To be clear, I certainly wouldn't have been disappointed by any means if the Twins gave Darvish the same deal he got from Chicago, because in my mind the upfront benefit outweighs the overall downside. But I can't fault them for refusing to match it – and that's IF he'd have signed here on the very same terms, which... probably not.

For all the consternation we're seeing right now, it's important to keep in mind that Minnesota still has plenty of options left on the table for addressing its rotation. They have money to spend and prospects to dangle in trade talks. They won't get a pitcher as good as Darvish, probably, but they can still find a decisive upgrade who gives them more flexibility.

The combination of Darvish signing and finally setting a high-end market baseline, along with spring camps getting underway this week, should put things into motion quickly. These ought to be an interesting few days ahead before team workouts kick off in Ft. Myers on Wednesday.

  • Blake, howieramone2 and rdehring like this

  • Share:
  • submit to reddit
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

214 Comments

Photo
Nick Nelson
Feb 13 2018 04:14 PM

 

I'm not even really all that outraged at missing out on Darvish.What outrages me is the excuse parade after the fact.The bizarre, nonsensical arguments to spin the disappointment.To defend opt out clauses.To make a month of our best pitcher being down a "good thing".How we just couldn't compete in the most depressed contract market of our lifetime.On and on.

I would suggest that your outrage is completely self-manufactured. Probably intentionally so.

 

The article very explicitly described the Santana injury and Darvish non-signing as "bad breaks," in which I was seeking silver linings. I've reiterated that intent multiple times in this comment thread, including to you directly. And yet you're still out here on page 9 quoting me as saying Santana going out is a "good thing," a quote that has not appeared anywhere. 

 

Suggesting that there may be some positive outcomes to take forward from a generally negative situation is not the same thing as making excuses. And you know that. So I can only conclude you're deliberately misinterpreting -- and hanging on to that misinterpretation -- for the sake of being Mad on the Internet™

 

 

This thread feels like the time Nick tried to defend calling Orlando Hudson a "Gold Glove Calibur" second baseman.

You mean the same Orlando Hudson that won four gold gloves? 

 

You're right, it does feel like that. 

    • Han Joelo, birdwatcher, Craig Arko and 1 other like this
Photo
TheLeviathan
Feb 13 2018 04:21 PM

 

 

Suggesting that there may be some positive outcomes to take forward from a generally negative situation is not the same thing as making excuses. And you know that. So I can only conclude you're deliberately misinterpreting -- and hanging on to that misinterpretation -- for the sake of being Mad on the Internet™

 

Less crappy outcomes do not equal "positives".

 

You construed our best pitcher being out for April to help with September as "That's Good".

 

Myself, and others, are responding to your arguments.We're responding to the blatant contradictions in your own blog posts on Darvish.We're responding to your manufactured, poor arguments as some desperate attempt at a silver lining. 

 

Sorry Nick, the landscaping doesn't look nice with the house on fire.The house is still on fire.That is not "good", no matter how many ways you want to spin it.

Nick- (I think) We all love your writing here. I know, personally, you're my favorite.
But writing about how much of a difference maker Darvish would be, when it seemed like the Twins might get him- to suddenly arguing he's really not THAT great once the Twins come up short, just feels really weird.
I'm not questioning your credibility, but I just can't shake that bizzare feeling when I see you in this thread knocking Darvish now, when you thought he instantly turned them into title contenders prior to them missing out.
    • USAFChief, Twins33, Oxtung and 4 others like this
Photo
Deduno Abides
Feb 13 2018 06:20 PM
Nick,

You may have missed the mood.Attached Image: 41848743-2EEE-4157-9B8A-C3305B17E4C2.jpeg
    • Nick Nelson and howieramone2 like this

 

 

 

You mean the same Orlando Hudson that won four gold gloves? 

 

You're right, it does feel like that. 

 

.........missing the point..........

 

 

Photo
Nick Nelson
Feb 13 2018 11:07 PM

 

I'm not questioning your credibility, but I just can't shake that bizzare feeling when I see you in this thread knocking Darvish now, when you thought he instantly turned them into title contenders prior to them missing out.

I'm bummed about it. I'm bummed about Santana getting hurt. I don't mean to give any other impression. Darvish signed, and I saw a forum thread here that was at almost 20 pages of pure frustration, and I just wanted to try to look at the other side. 

 

I do think Darvish would've been an excellent fit. But I didn't think he'd get 6 years. I would've done it, as I've said, but it's really not hard to see why an analytical assessment would deem that an unwise investment. And who even knows if the same terms or anything close were available to the Twins.

 

I suggested they get him in the Offseason Handbook. I've been pushing it all winter. You all know this. But I recognize there are other fish in the sea, until the boats are ashore. We're not close to that point yet.

 

If Darvish signed for 21M/yr, what are some of these other guys gonna get? There could be extreme bargains to be had. 

    • howieramone2 likes this

I'm bummed about it. I'm bummed about Santana getting hurt. I don't mean to give any other impression. Darvish signed, and I saw a forum thread here that was at almost 20 pages of pure frustration, and I just wanted to try to look at the other side.

I do think Darvish would've been an excellent fit. But I didn't think he'd get 6 years. I would've done it, as I've said, but it's really not hard to see why an analytical assessment would deem that an unwise investment. And who even knows if the same terms or anything close were available to the Twins.

I suggested they get him in the Offseason Handbook. I've been pushing it all winter. You all know this. But I recognize there are other fish in the sea, until the boats are ashore. We're not close to that point yet.

If Darvish signed for 21M/yr, what are some of these other guys gonna get? There could be extreme bargains to be had.

Signing a 30+ year old top FA is probably always going to be an unwise investment though. That's the price to play in that end of the pool.
The Twins FA model has always seemed to be, we're going to try to identify the best bargains in the market. That's not necessarily a bad approach all the time, but it's never going to get you the top guy.
It's frustrating that they said he was a priority, but then tried to apply that unrealistic model to him. As you said yourself, they knew that offer probably wasn't going to be good enough.

To your last paragraph, sure there are solid players left. But none that move the needle like Darvish would have. And mid market teams don't get an endless window like the big spenders do. Some of us fear that this idea of small, incremental improvements is going to have us peaking as a good, but not WS team before our window closes.
With the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox seemingly sitting this one out, it feels like an opportunity that they probably won't get again any time soon.
    • TheLeviathan and Sconnie like this

I'm a silver linings kind of guy, lemons to lemonade, ashes to compost, pick yourself up and move on.  Even if this was all one giant botched job by the FO, I am rooting for them to take the experience and learn from it.

 

What I wonder about, in the big picture, is why the Twins ever thought they had a chance in the first place with the budget they had in mind--and I believe their belief was genuine.  Seems a like a bit of a evidence on the collusion side of the ledger, to me.

 

Back on topic, though--I keep thinking back to the FO's assessment of this team a year ago, when they strongly considered selling Dozier, or six months ago, when they did sell of parts.  The unexpected run notwithstanding, the FO might feel this team is still closer to the 100 loss version than the hypothetical contender that I want to see.  It's kind of like having responsible parents who won't buy you a Stradivarius violin when you only just started playing a few months ago.  They need to see more improvement from the players they have before they totally commit.  

Photo
howieramone2
Feb 14 2018 09:22 AM

 

Signing a 30+ year old top FA is probably always going to be an unwise investment though. That's the price to play in that end of the pool.
The Twins FA model has always seemed to be, we're going to try to identify the best bargains in the market. That's not necessarily a bad approach all the time, but it's never going to get you the top guy.
It's frustrating that they said he was a priority, but then tried to apply that unrealistic model to him. As you said yourself, they knew that offer probably wasn't going to be good enough.

To your last paragraph, sure there are solid players left. But none that move the needle like Darvish would have. And mid market teams don't get an endless window like the big spenders do. Some of us fear that this idea of small, incremental improvements is going to have us peaking as a good, but not WS team before our window closes.
With the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox seemingly sitting this one out, it feels like an opportunity that they probably won't get again any time soon.

Without doing any research, it appears the mid-market Cardinals have had the window open the longest. Before them, possibly the Braves. I've said before, if a large market team is firing on all cylinders, it's near impossible for a mid-market team to compete. Fortunately, they often shoot themselves in the foot with large, long term contracts. I think very highly of Theo, but I doubt he will survive the 6 year anchor around his neck.

 

I'm a silver linings kind of guy, lemons to lemonade, ashes to compost, pick yourself up and move on.  Even if this was all one giant botched job by the FO, I am rooting for them to take the experience and learn from it.

 

What I wonder about, in the big picture, is why the Twins ever thought they had a chance in the first place with the budget they had in mind--and I believe their belief was genuine.  Seems a like a bit of a evidence on the collusion side of the ledger, to me.

 

Back on topic, though--I keep thinking back to the FO's assessment of this team a year ago, when they strongly considered selling Dozier, or six months ago, when they did sell of parts.  The unexpected run notwithstanding, the FO might feel this team is still closer to the 100 loss version than the hypothetical contender that I want to see.  It's kind of like having responsible parents who won't buy you a Stradivarius violin when you only just started playing a few months ago.  They need to see more improvement from the players they have before they totally commit.  

I don't think it was botched by the FO, I think the FO was given a HARD number by the Pohlads in regards to the maximum amount of money they could pay a free agent.

The ironic part of that of course is the Pohlads (by their own admission) don't follow baseball and don't really know baseball, so them being in charge of total payroll and 'signing off on' large contracts is just....well....dumb.

Then again, I don't understand why you would own a sports team if you had zero interest in them winning titles/winning games etc, I mean turning $38 million into over a billion in less than 40 years is cool and all, but man, it would be nice if they actually followed the game and tried to win.

People complain about Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, Steinbrenner, etc etc but give me a passionate (yet douchey sometimes) owner then one that just cares only about dollars and cents.

    • Sconnie and Carlos Figueroa like this
Photo
FormerMinnasotan
Feb 14 2018 10:48 AM

Without doing any research, it appears the mid-market Cardinals have had the window open the longest. Before them, possibly the Braves. I've said before, if a large market team is firing on all cylinders, it's near impossible for a mid-market team to compete. Fortunately, they often shoot themselves in the foot with large, long term contracts. I think very highly of Theo, but I doubt he will survive the 6 year anchor around his neck.

It helps the Cardinals when they have pitching prospects that flourish such as Adam Wainwright, Lance Lynn, Michael Wacha, Carlos Martinez, and Luke Weaver. Plus a lot of thier positional players are home grown with either an aggressive trade or free agent signing every now and then. The real key for the Cardinals though is good pitcher development.
    • howieramone2 likes this

 

I don't think it was botched by the FO, I think the FO was given a HARD number by the Pohlads in regards to the maximum amount of money they could pay a free agent.

I agree with you that i don't think the FO messed this up or missed a good opportunity, They actually attempted to sign him which is a change from the old FO. I have 4 thoughts on the whole Darvish talks/signings
 

1) They offer a decent market contract 5 years 110 million (not sure the actual number).
2) Darvish absolutely had no interest in coming to MN, he really likes being in the big market teams. As hard as it is to accept for us Twins fans.
3) If the Twins matched the Cubs offer (6 years 126 million) he still would chooses the Cubs.

4) If the Twins offered the full contract value 6 Years 150 million, without opt out, would he have choose the Twins? Even so not sure i would have like that contract.

 

 

 

People complain about Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, Steinbrenner, etc etc but give me a passionate (yet douchey sometimes) owner then one that just cares only about dollars and cents.

 

I was looking at other team forums on there feeling about the owners etc. A perfect comparison to the Twins is the Cardinals, They were ripping there owner/FO for sitting on there hands for much of the offseason when the Cubs and Brewers are adding to become better. They don't shell out the big money contracts either. But they find ways to win with what they have with teams that are just average in my mind. I wish we had the success they have.

As far as the Twins I feel this whole situation is about how we can only spend big once in a window and we need to hit a homerun on that contract, was Darvish that guy who knows? I just wish we could just get to the point where we can develop pitching talent in the pipeline that we can count on.

    • Nick Nelson, Danchat and howieramone2 like this
Photo
FormerMinnasotan
Feb 14 2018 11:03 AM

I agree with you that i don't think the FO messed this up or missed a good opportunity, They actually attempted to sign him which is a change from the old FO. I have 4 thoughts on the whole Darvish talks/signings

1) They offer a decent market contract 5 years 110 million (not sure the actual number).
2) Darvish absolutely had no interest in coming to MN, he really likes being in the big market teams. As hard as it is to accept for us Twins fans.
3) If the Twins matched the Cubs offer (6 years 126 million) he still would chooses the Cubs.
4) If the Twins offered the full contract value 6 Years 150 million, without opt out, would he have choose the Twins? Even so not sure i would have like that contract.




I was looking at other team forums on there feeling about the owners etc. A perfect comparison to the Twins is the Cardinals, They were ripping there owner/FO for sitting on there hands for much of the offseason when the Cubs and Brewers are adding to become better. They don't shell out the big money contracts either. But they find ways to win with what they have with teams that are just average in my mind. I wish we had the success they have.

As far as the Twins I feel this whole situation is about how we can only spend big once in a window and we need to hit a homerun on that contract, was Darvish that guy who knows? I just wish we could just get to the point where we can develop pitching talent in the pipeline that we can count on.

The thing with the Cardinals is they are excellent in developing young pitchers. I mean look at their Opening Day starter: Carlos Martinez, a product of their farm system and they saw a lot of good out of Luke Weaver and have a top pitching prospect in Alex Reyes. Even when they had mediocre starters (Chris Carpenter and Kyle Lohse come to mind) they were able to find their strengths and turn them into better pitchers. If the Twins could do that with the pitchers they have they’d be much better.
Photo
TheLeviathan
Feb 14 2018 11:14 AM

The problem is that if we're going to rely on drafting and developing starting pitching....that might take awhile.The current offensive core is here right now.  

 

I'm all for this FO really investing the time and effort into fixing the structures that develop young pitching, but that investment isn't bearing fruit anytime soon and we're talking about upgrading now.Part of what made Darvish appealing is that he's a significant, immediate upgrade that wouldn't necessarily hamstring the team's future.Trading for Archer requires pulling from the farm.Signing Darvish only requires pulling from the wallet.  

 

I don't think anyone disagrees that this team is primed to have a nice run here.....but only if they acquire pitching to help right now.So talk of the farm is just not applicable to this conversation.

    • USAFChief, birdwatcher, Twins33 and 3 others like this
Photo
KirbyDome89
Feb 14 2018 11:24 AM

 

The thing with the Cardinals is they are excellent in developing young pitchers. I mean look at their Opening Day starter: Carlos Martinez, a product of their farm system and they saw a lot of good out of Luke Weaver and have a top pitching prospect in Alex Reyes. Even when they had mediocre starters (Chris Carpenter and Kyle Lohse come to mind) they were able to find their strengths and turn them into better pitchers. If the Twins could do that with the pitchers they have they’d be much better.

Carpenter won a Cy Young and finished 2 or 3 in a few other seasons. To me that isn't an example of mediocrity. I agree that St. Louis has definitely been better at identifying talent and developing it, but coaching can only take you so far. 

Photo
ashburyjohn
Feb 14 2018 11:38 AM

The ironic part of that of course is the Pohlads (by their own admission) don't follow baseball and don't really know baseball, so them being in charge of total payroll and 'signing off on' large contracts is just....well....dumb.

If true that ownership turned thumbs down on a higher bid that FalVine were comfortable with (which is only speculation on your part), it's entirely normal for ownership to have to sign off on a multi-year contract. Even if ownership is happy with the FO at the moment, that could change in a couple years' time, and any bad contracts lasting for longer would be an impediment to hiring someone new and good enough to be in demand. It's possible ownership would have to eat some of the remaining liabilities on the books, or else they would only get the most desperate candidates to apply. So yeah, they get to be "in charge" of payroll, at this level.

    • birdwatcher and howieramone2 like this
Photo
FormerMinnasotan
Feb 14 2018 11:46 AM

Carpenter won a Cy Young and finished 2 or 3 in a few other seasons. To me that isn't an example of mediocrity. I agree that St. Louis has definitely been better at identifying talent and developing it, but coaching can only take you so far.

What I meant was until Carpenter went to St Louis he was mediocre, I mean he literally pitched his way off the Blue Jays (his team prior to pitching in St Louis) roster. If we as a mid market team want to compete let’s get guys who have excellent track records of developing both middle of the road starters (like Kyle Gibson) and youngsters (Berrios, Mejia, Gonsalves, Romero, Littell).
Photo
birdwatcher
Feb 14 2018 11:48 AM

 

The problem is that if we're going to rely on drafting and developing starting pitching....that might take awhile.The current offensive core is here right now.  

 

I'm all for this FO really investing the time and effort into fixing the structures that develop young pitching, but that investment isn't bearing fruit anytime soon and we're talking about upgrading now.Part of what made Darvish appealing is that he's a significant, immediate upgrade that wouldn't necessarily hamstring the team's future.Trading for Archer requires pulling from the farm.Signing Darvish only requires pulling from the wallet.  

 

I don't think anyone disagrees that this team is primed to have a nice run here.....but only if they acquire pitching to help right now.So talk of the farm is just not applicable to this conversation.

 

 

On these points we can agree, Levi. I'm personally skeptical that we have any starters arriving here in the next two years that are going to be capable rotation pieces for a contending club. Maybe Gonsalves or Slegers, but talent experts aren't wild about them.

 

Thad Levine, just yesterday, said they still want to bring in rotation help from the outside. You may not believe him, or you may think he's not working hard enough at it. I do.

 

I would guess most of us believe him and see some signs that indicate they're serious about getting it done. Their work to solve the bullpen problem is what gives me the most confidence about that. The Darvish bid is old news. It's okay with me if people want to pretend they have enough information to rip on them for botching that effort. Attacking their motives, their honesty, and their effort is a different thing though. That's unfair in my opinion.

 

I'll rip on them later if they don't solve the rotation issue. If it's a solution that's not perfectly to my liking? I'm not going to harshly criticize them. Who am I to judge harshly with a sliver of the details?

 

I liked that Levine said they very much favor the FA route versus a trade.

    • howieramone2 likes this

 

 

2) Darvish absolutely had no interest in coming to MN, he really likes being in the big market teams. As hard as it is to accept for us Twins fans.
 

I have a quibble with this one:

None of that has ever been reported FWIW, while "Texas" is technically a big market, I don't think anyone would confuse Arlington with Chicago, LA, NYC etc (Not talking in terms of population but just 'big market') as it applies to teams, media, fanbases etc

I'm not so sure the Twins would have had to put a 'much better' deal on the table then the Cubs anyways, by all accounts he and Levine are pretty close, I think it literally just came down to the fact the Twins didn't want to match or even make a 'true' competitive offer for his services (i.e. no 6th year even at a very reasonable AAV)
 

Photo
TheLeviathan
Feb 14 2018 12:47 PM

 

I would guess most of us believe him and see some signs that indicate they're serious about getting it done. Their work to solve the bullpen problem is what gives me the most confidence about that. The Darvish bid is old news. It's okay with me if people want to pretend they have enough information to rip on them for botching that effort. Attacking their motives, their honesty, and their effort is a different thing though. That's unfair in my opinion.

 

Two things:

 

Whenever I've heard the FO talk they are careful to talk about upgrading their pitching as a whole, rather than specifically targeting starters.I appreciate that mindset because the bullpen did need work...but now it's the rotation.If he said that, that's good to hear, but it needs to happen.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and I said something along the way that indicates I blame them personally for something, but my issues are all rooted in skepticism.They, ownership included, were adamant about their intentions.It seems odd to me that in November, when Darvish is slated by most to get 6 years and closer to 200M, that you'd balk at 5/100ish.What changed?Did they think in November that 5/110 was going to do it?If so, that seems....naive?If they were prepared to be in the 150+ neighborhood, why balk now?

 

What they said, relative to what they did, opens a wide door for questioning.I think that's fair.What I don't think is fair is to just dismiss this disappointment and start making excuses for it.Somewhere along the lines the rhetoric didn't match the action and we do have a right to be upset about that. 

 

Personally, I was never of the notion we would sign Darvish, but comments in the wake of the signing by the FO and some here have been frustrating.I love many parts of this team right now and am pretty bullish on their chances.This market seems ripe to capitalize.I grant there is still time....but it's ticking fast.

Photo
birdwatcher
Feb 14 2018 12:53 PM

 

If true that ownership turned thumbs down on a higher bid that FalVine were comfortable with (which is only speculation on your part), it's entirely normal for ownership to have to sign off on a multi-year contract. Even if ownership is happy with the FO at the moment, that could change in a couple years' time, and any bad contracts lasting for longer would be an impediment to hiring someone new and good enough to be in demand. It's possible ownership would have to eat some of the remaining liabilities on the books, or else they would only get the most desperate candidates to apply. So yeah, they get to be "in charge" of payroll, at this level.

 

 

The Minnesota Twins Baseball corporation practices good governance and has prudent financial disciplines in place. Most corporations depend upon their Board of Directors to not only exercise oversight but to establish and enforce financial rules limiting the authority of the corporate officers who report to them. It's inconceivable that the organization could commit to a $100M contract obligation without first requiring approval from its board. 

 

This doesn't in any way whatsoever support a speculative opinion that Falvine was handcuffed on what it could offer Darvish. In fact, almost every indication we're seeing from Jim Pohlad as the face of the corporation points at least directionally to giving Falvine greater encouragement to spend than before.

Photo
birdwatcher
Feb 14 2018 01:08 PM

 

 

 

Whenever I've heard the FO talk they are careful to talk about upgrading their pitching as a whole, rather than specifically targeting starters.I appreciate that mindset because the bullpen did need work...but now it's the rotation.If he said that, that's good to hear, but it needs to happen.

 

What they said, relative to what they did, opens a wide door for questioning.I think that's fair.What I don't think is fair is to just dismiss this disappointment and start making excuses for it.Somewhere along the lines the rhetoric didn't match the action and we do have a right to be upset about that. 

 

 

We'll agree to disagree about the rhetoric matching their actions. People are quibbling about Levine's use of the word "priority", which could be more innocuously construed as simply meaning "our first choice" or "our first step", but people are choosing to construe it more literally I guess. I think the spirit of their words and actions are completely aligned myself.

 

And take heart, Levi. In the last sentence of this article, Levine is telling you in no uncertain terms that starting pitching is the need and that they're going to address it. If they don't get us a starter, one that's an upgrade over Jaime Garcia, I'll meet you at One Target Way with my pitchfork.

 

http://www.startribu...ower/474000323/

 

 

Photo
terrydactyls1947
Feb 14 2018 01:22 PM

I have a quibble with this one:
None of that has ever been reported FWIW, while "Texas" is technically a big market, I don't think anyone would confuse Arlington with Chicago, LA, NYC etc (Not talking in terms of population but just 'big market') as it applies to teams, media, fanbases etc
I'm not so sure the Twins would have had to put a 'much better' deal on the table then the Cubs anyways, by all accounts he and Levine are pretty close, I think it literally just came down to the fact the Twins didn't want to match or even make a 'true' competitive offer for his services (i.e. no 6th year even at a very reasonable AAV)


Maybe you've never been to Texas, but Arlington is located only minutes from both Dallas and Forth Worth. The Metropolitan area population is over 7,000,000 which I would classify as a big market.
    • howieramone2 likes this

 

We'll agree to disagree about the rhetoric matching their actions. People are quibbling about Levine's use of the word "priority", which could be more innocuously construed as simply meaning "our first choice" or "our first step", but people are choosing to construe it more literally I guess.

Hey, you're talking about me! :)

 

To me, "our first choice" to describe the consensus top FA kinda goes without saying, no? Especially in a market where nobody expected him to get $200 mil, or even $175 mil. Maybe I wouldn't have expected TR to say it, or the GM of a 100 loss team, but the 2017-2018 Twins absolutely can and should be considering every FA up to that range. They shouldn't have to signal that they are simply evaluating the opportunity.

 

In retrospect, it certainly seems like your interpretation is correct, but even then, the outcome still seems disappointing because that means they didn't recognize the unique opportunity that Darvish and this market represented, etc.

 

Maybe they'll blow us away with an impressive plan B, but at this point my feelings about that are probably similar to their's about Darvish -- it's more "hope" than expectation.

    • birdwatcher and Riverbrian like this

 

Maybe you've never been to Texas, but Arlington is located only minutes from both Dallas and Forth Worth. The Metropolitan area population is over 7,000,000 which I would classify as a big market.

He did say "not in terms of population". I think it's very fair to say the Rangers are not on the overall "big market" level as LA, NY, Boston, and Chicago.

    • DaveW likes this

Similar Articles


by Tom Froemming , 15 Feb 2018
Photo


by Cody Christie , 12 Feb 2018
Photo


by Seth Stohs , 11 Feb 2018
Photo


by Tom Froemming , 08 Feb 2018
Photo


by Tom Froemming , 06 Feb 2018
Photo