Jump to content

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

Why the Twins should stick to the 4/48 bin in free agency

  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#21 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    2 + 2 = 5

  • Members
  • 2,757 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 05 November 2017 - 02:56 PM

I'm afraid 4 for 60 is the new 4 for 48. Prices aren't staying the same as they were 3-4 years ago. With most teams needing pitching the group of mid rotation guys (Lynn and Cobb) is very thin so the demand will be high.

  • Mike Sixel, Oldgoat_MN, Hosken Bombo Disco and 1 other like this

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.

 

Yogi Berra


#22 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 19,973 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:07 PM

 

Darvish had less than a stellar year and sometimes small samples can be quite enlightening.

Eh, I disagree. Small sample sizes almost always lead to bad decisions when they override piles of more substantial data.

 

But I agree that it's easy to fall into the allure of paying exorbitant money for that One Pitcher To Rule Them All. It's possible, maybe even likely, that spending top dollar for a pitcher is a bad use of resources and that spreading money out over more middling free agents in hopes one of them clicks is the way to go (I'm not talking dumpster diving, though).

  • mikelink45, jimmer, Vanimal46 and 2 others like this

#23 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 19,973 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:10 PM

 

There is a reason the innings weren't more. :)

True, but even Clayton Kershaw had a kinda bad postseason in ~35 IP and I don't think there's anyone who will argue that he's not the best pitcher in baseball.

  • Twins33, jimmer and MN_ExPat like this

#24 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,114 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:29 PM

...small free agent deals, rule v pickups, waiver claims, cheap bullpen arms...

You don’t have to stop doing any of these things simply because you signed a top free agent.

An argument based around saving money on free agents is exactly that...a plan to save money. It’s not a plan for a “better” way to build a winner, it’s just cheaper.

And as in most things in life, you often get what you pay for.

Spend the money, shop at every level of free agency. There’s no reason not to try to find bargains, I agree. There’s also no argument, not based on only money, not to sign proven quality, either.
  • Mike Sixel, Oldgoat_MN, KirbyDome89 and 3 others like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#25 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:53 PM

You don’t have to stop doing any of these things simply because you signed a top free agent.

An argument based around saving money on free agents is exactly that...a plan to save money. It’s not a plan for a “better” way to build a winner, it’s just cheaper.

And as in most things in life, you often get what you pay for.

Spend the money, shop at every level of free agency. There’s no reason not to try to find bargains, I agree. There’s also no argument, not based on only money, not to sign proven quality, either.


Just saying cheaper, while certainly part of the equation, really ignores how risk fits in, especially on the back end of the deal. It's years, not aav.

There are certainly times for big money, long year contracts, but as shown, you are almost certainly going to get crushed hard for multiple years of the contract. Question is how well your revenue structure can support large amounts of dead (or declining) money over mulitple seasons.

If this core is legit, it will start getting really expensive after 4 more years. Attaching dead or declining money beyond that is a massive risk.

A 4 year free agent deal for a pitcher right now fits about perfectly.
  • ashburyjohn, birdwatcher, Major Leauge Ready and 2 others like this
Papers...business papers.

#26 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,942 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:28 PM

 

You don’t have to stop doing any of these things simply because you signed a top free agent.

An argument based around saving money on free agents is exactly that...a plan to save money. It’s not a plan for a “better” way to build a winner, it’s just cheaper.

And as in most things in life, you often get what you pay for.

Spend the money, shop at every level of free agency. There’s no reason not to try to find bargains, I agree. There’s also no argument, not based on only money, not to sign proven quality, either.

That's really not true. If you sign Arrieta (for example) at 4/100 you are going to limit future options, regardless of how he pitches in the future. Would you trust that Arrieta would be worth twice what Cobb is going to be worth over the next four years?

 

I think you're really ignoring how bad a Sanchez like deal would affect the Twins in 2019 and beyond. On paper, it would be great to be able to spend whatever we wanted but since we have some of the worst owners in sports you have to take those limitations into consideration.Misspent money is going to affect this team a lot more than it'll affect other teams.

  • howieramone2 likes this

#27 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,815 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:34 PM

So are we saying that Ryan didn't spend like perhaps he could have because of the Pohlads, not because he was risk adverse and had a misguided/outdated belief of what players are actually worth and wouldn't go over that?


#28 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:40 PM

 

You don’t have to stop doing any of these things simply because you signed a top free agent.

An argument based around saving money on free agents is exactly that...a plan to save money. It’s not a plan for a “better” way to build a winner, it’s just cheaper.

And as in most things in life, you often get what you pay for.

Spend the money, shop at every level of free agency. There’s no reason not to try to find bargains, I agree. There’s also no argument, not based on only money, not to sign proven quality, either.

 

I am not sure how the OP could have been anymore articulate.That list CLEARLY shows just how bad of an investment a large percentage of these contract have been.There are better ways to spend the money. The rarity of mid and small market teams signing these type of contracts is not because those GMs don’t get it or their ownership is cheap.It’s simply a really bad strategy if you don’t have lots of revenue to make up for the frequency in which they fail.

 

I would much rather see our team extend 2 03 3 members of our young core 2-4 years and extend the window of contention they should provide.I would have to think has a much higher probability of success.Add 2 or 3 bullpen pieces.How about an aggressive approach with comeback candidates.Pay more but get a couple options years for paying up in the comeback year.Spend beyond our bonus pool on International players.

 

I also don't understand how this is not a really good example of FAs not being "what you pay for" more often than not..

  • birdwatcher, gunnarthor and howieramone2 like this

#29 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:42 PM

So are we saying that Ryan didn't spend like perhaps he could have because of the Pohlads, not because he was risk adverse and had a misguided/outdated belief of what players are actually worth and wouldn't go over that?


I would say all of the above, if you replace "Pohlads" with "realities of franchise revenue streams".

And he still spent well over $125mil on free agent pitchers.
  • birdwatcher and howieramone2 like this
Papers...business papers.

#30 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,815 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:46 PM

 

And he still spent well over $125mil on free agent pitchers.

and that was on how many total pitchers?What's his biggest signing?

 

Anyway, doesn't matter what he did anymore, though this whole thread seems to be about defending his course of action, so it's hard to stay on topic without mentioning him.

 

Hopefully the new FO finds a way to get some dominant pitching for this team.Cause while we managed to get far with the pitching this year, the pitching was still horrible and it wouldn't be a good idea to just keep adding to the backend of the rotation.

Edited by jimmer, 05 November 2017 - 05:10 PM.


#31 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,942 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:15 PM

 

So are we saying that Ryan didn't spend like perhaps he could have because of the Pohlads, not because he was risk adverse and had a misguided/outdated belief of what players are actually worth and wouldn't go over that?

The first. The second is just a strawman and not really relevant to anything except turning this thread into a Ryan discussion instead of why we shouldn't spend outside of the second tier of FA pitchers.


#32 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,815 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:23 PM

Lester was worth 2.7 fWAR this year (so over 21M worth and more than he got paid).And he was supposedly bad this year.  

 

Ervin Santana was worth 2.9 fWAR.How was his year looked at by the majority of Twins fans? A success right? Lester wasn't good at 2.7 fWAR,Santana was very good at 2.9 fWAR.

 

Lester was also very underpaid his first two years in Chicago. He was worth almost 3 times what he was paid in 2015 and twice as much as he got paid in 2016. No one seems to take into account the years when a player is underpaid or well underpaid when talking about contract being bad towards the end.In his three years as a Cub, Lester has already provided 48M in excess value, which is more than what he'll get paid the next two years.His contract was a winner.

Edited by jimmer, 05 November 2017 - 05:39 PM.

  • gil4 and Oldgoat_MN like this

#33 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,114 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

That's really not true. If you sign Arrieta (for example) at 4/100 you are going to limit future options, regardless of how he pitches in the future. Would you trust that Arrieta would be worth twice what Cobb is going to be worth over the next four years?
 
I think you're really ignoring how bad a Sanchez like deal would affect the Twins in 2019 and beyond. On paper, it would be great to be able to spend whatever we wanted but since we have some of the worst owners in sports you have to take those limitations into consideration.Misspent money is going to affect this team a lot more than it'll affect other teams.


Limit options?

I’ll ask the same question I asked a month or so ago...why preserve options when you never exercise those options?

It’s rather ironic to argue that a past FA contract would hurt the Twins now...and in the same breath argue they shouldn’t spend the money now. A Sanchez deal wouldn’t have hurt the Twins at all, because they aren’t spending the money now anyway. The effect would be zero.
  • Mike Sixel, KirbyDome89 and wsnydes like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#34 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,114 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:28 PM

Just saying cheaper, while certainly part of the equation, really ignores how risk fits in, especially on the back end of the deal. It's years, not aav.
There are certainly times for big money, long year contracts, but as shown, you are almost certainly going to get crushed hard for multiple years of the contract. Question is how well your revenue structure can support large amounts of dead (or declining) money over mulitple seasons.
If this core is legit, it will start getting really expensive after 4 more years. Attaching dead or declining money beyond that is a massive risk.
A 4 year free agent deal for a pitcher right now fits about perfectly.


Not attaching pitching over the next four years, while this core costs peanuts, ISNT a risk?

What is the goal here, anyway? Compete for a WS or two, or compete for the $/W trophy?
  • Oldgoat_MN and KirbyDome89 like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#35 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,942 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:31 PM

 

Limit options?

I’ll ask the same question I asked a month or so ago...why preserve options when you never exercise those options?

It’s rather ironic to argue that a past FA contract would hurt the Twins now...and in the same breath argue they shouldn’t spend the money now. A Sanchez deal wouldn’t have hurt the Twins at all, because they aren’t spending the money now anyway. The effect would be zero.

Actually, a Sanchez deal would have probably kept the Twins from signing Santana and miss the playoffs this year because the money we would have spent on Santana would have gone to Sanchez (and then some) who was, of course, awful this year.

 

The Twins have limited payroll. It's probably going to stay around 110-115m for the foreseeable future. Is giving 22% of our payroll to Arrieta for the next four years a great idea?


#36 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,942 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:37 PM

 

 

Lester was worth 2.7 fWAR this year (so over 21M worth and more than he got paid).And he was supposedly bad this year.  

 

Ervin Santana was worth 2.9 fWAR.How was his year looked at by the majority of Twins fans? A success right? Lester wasn't good at 2.7 fWAR,Santana was very good at 2.9 fWAR.

 

Lester was also very underpaid his first two years in Chicago. He was worth almost 3 times what he was paid in 2015 and twice as much as he got paid in 2016. No one seems to worry about when a player is underpaid or well underpaid.

Looks a lot better when we can say we have the better pitcher and spending 50m less over the remaining value of the two contracts. And you bring up a good point - just because Lester gets paid more doesn't mean he'll be the better pitcher. I think it's quite possible that Alex Cobb will be a better bet over the next four years than Arrieta over four years, for example.

 

 

(And you are right that player's salaries in general are underpaid, especially guys under team control before they get to free agency. If there's a side, I'd take the players over ownership every time. But this isn't really relevant. Lester has a pretty good agent who got him his deal as the player wanted. But that's the system we have and the system we have to discuss when we try and think about what the Twins FO should do going forward. A system that would let players opt out of contracts if they overperformed is pretty interesting but not really what this thread is about).


#37 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 8,669 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:55 PM

Just saying cheaper, while certainly part of the equation, really ignores how risk fits in, especially on the back end of the deal. It's years, not aav.
There are certainly times for big money, long year contracts, but as shown, you are almost certainly going to get crushed hard for multiple years of the contract. Question is how well your revenue structure can support large amounts of dead (or declining) money over mulitple seasons.
If this core is legit, it will start getting really expensive after 4 more years. Attaching dead or declining money beyond that is a massive risk.
A 4 year free agent deal for a pitcher right now fits about perfectly.

I don't know what Cobb's market is, but hypothetically which would you prefer for the Twins-- Cobb signed for 4/48 (est per MLBTR) or Cobb signed for, say, 3/44?

It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All Star

Game and an old timer's game. - Vin Scully


#38 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:10 PM

I don't know what Cobb's market is, but hypothetically which would you prefer for the Twins-- Cobb signed for 4/48 (est per MLBTR) or Cobb signed for, say, 3/44?


4/48. The extra year is fine if the difference is that small.
Papers...business papers.

#39 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:12 PM

Not attaching pitching over the next four years, while this core costs peanuts, ISNT a risk?

What is the goal here, anyway? Compete for a WS or two, or compete for the $/W trophy?


Um, I literally advocated for a 4 year deal (in the bin suggested in the thread topic) in the post you quoted.
Papers...business papers.

#40 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 25,808 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:12 PM

How has going cheap and bad worked out any better for wins and losses exactly? Chief is right, every year people say don't spend money so when they are good, they can spend money..... And then people say don't spend money....santana is gone in a year, you need to replace him then....i assume they shouldn't spend any money next year either?
  • Twins33 and KirbyDome89 like this

One of the best opening day rosters in years. Now go get 'em.