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

#41 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:39 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?


Hughes pitched like a no. 1 in the first year of his contract, and Santana has already exceeded the value of his contract. So there are two examples. The argument isn't, "they shouldn't spend"; it's more like, "spending big might not work as well as we hope, and it actually might hurt in the long run."
  • howieramone2 and spinowner like this

#42 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 12:22 AM

 

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?

No one has suggested they don't spend. This very thread has suggested that they make another Santana like signing. What some of us are saying - and supplying some data - is that long term free agent pitchers are extremely dangerous and several deals greater than this bin have been disasters. Had the Twins signed Anibal Sanchez as you wanted, they probably don't make the playoffs this year.

 

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.

  • birdwatcher and howieramone2 like this

#43 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,803 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 12:45 AM

 

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?

It seems to me like there's a bit of a strawman fight happening in this thread.

 

Is anyone saying "don't spend money"?

 

Is anyone saying "Darvish or bust"?

 

If anyone is arguing either point, they're probably wrong. What I want is for the Twins to improve and spend money in the process. How they get there... well, there are several right answers, I only hope the front office picks the best option.

  • ashburyjohn, diehardtwinsfan, Physics Guy and 1 other like this

#44 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,560 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 01:03 AM

18 deals, only a couple of contracts worth it. The 4/48 bin likely is a little better ratio, but not necessarily.Falvey is the genius who is going to guess right, unlike the fans who thought Edwin Jackson was going to be great, or Sanchez would stay great


#45 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,701 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 06 November 2017 - 06:26 AM

No one has suggested they don't spend. This very thread has suggested that they make another Santana like signing. What some of us are saying - and supplying some data - is that long term free agent pitchers are extremely dangerous and several deals greater than this bin have been disasters. Had the Twins signed Anibal Sanchez as you wanted, they probably don't make the playoffs this year.

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.


This is an important point. Those advocating for the biggest spending now advocated for the biggest spending in the past that would have actual real negative consequences in the present.

It really was presented well in the initial post, with actual, real world examples amd consequence of going after the really big deal.
  • gunnarthor, 70charger, Major Leauge Ready and 2 others like this
Papers...business papers.

#46 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,701 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 06 November 2017 - 06:35 AM

It seems to me like there's a bit of a strawman fight happening in this thread.

Is anyone saying "don't spend money"?

Is anyone saying "Darvish or bust"?

If anyone is arguing either point, they're probably wrong. What I want is for the Twins to improve and spend money in the process. How they get there... well, there are several right answers, I only hope the front office picks the best option.


To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.
  • ashburyjohn likes this
Papers...business papers.

#47 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,370 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:15 AM

 

 

 

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.

 

Honestly, if Lynn is going to get Erv money on the market, that's who I sign... He wants a lot more than that, from what I understand, and I suspect some team will give it to him.


#48 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,370 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:28 AM

 

To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.

 

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it. 

 

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him. I would think that the multiple playoff runs before that would certainly help in the revenue area as well. They have some nice prospects in the lower minors who will be ready to slide in at that point. Simply put, I'm not sure I agree that one big splash will force the Twins to limit options down the road. The Twins are a mid market team, one big splash shouldn't hurt them (especially with Mauer coming off the books). I agree that they cannot do this all the time, but I don't think we are in a place right now where we cannot.

 


#49 Doctor Wu

Doctor Wu

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:42 AM

I like Yu Darvish, both for his impressive "stuff" and his makeup. Seems like a quality pitcher with a good work ethic. But he is worth the big bucks? Idon't have a link but I read an alarming stat about Darvish earlier this year, citing the high number of runs he usually gives up ... in the first inning!

 

I also read this online today:

 

Which brings us to our next and final example of Yu’s tendency to allow runs at inopportune times, runs scored with two outs in the inning. Two-out runs can be demoralizing for a team. Especially with your best pitcher on the mound. In the eight wins this season, Yu gave up a total of 5 two-out runs. In the 12 losses, that number swelled to 14, more than 1.2 per game. Of the 15 homeruns that Darvish has allowed this season, more than half have come with two outs in the inning.

 

http://dallassportsf...explained-sort/

  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

#50 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:55 AM

 

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it. 

 

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him.

You know, that's a fair point and one I didn't really look into much. In 2021 Sano, Rosario, Kepler, Buxton, Rogers, Duffey will all be in their third arbitration year and Polanco and Berrios will be in Arb 2. Imagine those 8 could easily make 80m combined in 2021 but admittedly, I haven't run any numbers.Payroll will probably remain around 115m (until Pohlads show that they'll increase payroll, I think it's fair to say it'll stay in the current range).2021 season will be midway through a six year Darvish deal so (in this example), he'd be making 25m in 2021, 2022 and 2023. (A four year Arrieta deal might be more helpful in that example).

 

I think determining how much dead weight we could carry in 2021 and beyond has a lot to do with two things we don't really know right now - future payroll (I tend to be pessimistic on it) and arbitration or extension salaries to that young core. Next years free agency group is probably going to push salaries up throughout the game and if the Pohlads don't follow suit, they'd be left behind.


#51 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,701 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:59 AM

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it.

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him. I would think that the multiple playoff runs before that would certainly help in the revenue area as well. They have some nice prospects in the lower minors who will be ready to slide in at that point. Simply put, I'm not sure I agree that one big splash will force the Twins to limit options down the road. The Twins are a mid market team, one big splash shouldn't hurt them (especially with Mauer coming off the books). I agree that they cannot do this all the time, but I don't think we are in a place right now where we cannot.


Depends on how long Darvish signs for. The Twins have significant payroll flexibility the next 4 years. After that the current core starts to hit their fa years and will become much more expensive, even if they are locked up to an extension early.

It is probably not impossible to have an extra $25mil in dead/declined money, but that would really hamper options when this core would still be in tge backend of its prime.

Darvish will almost certainly provide good value the first couple of years, but the performance and odds of achieving it seem like it would decrease pretty substantially after that. Is that really a smart gamble for the Twins to take? To likely hamper options when the core is really good?

I would much prefer a signing in this 4 year bucket and then have options for a midseason trade for a starter on a shorter deal. Keeps the window open and flexible.
Papers...business papers.

#52 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,256 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:41 AM

 

To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.

When fans advocate an acquisition or a trade, they tend to provide significant statistical support.When they advocate the Twins SHOULD spend more there is generally little or no supporting evidence. It’s actually a more straight forward assessment.Is the Twins spending consistent with the rest of the league?Are their profits greater than the norm for the rest of the league?Assuming Forbes is a credible source, the answer is no.This fact has been posted here several times.

 

All of the failed contracts have also been listed.Even now after the OP did a great job of illustrating just how often these contracts fail, some still cling to the premise the failed contracts won’t hurt the team as if there is no better way to spend the money which I outlined earlier in this thread as well as others.

 

It’s pretty simple in concept.We have considerably less revenue than several teams.If we are going to compete with those teams we have to get the most out of every available dollar.Some of the top teams could sign 5 or 6 elite free agents and still have our available payroll left over.The real failure of the previous regime is they did not build the requisite analytics, scouting, and operating practices needed to get the most out of our available dollars.

 

I would sure like to see one of the posters who constantly complain about the Twins spending to provide evidence that the Twins spending practices are different than the rest of the league.The simple reality is that other teams have significantly more revenue and we should be debating what is the best way to overcome that disadvantage.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 06 November 2017 - 08:43 AM.


#53 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:02 AM

 

Keep an eye on thorpe.

 

I would be happy as a clam if he pitched very well in AAA for 2018 and earned an August callup.But your right he's a couple of seasons away realistically.


#54 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 18,896 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:06 AM

 

When fans advocate an acquisition or a trade, they tend to provide significant statistical support.When they advocate the Twins SHOULD spend more there is generally little or no supporting evidence. It’s actually a more straight forward assessment.Is the Twins spending consistent with the rest of the league?Are their profits greater than the norm for the rest of the league?Assuming Forbes is a credible source, the answer is no.This fact has been posted here several times.

 

All of the failed contracts have also been listed.Even now after the OP did a great job of illustrating just how often these contracts fail, some still cling to the premise the failed contracts won’t hurt the team as if there is no better way to spend the money which I outlined earlier in this thread as well as others.

 

It’s pretty simple in concept.We have considerably less revenue than several teams.If we are going to compete with those teams we have to get the most out of every available dollar.Some of the top teams could sign 5 or 6 elite free agents and still have our available payroll left over.The real failure of the previous regime is they did not build the requisite analytics, scouting, and operating practices needed to get the most out of our available dollars.

 

I would sure like to see one of the posters who constantly complain about the Twins spending to provide evidence that the Twins spending practices are different than the rest of the league.The simple reality is that other teams have significantly more revenue and we should be debating what is the best way to overcome that disadvantage.

The Twins haven't lived up to their own promises regarding spending for at least the previous 4 seasons.

 

Ownership has repeatedly stated a goal of spending at/near 50-55 percent of revenue.Using best available estimates, they haven't done that since at least 2011.

 

This is not remotely controversial, or questionable.  

 

 

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#55 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,053 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

Hughes pitched like a no. 1 in the first year of his contract, and Santana has already exceeded the value of his contract. So there are two examples. The argument isn't, "they shouldn't spend"; it's more like, "spending big might not work as well as we hope, and it actually might hurt in the long run."


Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.
  • USAFChief likes this

#56 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Members
  • 908 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:10 AM

 

The nature of the 4/48M pitchers almost guarantees they'll never be the kind of guy who could lead a WS contender though.

If they were already good enough to do so they'd be getting a bigger free agent deal, but the solid deal they received is just reinforcement that they don't and won't have to change their game in effort to become that guy.

If the Twins can't or shouldn't sign the big shots, they should get the guys who have the ability to become a big shot but still have something to prove.

Easier said than done.

Just a reminder to the fair weather fans. The weather is fair, and will be for quite some time.


#57 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:21 AM

Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.


Peak Hughes put up a 6 fWAR season, which is better than Darvish has ever done by almost a win and a half. We wouldn't be having this conversation right now if the Twins had a 6 win pitcher in their rotation. It's only one example, of course, but we're able to talk about who the Twins should sign largely because Hughes wasn't the kind of guy you'd give a 7 year deal at 25 million or more AAV. I say spend, but do it wisely.

#58 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Members
  • 908 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:24 AM

 

You don't go to "Ryan's plan." You build from within. Collect as many assets as possible during your down years. When you are ready to compete, you find a free agent or a trade to supplement what you have.

 

Ryan's two biggest problems were poor drafting, failed trades and poor preparation due to his failure to keep up with the times. But he was right in that free agency isn't a way to build a pitching staff, it's only a way to supplement your pitching staff because the available pitchers are usually older and more expensive than they should be. 

 

Theoretically, Jose Berrios takes a step forward to lead the staff next year (his stuff is ridiculous). And then perhaps Gonsalves and Romero do well once they get called up. 

 

Perhaps the new regime will let a few of those assets go to get a guy who would be better than any of the free agent options. 

TR's first draft back in 2012 was a strong one. Take a look at how well the 2013 draft matured this season. When all is said and done, all of TR's drafts will be good ones. 

Just a reminder to the fair weather fans. The weather is fair, and will be for quite some time.


#59 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:25 AM

 

Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.

 

I would be happy to have Lynn or Cobb as accessory pieces though.If they got one of those two and an ace that would be pretty good in my opinion. 


#60 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,053 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:28 AM

Easier said than done.


Not for Cleveland. Not for Houston.