Jump to content

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

Don’t hold your breath Twins fans

  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#81 Twins33

Twins33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 465 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 11:44 AM

I never get the heartburn with years of contracts. Everyone knows the performance value on those deals is front loaded. I literally heard Mackie and Judd suggest that 6 years $140m was too much for Yu, then suggest we offer 5 years $150m so we're less committed. Literally paying more for fewer years.
If we all know you're paying for 6 years to get 3 or 4 good years, then it really is a 3 or 4 year deal financed over 6 years. No gm expects to get a full contracts worth of top production. The market is what the market is.
I look at long contracts as a finance agreement. If I buy a new car, I need to finance it. I understand that my payment is the same at the beginning and at the end. The value of the car goes down with mile 1. It is what it is. Shorter free agent contacts would just end up with "inflated" annual salaries. Longer contracts may actually allow smaller payroll teams to compete for a top player by adding more years. Inflation also tells us that what seems absurd one year seems run of the mill 10 years later. And of course, some players are productive all the way through their contracts. There are some benefits to longer term deals.
It's all a matter of perspective.

This is my feeling too. I don't want them to give out a six year deal, but I do want Darvish here for years 1-4. Years 5 and 6 may suck, but years 1-4 could make it completely worth it.

Front load it a bit and bite the bullet.
  • Sconnie, Vanimal46 and KirbyDome89 like this

#82 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,905 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:02 PM

 

I never get the heartburn with years of contracts. Everyone knows the performance value on those deals is front loaded. I literally heard Mackie and Judd suggest that 6 years $140m was too much for Yu, then suggest we offer 5 years $150m so we're less committed. Literally paying more for fewer years.

If we all know you're paying for 6 years to get 3 or 4 good years, then it really is a 3 or 4 year deal financed over 6 years. No gm expects to get a full contracts worth of top production. The market is what the market is.

I look at long contracts as a finance agreement. If I buy a new car, I need to finance it. I understand that my payment is the same at the beginning and at the end. The value of the car goes down with mile 1. It is what it is. Shorter free agent contacts would just end up with "inflated" annual salaries. Longer contracts may actually allow smaller payroll teams to compete for a top player by adding more years. Inflation also tells us that what seems absurd one year seems run of the mill 10 years later. And of course, some players are productive all the way through their contracts. There are some benefits to longer term deals.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

And that's a particularly valuable perspective for GMs as it may be best to just walk away from the player and use the roster spot for a better player at the end of such a deal. The player's salary and his production should only be tied at day one, after that they should be on completely different evaluation models.

  • USAFChief and Jham like this

#83 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:15 PM

And that's a particularly valuable perspective for GMs as it may be best to just walk away from the player and use the roster spot for a better player at the end of such a deal. The player's salary and his production should only be tied at day one, after that they should be on completely different evaluation models.


Sounds like you're describing Justin Verlander. Who else is open to trading a player better than Darvish at the end of his long term contract?
  • Jham likes this

#84 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:17 PM

I feel like the only time the Twins had any contracts that limited what they could do was under Terry Ryan's second tenure, when he sold the outfield for prospects and then blocked the prospects with mediocre pitchers on long contracts. 

 

What I'm getting at is ... as Twins fans we shouldn't worry about ridiculous $ contracts. Contracts that were too long were a problem, sure, but that's only if your philosophy as a GM is "sign and forget" rather than to keep watching and keep working!

If you only want a guy for 3 years but he demands 6, sign himto a 6 year contract. If he is still serviceable in 3 years, trade him and let someone else have the tail end of the contract. Even if the trade is for long term prospects, hopefully you did this more than once so you have other competent pitchers, right? If he is winning Cy Youngs for you in year 3, celebrate and keep him longer.....

 

GMs who worry about contract length aren't what I would call geniuses. Just keep the trading leverage if a guy demands a long contract. If Nolasco can be dumped, anyone can be dumped. The only true risk is if someone blows his arm out, but people in the DL don't block anybody......

Edited by Doomtints, 02 January 2018 - 12:23 PM.

  • Twins33 and Vanimal46 like this

#85 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,905 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:23 PM

 

Sounds like you're describing Justin Verlander. Who else is open to trading a player better than Darvish at the end of his long term contract?

 

Well I was hypothesizing a complete lack of on-field value and a DFA rather than a trade. My position is basically, "So what, our valuation of the player was based on his first 3-4 years anyway."


#86 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:40 PM

 

This is baseball as much as we all predict the Yankees Astros and Indians will win the divisions we know it's more likely 2 of those are wrong then not.

If we're placing bets I'll take the over.

  • Doomtints likes this

#87 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 02 January 2018 - 01:54 PM

It's the same song and dance every off-season and every trade deadline...

There's a refusal to pay market rates for free agents because the years are too long. The market isn't going to change. If anything salary rates are going to continue to climb.

There's a refusal for making trades because it's not wise to give up 6-7 year assets for players with 2-3 years of control left.

So let's rely on internal prospects... Probably the most risky proposition out there. Any injury or regression from prospects and there goes your depth. There's no magic potion out there that will make your prospects hit their ceilings or make them fly through the system faster. I see 3 SP that MAY help the team in some way (Gonsalves, Slegers, Jorge). That's still asking an awful lot for them to provide positive value in their first extended time in the MLB. We've seen countless prospects fall on their face in this circumstance.

So I'm at a loss. What do people want this team to do? The pitching is still not good.

Edited by Vanimal46, 02 January 2018 - 01:55 PM.

  • USAFChief, birdwatcher, Riverbrian and 4 others like this

#88 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 02:02 PM

 

Thus thread is built off fallacious assumptions?

Falvine themselves have declared Darvish "a priority." Those two clearly believe upgrading the pitching is a necessity.

Now I guess you can split hairs and say "them declaring they need it is not the same as them saying they'll go get it," but thats hardly ridiculous.

And btw...please be careful about using the term ridiculous to describe someone's thread

 

It's fallacious to assume people are fervently celebrating low key free agent additions. It's fallacious to assume that the FO is only paying lip service to the idea of improving the team, when their actions say otherwise. It's fallacious to assume that players don't have the final say on who they sign with as free agents. It's also a very different thing to call something a priority and guarantee it as an outcome. Think of New Years resolutions as an example. Saying "I'm going to prioritize my health" is not the same as actually going to the gym and eating healthier foods.

 

But whatever. It's only baseball. My resolution is to not get worked up by others who are worked up.

  • TiberTwins, Jham and howieramone2 like this

#89 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:14 PM

 

The Diamondbacks were estimated 19th in revenue the year they signed Grienke to a 6 year deal.

And I think mlb payroll budget is generally separate from other operating budgets, so I'm not sure that extra money not spent on payroll would be invested into scouting and analytics.

 

The Diamondbacks just signed a TV deal that added $50+ million a year.I have made this same statement in the past and prefaced the statement with show me an example where the team did not just have a huge addition to revenue.I failed to do that here but it should go without saying that this is a very unusual circumstance.If the Twins add $50M to their annual TV contract I would have a vbery different position.Even if they had not gained this financial windfall, it would still have to be deemed a very rare thing.


#90 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:32 PM

 

The Daimondback, Twins, and Rockies are all basically the same 2016 revenue ranking (21,23,24.... but within $5M). The Grienke example was used above and the Rockies just spent $33M annually on three relievers.

 

Those were all 3 year deals and 2 of them were (9M/year.This is an absolutely irrelevant comparison to giving 1 player 6 years starting their age 32 season.The risk is spread out over three players and more importantly the Rockies are not on the hook for their age 35, 36, 37 seasons.I expect the Twins would jump all over Darvish for 3 years @ 30M/year.Not even remotely the same thing.

 

The Diamondbacks had just signed a $1.5B TV contract that raised their revenue by almost $50M/year.azsnakepit.com/2015/2/23/8097375/arizona-diamondbacks-tv-deal-1-5-billion

Hardly a fair comparison. We should expect the same if the Twins sign a mega TV deal.

 

  • howieramone2 likes this

#91 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:48 PM

 

This has been debunked over and over.

 

BTW, the original point being discussed..."the Twins must develop their pitching from within"...is also so non-specific it can't really be argued.But it is also so non-specific as to be meaningless.

 

Even if the Twins COULD somehow do that, it's a 5-10 year project, which does NOTHING to help in the meantime.

 

It has never been debunked.You apparently think the Diamondbacks signing Grienke after signing a $1.5 Billion dollar TV deal debunks this position.Any of the other examples are teams resigning players like we did with Mauer.The only one that is somewhat reasonable to compare is the Nationals and Max Sherzer.The National have $40-50M more in revenue than the Twins which is obviously enough to pay that entire contract and have enough left over for a top bullpen arm so it certainly is not fair to say the Nationals and Twins have sufficiently equivalent revenue to make this a good comparison.

 

So, let's sum up.One of the comparison's is a team that had just signed a $1.5B TV contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay for the entirety of the contract and then some.Even if they were reasonable comparisons, two instances for the 18 teams in the bottom 1/3 of the league for the past couple of decades would qualify as rare and these most certainly are not good comparisons.One is actually a ridiculous comparison given the TV deal.


#92 Danchat

Danchat

    Pro Bowl Armchair QB

  • Members
  • 3,993 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:57 PM

 

It's the same song and dance every off-season and every trade deadline...

There's a refusal to pay market rates for free agents because the years are too long. The market isn't going to change. If anything salary rates are going to continue to climb.

There's a refusal for making trades because it's not wise to give up 6-7 year assets for players with 2-3 years of control left.

So let's rely on internal prospects... Probably the most risky proposition out there. Any injury or regression from prospects and there goes your depth. There's no magic potion out there that will make your prospects hit their ceilings or make them fly through the system faster. I see 3 SP that MAY help the team in some way (Gonsalves, Slegers, Jorge). That's still asking an awful lot for them to provide positive value in their first extended time in the MLB. We've seen countless prospects fall on their face in this circumstance.

So I'm at a loss. What do people want this team to do? The pitching is still not good.

The answer is this: balance free agent signings with developing internal prospects. Take a bunch of prospects and develop them into a strong core (Twins hitters at this point) and then add on to the weak areas (pitching) with free agents. The time to strike is now, the window has opened and we don't know how long it's going to be open, so let's spend some cash. Sure, they might have to overpay to get a good starter, but that's just the cost of supplementing the core. Let's make that signing now before the core gets more expensive.

 

Falvey and Levine seem willing to make a signing, and we know they want Darvish. If they can't get him, I'd hope there's a solid plan B. I'd even be fine trading prospects for a reliever as long as it isn't an elite prospect (Royce Lewis) or someone who can help our team's weakness very soon (Gonsalves). Not much has happened in the MLB offseason thus far - I'm confident the Twins will make at least one bold move. Let's just hope it works out.

  • birdwatcher, Riverbrian, HitInAPinch and 1 other like this

#93 tarheeltwinsfan

tarheeltwinsfan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 823 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 07:30 PM

i didn’t know they had Napoli inked

Noooooooooooooo!
  • Oldgoat_MN and Sconnie like this

#94 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 02 January 2018 - 07:43 PM

The answer is this: balance free agent signings with developing internal prospects. Take a bunch of prospects and develop them into a strong core (Twins hitters at this point) and then add on to the weak areas (pitching) with free agents. The time to strike is now, the window has opened and we don't know how long it's going to be open, so let's spend some cash. Sure, they might have to overpay to get a good starter, but that's just the cost of supplementing the core. Let's make that signing now before the core gets more expensive.

Falvey and Levine seem willing to make a signing, and we know they want Darvish. If they can't get him, I'd hope there's a solid plan B. I'd even be fine trading prospects for a reliever as long as it isn't an elite prospect (Royce Lewis) or someone who can help our team's weakness very soon (Gonsalves). Not much has happened in the MLB offseason thus far - I'm confident the Twins will make at least one bold move. Let's just hope it works out.


I agree with all of this Danchat. There needs to be a balance. And we need to lose this fear of offering pitcher's contracts longer than 1 year.

That's all I want. One bold move to improve the pitching staff. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a starter or reliever. It's impossible to plan 5-6 years in advance, so take advantage of the window that's open right now.
  • USAFChief, birdwatcher and Danchat like this

#95 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 08:12 PM

 

I agree with all of this Danchat. There needs to be a balance. And we need to lose this fear of offering pitcher's contracts longer than 1 year.

That's all I want. One bold move to improve the pitching staff. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a starter or reliever. It's impossible to plan 5-6 years in advance, so take advantage of the window that's open right now.

 

How many years have we been waiting for "one bold move"?

 

Eh, I'm going to bed.

  • sampleSizeOfOne and Vanimal46 like this

#96 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,579 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:56 AM

It has never been debunked. You apparently think the Diamondbacks signing Grienke after signing a $1.5 Billion dollar TV deal debunks this position. Any of the other examples are teams resigning players like we did with Mauer. The only one that is somewhat reasonable to compare is the Nationals and Max Sherzer. The National have $40-50M more in revenue than the Twins which is obviously enough to pay that entire contract and have enough left over for a top bullpen arm so it certainly is not fair to say the Nationals and Twins have sufficiently equivalent revenue to make this a good comparison.

So, let's sum up. One of the comparison's is a team that had just signed a $1.5B TV contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay for the entirety of the contract and then some. Even if they were reasonable comparisons, two instances for the 18 teams in the bottom 1/3 of the league for the past couple of decades would qualify as rare and these most certainly are not good comparisons. One is actually a ridiculous comparison given the TV deal.


Is the answer never sign a big time free agent? Or break the mold? I hope the latter, or it is very unlikely they ever win consistently,imo. I remain hopeful.

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#97 sampleSizeOfOne

sampleSizeOfOne

    ob's cure

  • Members
  • 7,087 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 01:48 AM

How many years have we been waiting for "one bold move"?
 
Eh, I'm going to bed.


Good point. And i applaud your resolute action thus inspired.

I was also going to point out that if the market seems slower to develop this year than previously, it could be in part due to our feistly little FO getting down and dirty and actually making competitive offers such that those free agents decisions are not so cut and dry as they may have been in previous years.

If there is such a thing as a good time for it, i might as well start holding my breath,,.

And i probably will stay up a bit later, although that is perhaps more because a weird sleep schedule than anything else.

#98 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 07:13 AM

 

Is the answer never sign a big time free agent? Or break the mold? I hope the latter, or it is very unlikely they ever win consistently,imo. I remain hopeful.

 

Mike,

A’s fans and Ray’s fans, and the other very bottom revenue teams know their team is never going to sign a top of the market (6-7 year contract) for a FA pitcher unless they are absolutely delusional.The Twins Revenue position is just enough higher that it seems plausible so a few Twins fans pray that the team would not be so cheap and just go for it.So, you have to ask yourself why they don’t and why does the national media always assume this type of approach is outside the Twin's economic viability?Is there something they just don’t understand?Do they not understand this is the best path to success as you and a few others have advocated here or is it the fans that don’t understand the model MOST LIKELY to achieve sustained success?

 

If this were a consulting project, one of the first things I would look at in deciphering this sort of question is how does this specific company’s (team) practices compare to industry best practices.In this case, other teams have not utilized the practice you propose, at least not by a reasonably objective standard.There are really only two deals in the last decade that anyone can come up with as comparable.As I stated these deals are not reasonably comparable given the revenue advantages of those two teams used as examples.Is the problem that all of those GMs over the course of all of those years just did not see that signing this specific type FA is key to success or is the fans that don’t understand that the probability of success is too low that they opted to utilize other approaches?

 

There is a ton of data available to make this decision. I would first look at the statistical models to determine the likelihood of regression at a given age.When looking at Darvish this means age 32 season through whatever age contract is proposed.Of course, we would also look at any other relevant data.For example, frequency of injury and recovery times at this age.  Do you suppose the GMs, especially the newer GMs with an excellent business education and analytical support teams are looking at this in a more sophisticated fan?Are fans building these models or do you suppose they just want to get better as fast as possible?

 

How many SPs (what percentage) have performed relatively close to their prime at ages 35-37 which is the case with Darvish?Shields is a reasonable example because his contract runs through his age 36 season.There were participants here who insisted James Shield would be as anyone else on our staff over the remaining 3 years of his deal.Nolaco and an fWar of 1 the first year and -1.1 last year.Streamer project .2 for next year.Based on the assumption you like to use that the money would go unused, who cares right.The problem with that assumption is that we have 3 or 4 young players that money could be used to extend into their prime years.

 

I would love to see the calculation for Darvish’s estimated fWAR ages 35-37.I don’t know if Buxton would extend 3 years at $84M beyond whatever we would pay him over his arbitration years but I think that if calculated with all the relevant data available, extending Buxton s a much better risk.   

The bottom line is that mold as you call it is consistent across the league for team’s of similar revenue. 

 

Do you really think they are all wrong?If so, there is a multi million dollar/yr job waiting for anyone that can demonstrate to them there is a better approach.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 04 January 2018 - 07:15 AM.

  • birdwatcher likes this

#99 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 07:45 AM

 

This is my feeling too. I don't want them to give out a six year deal, but I do want Darvish here for years 1-4. Years 5 and 6 may suck, but years 1-4 could make it completely worth it.

Front load it a bit and bite the bullet.

 

I'm not sure that's realistically going to happen.If Darren Wolfson is correct seems like both sides (Darvish and the Twins) are having a hard time "trying to match schedules" for a sit-down meeting.If that's the case if i were the Twins i'd start going after Lynn or Cobb or Cole heavily.They had better be careful how long they chase Darvish because they could be left without a chair when the music stops.

  • Hosken Bombo Disco likes this

#100 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 08:32 AM

 

I'm not sure that's realistically going to happen.If Darren Wolfson is correct seems like both sides (Darvish and the Twins) are having a hard time "trying to match schedules" for a sit-down meeting.If that's the case if i were the Twins i'd start going after Lynn or Cobb or Cole heavily.They had better be careful how long they chase Darvish because they could be left without a chair when the music stops.

 

If Darvish is holding out for 6 or even some report 7 years, Cobb & Lynn might be holding out for 5 years.Teams have realized how much these deals that go well past a players prime are hurting their ability to add pieces.Even the Yankees have to be really regretting the Ellsbury deal.Of course, it only takes one desperate (poorly run) team to make they holdout workout for the player.

 

I would rather have Cobb at 4 years 18M (age 30-33) if Darvish requires 6 years (ages 32-37).Take the leftover money and extend one of our core.That would also leave plenty of money left over to extend another member of the core and then some.The window argument goes right out the window.That plan gives us a reasonable shot at fielding a very good team for a decade.That males a lot more sense to me that pushing our chips in.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 04 January 2018 - 08:33 AM.

  • howieramone2 likes this