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

#161 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 26,476 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:28 PM

They won't be positioned for the next ten years, if they always wait to add pieces until they are only one piece away. They certainly won't be positioned to win in year one of the next ten years if they don't add pitching. Probably not year two or three either, after ESan leaves and they don't replace him. And then why would anyone want to stay, if they see the front office not adding players? Then it would look like when Johan and Torri said it would.

I don't think anyone is claiming they are only one piece away. But it is hard to compete if you don't add pieces.

Edited by Mike Sixel, 09 January 2018 - 01:31 PM.

  • Twins33 and KirbyDome89 like this

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


#162 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:40 PM

 

I think your plan involves as much, if not more risk than handing money to Darvish. You're assuming all of the core is open to extensions and don't have interest in hitting FA. Then they're guaranteed to find a front end starter in two years? I also don't understand how you can be worried about years 3/4-6 on a Darvish deal but somehow the ace we sign in 2 years locks us into contention for a 10 year window. Also, why are you trading for a "Darvish type," halfway through a contract if you're worried about the back end? If the Twins are paying for the back side of a contract wouldn't it make sense to just sign Darvish and get the first few years, which are the highest production, as well? Then, if an ace won't sign and they can't work out a trade they'll just find another Verlander? There are so many moving parts and all of them have to work in the Twins favor just to get a pitcher like the one they have an opportunity to sign right now. 

 

How are they supposed to catch NY, Boston, Houston, or Cleveland if they aren't adding pieces? Are we convinced those teams won't be good in two years? Should the Twins wait longer if they're not? I'm so over the argument that player X won't get them to the WS so don't sign them right now. They have a 4 year window where all their young talent it cheap. Take advantage, don't wait until they're all hitting arbitration and eventually FA to decided that adding pieces is a good idea. There is no reason Lewis and Co. can't supplement an already good team rather than be relied upon to get them to that point.  

 

We'll disagree on what kind of difference a front end starter makes for the Twins.  

 

It's a fair point to say they might not be able to extend players.So, let me revise my position accordingly.At least try to extend a player or two before you spend $150M+ on a SP entering the decline phase of his career assuming he follows normal regression.

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnelwith Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

I did not say trade for a Darvish Type.What I am suggesting is that it might make more sense to spend it when the addition actually puts them in contention.It's a simple choice.Spend the money now on a guy who won't be very good for the last 3 years of his contract or retain the ability to spend the money when the player they acquire puts them in contention.It is true that day may never come but that approach is certainly no more risky than hoping Darvish somehow defies aging.Of course, that's not impossible.There have been a few SPs that have remained effective well past the norm.The odds just are not good.

 


#163 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,524 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:29 PM

 

It's a fair point to say they might not be able to extend players.So, let me revise my position accordingly.At least try to extend a player or two before you spend $150M+ on a SP entering the decline phase of his career assuming he follows normal regression.

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnelwith Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

I did not say trade for a Darvish Type.What I am suggesting is that it might make more sense to spend it when the addition actually puts them in contention.It's a simple choice.Spend the money now on a guy who won't be very good for the last 3 years of his contract or retain the ability to spend the money when the player they acquire puts them in contention.It is true that day may never come but that approach is certainly no more risky than hoping Darvish somehow defies aging.Of course, that's not impossible.There have been a few SPs that have remained effective well past the norm.The odds just are not good.

I think they can sign a pitcher and work out extensions over the next few years just as easily. 

 

My position is that he makes the Twins better. Do you see any of those 4 teams falling apart in the next few years?

 

"add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract."

I'm not sure how they're finding that type of player other than a trade but that isn't the point. You're against signing Darvish because of the back end of his contract but you're advocating they bring in pitcher like him on the back half of his contract, or sign a pitcher to a similar deal and that opens a massive window of contention. You can't have it both ways. If we're assuming the end of the Darvish deal will be disappointing, which I think we both agree it will be, then we have to assume that bringing in a pitcher at that point in his contract will be a disappointment as well. The same goes for signing a pitcher in a few years, not only are they failing to improve the pitching in the short term , but if the Twins are handing out extensions to all of the core alongside a massive pitching contract those "down years," become an even greater albatross than a Darvish deal. Signing Darvish now means he is gone within 1-2 years of the core extensions. There is still opportunity to reset and make another run. Committing 6 years to a pitcher at the beginning of the years severely limits the flexibility they might have with those players in their prime. 


#164 Halsey Hall

Halsey Hall

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,521 posts
  • LocationCurrently Hammond Stadium

Posted 09 January 2018 - 03:50 PM

The only thing I'm committing to is heading to Ft Myers.I'm leaving tomorrow. 

  • Carole Keller, birdwatcher and Mike Sixel like this

he gone!


#165 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 13,780 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 04:13 PM

Heck, I wouldn't even mind of they could figure out a way to get Cain either.


They could still get Matt Cain! :)
  • USAFChief likes this

#166 Carole Keller

Carole Keller

    It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

  • Twins Mods
  • 20,929 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 04:23 PM

The only thing I'm committing to is heading to Ft Myers.I'm leaving tomorrow.


And I’ll be gone before you get here (leaving Thursday). But it’s nice and sunny and warm here ... I’m sure better than where you are now!
  • Halsey Hall likes this
“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.” ~Laura Dern
Nevertheless, she persisted. Time’s up.

#167 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:25 PM

 

I think they can sign a pitcher and work out extensions over the next few years just as easily. 

 

My position is that he makes the Twins better. Do you see any of those 4 teams falling apart in the next few years?

 

"add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract."

I'm not sure how they're finding that type of player other than a trade but that isn't the point. You're against signing Darvish because of the back end of his contract but you're advocating they bring in pitcher like him on the back half of his contract, or sign a pitcher to a similar deal and that opens a massive window of contention. You can't have it both ways. If we're assuming the end of the Darvish deal will be disappointing, which I think we both agree it will be, then we have to assume that bringing in a pitcher at that point in his contract will be a disappointment as well. The same goes for signing a pitcher in a few years, not only are they failing to improve the pitching in the short term , but if the Twins are handing out extensions to all of the core alongside a massive pitching contract those "down years," become an even greater albatross than a Darvish deal. Signing Darvish now means he is gone within 1-2 years of the core extensions. There is still opportunity to reset and make another run. Committing 6 years to a pitcher at the beginning of the years severely limits the flexibility they might have with those players in their prime. 

 

I think there are two points I am trying to make here that you are not considering.This team is still very young and developing.They also have a number of prospects that could step-up very soon.Obviously, there is always risk with prospects as well as the current young core getting better.However, this seems like a reasonable expectation given our young core and the depth of our prospect pool.  

 

The 2nd point is that if our young core does not step up it won't matter because they are not as good as the young core of our primary competition.Houston's young core or even New York's young guys without considering they just traded for Stanton and have massive revenue.Boston also has great young players and a massive budget.The Angels are also looking better.We should also keep in mind that next years FA class could shift the balance of power and that shift is likely toward to the markets with the revenue to afford their massive contracts.

 

A point I failed to make directly is that not every free agent SP is heading into their age 32 season. His demand for a 6 year deal at this age can make this deal UGLY.Depending on your definition of mid-market and "major contract" these deals are extremely rare or non-existent for mid market teams.We just can't absorb several non-productive years the way a major market.However, there is the occasion opportunity with a 28 or 29 y/o.Granted, this further depletes the number of opportunities to sign FAs but that's how I think a GM in a mid to small revenue market has to play free agency.The way its been played so far is that GMs of similar revenue teams simply never sign this kind of player.

 

6 years might actually be the best approach but at a number close to the 140.Say something like 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 /25 | 12 with a 3M buyout the last year.143 guaranteed which is an AAV of almost $24M.That's still really risky but at least the diminishes the impact in year 6 when he is likely of very little or no value. 

 

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how much SPs decline years 32-37 and what percentage of them are above replacement after year 35.This information must have been published somewhere.Anyone know where that information can be obtained?


#168 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,524 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:26 PM

 

I think there are two points I am trying to make here that you are not considering.This team is still very young and developing.They also have a number of prospects that could step-up very soon.Obviously, there is always risk with prospects as well as the current young core getting better.However, this seems like a reasonable expectation given our young core and the depth of our prospect pool.  

 

The 2nd point is that if our young core does not step up it won't matter because they are not as good as the young core of our primary competition.Houston's young core or even New York's young guys without considering they just traded for Stanton and have massive revenue.Boston also has great young players and a massive budget.The Angels are also looking better.We should also keep in mind that next years FA class could shift the balance of power and that shift is likely toward to the markets with the revenue to afford their massive contracts.

 

A point I failed to make directly is that not every free agent SP is heading into their age 32 season. His demand for a 6 year deal at this age can make this deal UGLY.Depending on your definition of mid-market and "major contract" these deals are extremely rare or non-existent for mid market teams.We just can't absorb several non-productive years the way a major market.However, there is the occasion opportunity with a 28 or 29 y/o.Granted, this further depletes the number of opportunities to sign FAs but that's how I think a GM in a mid to small revenue market has to play free agency.The way its been played so far is that GMs of similar revenue teams simply never sign this kind of player.

 

6 years might actually be the best approach but at a number close to the 140.Say something like 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 /25 | 12 with a 3M buyout the last year.143 guaranteed which is an AAV of almost $24M.That's still really risky but at least the diminishes the impact in year 6 when he is likely of very little or no value. 

 

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how much SPs decline years 32-37 and what percentage of them are above replacement after year 35.This information must have been published somewhere.Anyone know where that information can be obtained?

No, I've considered them. I agree that there is talent in the farm system, and if some of that high end talent was on the pitching side it would make the addition of a front end starter less of a necessity, but that isn't the case. 

 

The budgets of those teams aren't going to change anytime soon and their young players aren't going anywhere either. Should the Twins just sit this one out?The point of adding Darvish is to catch those teams. If the threshold to cross before before adding FAs is reaching the talent level of Boston or NY then they're unlikely to sign anybody. 

 

When are you finding a 28 y/o ace in FA? None of the elite pitchers in the 19' or 20' fall in that age range. Gerrit Cole might be the closest they could find but he isn't available until 2020 and I wouldn't put him on the same level as Darvish. 

 

I get that FA signings are by definition an overpay. I feel like most posters in favor of bringing in Darvish are realistic about both the pros and cons. Like I said in the OP, the Twins have put themselves in a s*** situation, where they either have to overpay in FA or give up prized prospects just to put together a competent rotation. 


#169 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,406 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:36 PM

 

 

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnelwith Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

 

 

I know you were having this discussion with others so forgive my intrusion. However... I can't help myself. 

 

You and I agree completely disagree here. I say the Twins are contenders right now! Before Darvish. 

 

This game isn't played on paper. I know the Yankees look scary right now but scary teams fall every year seemingly. The Yankees are going to look scary for awhile. So will the Red Sox and some new scary teams will appear and fade away. 

 

This young roster deserves immediate support. Those kids coming up that are going to give us our sustained run will get here. The risk, price tag, age... all of it. Darvish's price is a price that must be paid if you want the player. 

 

I've never been a spend money guy... I don't think we have to spend 300 million to win a world series... However... We've been under 100 million long enough.

 

We can buy now. This team is a contender right now.

 

I will also hand nothing to the Indians. They can be beat.

 

:)  

  • USAFChief, Vanimal46 and howieramone2 like this

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#170 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 07:42 AM

 

I know you were having this discussion with others so forgive my intrusion. However... I can't help myself. 

 

You and I agree completely disagree here. I say the Twins are contenders right now! Before Darvish. 

 

This game isn't played on paper. I know the Yankees look scary right now but scary teams fall every year seemingly. The Yankees are going to look scary for awhile. So will the Red Sox and some new scary teams will appear and fade away. 

 

This young roster deserves immediate support. Those kids coming up that are going to give us our sustained run will get here. The risk, price tag, age... all of it. Darvish's price is a price that must be paid if you want the player. 

 

I've never been a spend money guy... I don't think we have to spend 300 million to win a world series... However... We've been under 100 million long enough.

 

We can buy now. This team is a contender right now.

 

I will also hand nothing to the Indians. They can be beat.

 

:)  

 

Hardly an intrusion and I hope you are right.The people who get paid to assess the relative position of MLB teams do not think the Twins are a serious contender to win the division and certainly not a world series contender. There opinion is unbiased and there methodology for coming to that conclusion more refined.How many wins is Darvish good for?It is not nearly enough to win the Division or become a serious contender. 

 

Becoming a serious contender would require that a few of our young core and/or prospects step up.

Most fans live in the now and most want the player now assuming their team is ready right now.The reality is that it often takes awhile.We have all kinds of examples of Twins and former Twins where that took until awhile.Dozier was not an impact player early.How about Hicks, Gomez, and several others.

 

There is also the assumption here that none of our prospect are going to make a difference because the only elite prospect we have is in A ball.Well, Aaron Judge was not considered a top prospect either.Let's also keep in mind that our President of Baseball Operations comes from an organization that acquired and developed a few players not considered to be impact players by others.

 

We are talking about alot of assumptions and unknowns.The one thing we know for sure or know to be very probable is that Darvish or any other SP starts declining at roughly his present age.With the exceptions of the Randy Johnsons and Roger Clemens, SPs are no longer impact players beytond age 35 which means we will very likely have $30M in dead money when all of our present core will be in there prime and players like Lewis, Graterol, Thorpe, Romero, Gonsalves, Kirilloff, etc are stregthening the team.If I were placing a bet, I would bet that the money spent on Darvish today will be more valuable in three years in terms of contributing to a contender.In other words, what ever player we could have added with the money will be more valuable to contention in 2021-23.