Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: The Darvish Contingency Plan

yu darvish chris archer alex cobb lance lynn jake odorizzi
  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#101 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,218 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 11:52 PM

Santana will only miss a handful of starts so our rotation of Berrios Gibson Meija Gonsalves? Duffey? Or new signing??? vs. 2017 of Santana Santiago Hughes Meija Gibson (Berrios was called up in May) looks in as good as shape to me to start the year. Keep the faith Twins fans all is not lost! Gonsalves and Romero have a lot of UNPROVEN talent so add them to Berrios and we will see the makings of a young core that we can grow with hopefully sometime in 2018.


Gonsalves and Romero are nice prospects. They are not Sano, Buxton, or even Berrios or Gibson as prospects. Gonsalves has hardly cracked a top 100 list in his career. Ditto the Romero, although this site seems to hold him in much higher regard than others. These aren't blue chippers. I don't think anyone would bet on either of those two being better than Darvish over the next six years. There's a solid chance that neither of the two will have a season as good as Darvish's worst season over that same stretch. But more to the point, we're trying to win this year. World Series runs take talent and luck. Giving up seasons where you could have enough talent to get lucky is disappointing.

I'm concerned that we're gearing up to be sellers at the deadline at this point.
  • USAFChief, Oldgoat_MN and notoriousgod71 like this

#102 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,737 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 12:39 AM

The money may not have been the issue. They may have been fine with offering more money. The opt out clause was the issue. I don't see why anyone should have an issue with not wanting to give an opt out clause. If the player is confident they can exceed the contract they should have the conviction in themselves to sign a short term deal. 

  • dgwills likes this

#103 TNTwinsFan

TNTwinsFan

    Member

  • Member
  • 368 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:06 AM

It may have already been said, but I think the Twins need to try to sign Garcia and one of Cobb/Lynn. With ESan out for a couple months, the depth-quality needs to be increased. No other Ace types out there (Arrieta is not that guy.) Rotation: Santana Cobb/Lynn Berrios Garcia Gibson AAA/DEPTH: Mejia Gonsalves Littel Romero May Hughes Duffey Slegers (Probably forgetting a couple) Without 2 FA signings, that pushes Mejia/Duffey/Slegers/May/Hughes into slugging it out for 1 spot. Obviously there is a lot of uncertainty with that group and they report this week!
  • HitInAPinch and howieramone2 like this

#104 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 February 2018 - 06:00 AM

 

Just saw this....wow....

 

Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together.I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2. 

 

IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue. 

 

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.

 

You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.

  • Twins33 and dgwills like this
Papers...business papers.

#105 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 February 2018 - 06:01 AM

 

Doesn't this all but settle the fact that the Twins knew they were offering a lesser contract (by not offering the opt out) and did so anyway?

 

Depends if they offered before or after the Cubs, which isn't clear, so doesn't really settle anything.

Papers...business papers.

#106 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,360 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:32 AM

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.
 
You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.


What’s the worst case scenario? The player isn’t performing, and continues on with the contract, just as if there WASNT an opt out clause?

Because that’s what would happen.

And if the player DOES opt out, you’ve gotten two years of him exceeding expectations and now don’t have to pay for the last couple years of the original contract. And I needn’t remind you, those last couple years of a long contract are cited here daily as the big scary boogie-monster to be avoided at all costs.
  • Riverbrian, Mr. Brooks, Vanimal46 and 2 others like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#107 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,068 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:34 AM

 


I'm concerned that we're gearing up to be sellers at the deadline at this point.

That's practically a given considering we were sellers in a year we participated in the play-in game.


#108 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,068 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:41 AM

 

Just saw this....wow....

 

Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together.I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2. 

 

IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue. 

 

At least he's a clever texter.

  • Hosken Bombo Disco and KirbyDome89 like this

#109 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 617 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:45 AM

Gold lining: This means there isn't going to be a Party at Napoli's: Twins Edition now... Hopefully.

  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

#110 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:50 AM

What’s the worst case scenario? The player isn’t performing, and continues on with the contract, just as if there WASNT an opt out clause?

Because that’s what would happen.

And if the player DOES opt out, you’ve gotten two years of him exceeding expectations and now don’t have to pay for the last couple years of the original contract. And I needn’t remind you, those last couple years of a long contract are cited here daily as the big scary boogie-monster to be avoided at all costs.


Yes, injury or bad performance and then being stuck with the backend is a worse case scenario. But part if that risk is mitigated by the chance that the player performs and stays healthy and you keep him locked in at a reasonable contract.

I agree with the second part, that was my point. It would be a great outcome to get 2 years at a high but reasonable rate.

An opt out puts all the risk on the team and removes most if the upside. It stands to reason a franchise with ~50% revenue/payroll advantage is more willing to take on that risk.
Papers...business papers.

#111 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Member
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:50 AM

 

Depends if they offered before or after the Cubs, which isn't clear, so doesn't really settle anything.

 

What does it matter?If philosophically we seem opposed to even treading in those waters we have our answer either way.  

 

And look, the team can draw the line in the sand where it wants and if we find where that line is we can discuss it then.What I'm done hearing is the same old song and dance about how players are turning down our superior offers because it's Minnesota.

 

The only thing about Minnesota that makes players turn down offers here is our consistent approach of offering inferior contracts.Period.  

  • USAFChief, notoriousgod71, Hosken Bombo Disco and 3 others like this

#112 HitInAPinch

HitInAPinch

    Look deeply into mine eyes....

  • Member
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:50 AM

Just my thoughts....

 

I don't like keeping Gibson around any longer.I think we can do better.

 

Although I question the Rays use in the past 4 years, I'd definitely take a shot at Archer.Reduce his innings from 200+ to around 180 and get his legs back under him.

 

After that I'd try to sign Cobb and/or Garcia.

 

Of the 3, I believe Archer is the only one with a contract.If a couple starters in the MiLB are ready during the season, well, there could be room.  

It's not my fault !


#113 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 February 2018 - 07:58 AM

What does it matter? If philosophically we seem opposed to even treading in those waters we have our answer either way.

And look, the team can draw the line in the sand where it wants and if we find where that line is we can discuss it then. What I'm done hearing is the same old song and dance about how players are turning down our superior offers because it's Minnesota.

The only thing about Minnesota that makes players turn down offers here is our consistent approach of offering inferior contracts. Period.


I agree it doesn't matter, but you pretty clearly implied they made an offer they already knew was beat. That's an interesting assumption.

I personally don't buy that players won't come to Minnesota. Lots of free agents sign here!

I think it was a mistake for the front office to play this up the way they did, I don't know what they hoped to gain (and it's especially bad if they don't sign one of the other 3 main pitchers). I do think there was reason to hope that the big markets wouldn't go 6 years or opt out, but if LA and Chicago really wanted Darvish, Twins weren't going to outbid them. But I don't agree with you it predestined that this was the outcome, just that the odds the Twins would get him was small.
Papers...business papers.

#114 olivia11

olivia11

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 97 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:09 AM

Any idea on what it would take to get McHugh from Houston? 

 

Rosenthal suggested Twins might have interested in trading for him after the Darvish news broke.The Dodgers basically have 7 starters right now so it seems like it would make a lot of sense. They're ML team is loaded, so maybe they'd be looking for some high-upside, high-risk prospects who are further away to continue their window.Either way, the price has to be considerably cheaper since McHugh isn't as good as Archer, is a year older and has fewer years of team control (at likely at more money).Maybe most importantly, Houston isn't in a situation like Tampa Bay where they'll only trade him if they can get a franchise-saving return that's worth the risk of not having Archer while also trying to build a new stadium. 


#115 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Member
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:36 AM

 

I agree it doesn't matter, but you pretty clearly implied they made an offer they already knew was beat. That's an interesting assumption.

I personally don't buy that players won't come to Minnesota. Lots of free agents sign here!

I think it was a mistake for the front office to play this up the way they did, I don't know what they hoped to gain (and it's especially bad if they don't sign one of the other 3 main pitchers). I do think there was reason to hope that the big markets wouldn't go 6 years or opt out, but if LA and Chicago really wanted Darvish, Twins weren't going to outbid them. But I don't agree with you it predestined that this was the outcome, just that the odds the Twins would get him was small.

 

Fair enough, your last paragraph is a part people really don't seem to get:

 

The big markets were largely non-factors this season.It's not like we went into the usual FA fight armed with a butter knife against the tanks of NY and LA.Everyone came to this fight with sporks and we couldn't even muster up the courage to get out the butter knife.

  • Riverbrian likes this

#116 Dave The Dastardly

Dave The Dastardly

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 520 posts
  • LocationOne Foot Over the Line

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:44 AM

 

Does anyone actually have any evidence that Darvish didn't want to come here?

Evidence? On a fans' site? I thought we were restricted to hyperbole, uninformed opinions and pure speculation! At least that's been my modus operandi.

  • USAFChief, Riverbrian, Dantes929 and 1 other like this

#117 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 16,974 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:48 AM

In Levine's defense he is right. Opt outs are terrible for teams. Much easier for bigger markets to take on. But if the Twins aren't willing to put one in, they aren't going to get the best free agents.

You actually described the best case scenario not the worst.


Actually, another worst case is you don't land the player. Or you have to guarantee more up front to land the player ($160 mil, in this case?).
  • Riverbrian likes this

#118 Dave The Dastardly

Dave The Dastardly

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 520 posts
  • LocationOne Foot Over the Line

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:57 AM

“By definition doesn’t a player stay with you if he’s performing at a value less than what you’re paying him and he’ll walk if he’s performing at a value above it?” Levine said.

 

I haven't yet been "sold" on the new Twins regime, but I don't understand the controversy over that remark. As a man who has in the past been involved in numerous salary negotiations, I think Levine is spot on. The trick is to find that point where the organization is getting exactly what they're paying for and the player is being paid for exactly what they're contributing to the organization. If you can't find that point, its best to walk away from the deal because one side or the other will be disappointed. Disappointment leads to disarray.

  • Vanimal46 likes this

#119 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 11,705 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:09 AM

I thought I would wake up to the news that the Twins signed Cobb. He's the contingency, right? Is Cobb also refusing to offer the Twins a discount? Damn him!
He measured the achievements of others by what they had accomplished, asking of them that they measure him by what he envisaged or planned.
- J. L. Borges

#120 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:14 AM

Fair enough, your last paragraph is a part people really don't seem to get:

The big markets were largely non-factors this season. It's not like we went into the usual FA fight armed with a butter knife against the tanks of NY and LA. Everyone came to this fight with sporks and we couldn't even muster up the courage to get out the butter knife.


A big market signed him for a pretty big contract.
  • howieramone2 likes this
Papers...business papers.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: yu darvish, chris archer, alex cobb, lance lynn, jake odorizzi