Jump to content

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

Twins make offer for Chris Archer

  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#321 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:31 PM

 

 I'm going to start calling Falvey Ryan 2.0 if this persists. ;)

 

What's he done differently? He sells during a playoff race, drafts someone other than the consensus number one pick at number one, and refuses to address team weaknesses.


#322 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 14,494 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:32 PM

and if you're in business for the long haul it's better to have the reputation for under-promising than under-delivering.


You are right, this analogy works very well.

We are used to the under-delivering, but the over-promising was a new development. I genuinely want to know why they seemed ready to give that impression, without the subsequent action to back it up.

#323 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,188 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:34 PM

To be clear I never wanted the Twins to sign Yu Darvish. But if they would have given him 6 year deal with an opt out after 2 or 3 years I would have been fine with that.

 

But, with the Twins luck with long term deals Darvish would have turned into Phil Hughes and would be hurt & would never opt out putting the Twins on the hook for 6 long years.


#324 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,455 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:47 PM

 

Dude... Your Mellowing my HARSH!!! 

 

 

I never liked you.

  • Riverbrian likes this

#325 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,455 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:50 PM

 

You are right, this analogy works very well.

We are used to the under-delivering, but the over-promising was a new development. I genuinely want to know why they seemed ready to give that impression, without the subsequent action to back it up.

 

 

Again, one person's promise is another person's stated objective. I heard the latter.

 

My theory is that the new kids might get just a little overconfident on occasion, and might get a little too cute once in awhile, Levi. I'd suggest the "priority" comment might indicate the former while the Garcia trade at the deadline might indicate the latter.

 

How's that for harsh, eh?

Edited by birdwatcher, 17 February 2018 - 05:55 PM.


#326 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 14,494 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 06:00 PM

"Overconfident" might just be the positive spin to my "naive". Im not sure its saying anything different. And i might be more inclined to that conclusion had Molitor and ownership not echoed it.

That, to me, indicates something more.

#327 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 13,208 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 06:15 PM

"Overconfident" might just be the positive spin to my "naive". Im not sure its saying anything different. And i might be more inclined to that conclusion had Molitor and ownership not echoed it.

That, to me, indicates something more.


I'm not sure Molitor and Pohlad quite "echoed" it. They actually added a ton of qualifiers.
  • birdwatcher likes this

#328 tvagle

tvagle

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 06:22 PM

 

Few analogies are perfect, but IMO it's not wrong to compare to any business that sells to a given market. "Back in the day," I learned not to promise what would be in the next release of our product - it was painful to not answer customers' natural questions, but it would be more painful to promise something that R&D might not be able to deliver (even if it's already in QA), and if you're in business for the long haul it's better to have the reputation for under-promising than under-delivering.

Using the standard uPoD (under Promise over Deliver) metric:

 

For those of you not familiar with uPoD it has long been used as a trend analysis tool for everything from dinner choices (Chili's with the wife uPoD +50) to business ventures/proposals (Apple's 1984 commercial claim...Joe Namath's prediction uPoD +100) or financial promises (local sports team's claim to budget 50% of revenue for payroll uPoD +/-100 depending on who calculates the result)

 

An average uPoD score is 0...which is equivalent of doing absolutely nothing and promising not to do anything...kind of like the Cincinnati Reds)

 

The Twins SP moves this offseason to date come in at -1000 uPoD

  • ashburyjohn and USAFChief like this

#329 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 14,494 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 06:24 PM

I'm not sure Molitor and Pohlad quite "echoed" it. They actually added a ton of qualifiers.


Fair enough.

#330 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 07:15 PM

 

Yeah, we're beating a dead horse perhaps, but here's why I (again) am less conclusive in my criticism, and (again) I'm okay with others thinking they possess all the necessary facts to draw a different conclusion:

 

1. "Rhetoric". Levine made one ill-advised word choice: "priority". Harsh critics want to tell me it can only mean one thing, which is an intention to sign Darvish. To them, anything other than Darvish agreeing to terms not only represents failure, but indicates the perpetration of a lie. These people dismiss or ignore any other interpretation of the word. Levine didn't mean Darvish was their first choice. Or their first step. Some critics are really exaggerating in their own minds a view that the FO was out there, night and day, deliberately promoting some "narrative", intentionally raising our expectations, disingenuous in their statements. They get confused about who really owns the narrative. They've been so personally consumed with our own discussions about Darvish and lose sight of the fact that there hasn't been much in the way of comments from the FO. They themselves own most of the "narrative". I personally believe that frustration is clouding people's judgment and causing a bit of demonization. Suddenly one "promise" devolves into a false accusation that they have promised a bunch of things and continually fail to keep their promises.

 

2. "Realistic offer." Yes, we know the marketplace set "realistic" values on virtually every FA in the market. Among all of the FA's, is Darvish not one of the very few who appears to be the recipient of an offer close to what was projected? If one chooses to believe that the FO should have known that, because Darvish was uniquely valuable, that he would be one of the few to get a "realistic" bid, then fine, label the FO naive, or question their judgment, even their prowess. But are not most offers, if made at all, coming in at very "unrealistic" numbers? Is it at all possible that the market for Darvish was stubbornly suppressed, only to quickly pop? We have certain rumors (not reports!) about there being "multiple" offers, late in the process, a few that exceeded what we believe, without actually knowing, the Twins eventually offered. To state very simplistically that the Twin's offer fell "woefully short" without considering for a moment that perhaps the offer didn't become "woefully short" until the final rapid stages, perhaps fails to capture the context of what went on, to most of which we aren't privy? I don't know, it just feels like a pretty harsh judgment to me.I fully get the position my friends here are taking when they say, go for it. I respect that argument, and almost embrace it, frankly.

 

But I also respect the organization if it draws lines in the sand too. I tend to think that, over the long haul, that sort of financial discipline and willingness to take the heat in the short term, as Falvey surely knew he would, is something I can live with.

 

I respect your opinion if you believe you have enough to go on to think they screwed up. Or if you think they should have signed him for 7/175 or something. Despite what a handful will think, those of us who judge less harshly are not apologists, so I hope people refrain from characterizing a viewpoint different from their own as "an excuse" or as "bizarre", two descriptions I've seen too often. I was a critic for this FO's previous bullpen failings, for Haley, for Breslow, for Burdi, for the trade deadline indecision and cuteness, and will criticize them, I'm afraid, soon enough for failing to acquire a front line starter for 2018. They'll get no excuses from me on that one. I just tend to be naturally predisposed to being contextually sensitive and open to the possibility that screwups, like stove burns, can be painful and yet mild. It's a really hard job and they're going to screw up.

 

Be harsher if you want, but (again) be careful of assigning character deficiencies to those who disappoint you.

You're right, a lot of this is beating a dead horse, but I do want to clear a couple things up.

 

1. Priority simply means greater importance or precedence, I'm not sure what other interpretations there are. I haven't heard many claim it was a "promise," to sign Darvish, but if that exists in the threads then it's an extreme minority. You're conflating the absence of a signing with the effort made to procure the signing when talking about the feelings of disappointment on the boards. Nobody would have bet on the Twins winning the Darvish sweepstakes; the issue wasn't that they didn't win the bidding. They labeled Darvish as one of the most important parts of the offseason, a notion that was reiterated throughout the winter. The FO certainly sparked the Darvish fire, and they stoked it all offseason. Those articles and quotes had to come from somewhere.It wasn't the media fabricating the continued interest. The problem is with what they said vs. their actions. If MN had made the best offer, or at least something competitive then I could see hanging your hat in the Twins corner, but they failed to even come close to a moderate (and very beatable) bid by Chicago. It really makes you wonder what their actual priority was, and how serious they were about pursuing Darvish.

 

2. It doesn't matter when or if the market for Darvish "popped." Whether the Twins offer was low from the get go or not isn't important either. They failed to beat a deal that was significantly lower than what Darvish was projected to sign for. They had to know those projections entering the offseason while they exclaimed how serious they were about signing him. Nobody is faulting them for submitting an initial bid lower than 6/160 or 6/126. The angst is because they didn't want to move off 100ish/5. 

 

3. No, none of us are privy to all the details involving negotiations, nor are we likely to hear the "narrative," from the Twins side. I just don't see those as any sort of defense. We have the outcome. The Twins can release whatever press statements they want to fill in some gaps but in the end we know what offer they were unwilling to beat. 

 

4. I have to give you credit for holding your position. It certainly isn't easy right now. 

  • USAFChief, Oxtung, TheLeviathan and 1 other like this

#331 LA VIkes Fan

LA VIkes Fan

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,022 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:27 PM

Back to Chris Archer - Did everyone notice that the Rays traded for CJ Cron and Designated Corey Dickerson for assignment? Could it be that they dumped Dickerson despite him being a fine offensive OF because they have a new RF coming? The man had a 120 OPS+ last year, 108 the year before (higher in Colorado the prior two years, but that is Colorado), although he does appear to be pretty mediocre or worse in the field. Fangraphs projects Dickerson for .268/.316/.484 (.800) next year in his age 29 season. It doesn't make sense to designate him unless you have a trade in the works and you're playing with the 40 man roster. Could it be that he's coming to MN with Archer or Odorizzi and Kepler is going to TB?Inquiring minds want to know....

 

If not, I think the Twins should go try to get him and make him the part time OF/IB/DH who gets 500-550 ABs next year. He's a better hitter than Vargas or Grossman and no worse of a fielder.The only negative is he hits LH but a 29 year old LH hitter with an .800 plus OPS is absolutely a worthwhile player to have. He has a 1 year 5.95 million dollar deal so he won't break the bank by any stretch. All in all, this move makes me think that there actually may be something in the works regarding Archer or Odorizzi. 

Edited by LA VIkes Fan, 17 February 2018 - 08:28 PM.

  • drock2190 likes this

#332 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 14,494 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:32 PM

The hell did they DFA Dickerson for?

I would prefer a righty, but looks like a fine DH to me.
  • notoriousgod71 likes this

#333 drock2190

drock2190

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,195 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:35 PM

The way the Rays run their organization makes me glad to be a Twins fan. 

 

And that's saying something...


#334 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 13,208 posts

Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:40 PM

I don't understand it either. Cron is cheaper, I guess, and maybe they are just trying to generate some immediate trade offers for Dickerson? Will be interesting to see what they can fetch for him.

#335 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,107 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 18 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

I think it’s pretty clear Tampa mgt is under a mandate to lower payroll. Odorizzi and Dickerson cost too much.

Sad.
  • Mike Sixel, Twins33, Oxtung and 1 other like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#336 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 25,778 posts

Posted 18 February 2018 - 11:35 AM

I think it’s pretty clear Tampa mgt is under a mandate to lower payroll. Odorizzi and Dickerson cost too much.

Sad.


But, hey, give them a stadium, and things will change.....
  • Oxtung, TheLeviathan, Sconnie and 1 other like this

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