I get the whole "no such thing as a bad one year deal," mantra, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're always the better option right? Couldn't we flip the above and say name a contract they've handed out that looks great due to performance and not because they could cut bait quickly? Of course we're all happy that the team could move on from Lynn and Morrison, but there's a reason those guys were fielding one year offers, and it wasn't just because the market was down. High end talent isn't signing short term deals. I wanted Darvish last offseason, and while I still think it was a bargain at the time I can fully admit that it might've been for the best that the Twins bowed out. That said, this club needs help in that high end talent department, and the whole "spend small fail small," thing doesn't particularly move the needle there. Backend starters and bullpen pieces have their place, but they aren't pushing this team towards playoff contention.
I understand the patience aspect of handing out the long term deals, but honestly if they won't do it now, especially while offers are reportedly ridiculously low, then why should be bank on it happening down the line? There's plenty of room in the payroll for a Machado ect. even if the narrative is they need to "wait," on Buxton and Sano. If either of those guys falters then it's essentially another couple years of tear down anyway, at which point premium talent can be traded.
My point has been that the length, short or long, isn't generally problematic absent an issue with its value, meaning with the player's performance. You have to separate the two issues. The one year length of contracts for Gibson, Pineda, Odorizzi, Schoop, Parker, Cron? If those guys perform in 2019, who cares about that?
If you want to argue they should go after higher end talent, that's a separate argument.
I won't get into a discussion about the merits of making a LT offer to Machado. Knowing nothing, it seems like good idea to me. So did Darvish. So did Lynn. So does Schoop. The complaint about one year deals that I addressed has nothing to do with whether or not a contract works out.
One can argue about how many holes there were or are to fill, but let's for the sake of argument, limit it to the holes at 2B, DH, and 1B. I contend that all three of those moves make sense. NONE of those deals was made in order to avoid a longer term commitment to a different player, IMO. You're not going to convince me that they salivated over Lowrie, for example and passed just because his agent wanted more years. I'd take a bet that Schoop and Lowrie end up having similarly productive years. And let's not pretend Lynn, Schoop, or others were pleading to please make it for three years instead of one that smart price.
The FO is not choosing short contracts because they can cut bait quickly. The FO, in all four of this year's cases so far, chose a player they like at a smart price, not the length of contract. The contract length just doesn't matter, one way or another. Of course they're cognizant of the fact that they have guys in the pipeline, but if they had liked Lowrie more and had signed him for three years at a smart price, and then Lewis and Gordon both look ready to step in and produce 8 WAR as rookies, super. Trade Lowrie and Polanco, they have liquidity, what's the problem? Same thing with the pitching staff, Contracts expiring? Big deal. Renew, find a FA, make a trade, promote, or pull Romero out of the pen. Done. Five different ways to possible solve a problem.
Edited by birdwatcher, 17 January 2019 - 05:16 PM.