Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Twins stuff from around the Web (Fangraphs, Twitter, Athletic, non-local news sites, etc)

machado #itcouldhappen
  • Please log in to reply
884 replies to this topic

#441 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Twins Mods
  • 24,206 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:53 AM

 

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue. 

I'd say it's most definately an issue.

 

Can it be handled? Sure.

 

But it's an issue. 

  • KirbyDome89 likes this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#442 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,075 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 11:57 AM

 

I'd say it's most definately an issue.

 

Can it be handled? Sure.

 

But it's an issue. 

 

 

No issue with that. ;) You're not ducking away from a falling sky about it.

 

1. Re-sign one or more of the starters.

2. Promote one or more now-tested internal candidates.

3. Trade for a front line starter in exchange for higher-quality excess talent in the minors or off the MLB roster.

4. Sign a really decent FA starter to a MULTI-YEAR contract. Not an issue, BTW, IMO.

5. Convert from the pen, Romero, or May perhaps.

 

An issue with lots of ways to handle it.

Edited by birdwatcher, 17 January 2019 - 12:04 PM.

  • howieramone2 likes this

#443 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,792 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:03 PM

 

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue. 

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. 

  • Sconnie likes this

#444 JustinCB

JustinCB

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:46 PM

Buy low on Stroman and /or Sonny Gray? Jays were already talking to San Diego about low top 100 prospects for him and that was too steep. Maybe would take somebody like Rooker or Larnach.
  • Sconnie likes this

#445 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,075 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 05:06 PM

 

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.

  • howieramone2 likes this

#446 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,184 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:48 PM

You want to pay Pineda and Odorizzi at QO rate? Eeek.


If they’re not worth offering a QO they’re probably not worth worrying about losing. Back end starters are fairly cheap.

#447 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,792 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 02:37 AM

 

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.

"Smart price," sounds like a very nice way of saying bargain shopping. NOBODY is interested in earning that over multiple seasons. If you're limiting yourself to "value," signings then in essence you're committing to only short term deals. It's hard for a team to fill three holes in an offseason, the odds become even less favorable as that number grows. I don't think you can truly separate contract length from talent level, or the effect that performance has. 

 

For the sake of argument lets say Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi all hit their ceilings. IMO they're unlikely to sign any sort of team friendly extension. The Twins haven't even been able to lock down some of the younger guys so how confident are you they'd be able to/or desire to do so with any of the above? How about paying market value to bring all of them, or any starter for that matter, back in FA? We've watched the FO successfully trade for a back end starter so there's that I guess. I'm on the Romero bandwagon but if he's the best hope they have leading in 20' I'd be disappointed barring an absolute breakout this season. All those options you presented are valid, I just don't know how much stock we should put into THIS organization exhausting all of them, and therein lies much of the angst with procrastinating adding long term talent.

  • USAFChief and birdwatcher like this

#448 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 12:40 PM

Money Machado
10:31 Which teams in the AL Central can overtake the Indians and what would they have to do to make it realistic?
Jeff Sullivan
10:31 This year, only the Twins
10:32 I'd like to see them go get Robbie Ray or something
Byron Buxton, of course, would be required to be playable

  • dbminn likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#449 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 03:48 PM

Broken Bat
12:44 Do see the Twins having a potent offense in 2019? To me they have some various pathways to their lineup that is not dependent just on Buxton, or Sano coming to forecasts a few seasons ago. Pitching, seemingly is trailing the offense but they seem to have advanced closer to Indians. Thoughts?
AvatarDan Szymborski
12:45 I think they're middle of the pack. I expected them to be more aggressive in free agency than they have been

AJ
12:57 Berrios or Buehler?
AvatarDan Szymborski
12:57 Buehler

Matt
1:04 Berrios or Mikolas?
AvatarDan Szymborski
1:04 Berrios

Edited by Mike Sixel, 21 January 2019 - 03:53 PM.

  • dbminn likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#450 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 03:06 PM

2:45
Hello : Who are the 2 wildcards in the AL? Angels? Twins? Rays? Athletics? Yankees/Sox?
2:45
Meg Rowley: Woof if I had to pick right now?
2:45
Meg Rowley: Today?
2:45
Meg Rowley: This minute!
2:46
Meg Rowley: Red Sox and Rays. I think I like the Yankees better to win the division, and I like the Red Sox and Rays better than the A’s or Angels I guess?
2:47
Meg Rowley: or the Twins

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#451 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,525 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 05:13 PM

Is this sarcasm? It's nearly the same length with the same AAV; perks aside.



Anyway you look at it, the Cubs guaranteed him $20 mil more than the Twins.

#452 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 22 January 2019 - 05:27 PM

 

It's the contracts they aren't signing that are, imo, bad. Those ways all rely on them doing things they have not done in three years. Signing extensions, signing free agents, trading prospects. I'm all for those happening, but none have. I've even asked for all three of those to happen. So, great, let's hope they eventually do.

They signed free agents this year, they signed free agents last year. They traded a prospect for Odorizzi and Ynoa for someone else . No doubt they will be working on extensions in the near future. I know Escobar turned one down.


#453 Twinsoholic

Twinsoholic

    Member

  • Members
  • 212 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 05:56 PM

Long ago, when free agency started, Oakland As owner Charlie Finley said that teams should just sign free agents to 1 year contracts. Teams would not be stuck with long-term deals, and players would be competing each year against each other to sign with teams. The World Champ as were decimated by free agency in the 1970s. At this moment I happen to like the Twins strategy of the 1 year deal (with possible option year as in the case of Cruz). If the Twins are in the playoff picture, then they can make trades to improve their chances in July. What if the Twins had signed Darvish last year to a long-term deal? The Twins should be better than last year barring a rash of injuries. They have the farm system depth to make July trades.


#454 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,075 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 06:30 PM

 

"Smart price," sounds like a very nice way of saying bargain shopping. NOBODY is interested in earning that over multiple seasons. If you're limiting yourself to "value," signings then in essence you're committing to only short term deals. It's hard for a team to fill three holes in an offseason, the odds become even less favorable as that number grows. I don't think you can truly separate contract length from talent level, or the effect that performance has. 

 

For the sake of argument lets say Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi all hit their ceilings. IMO they're unlikely to sign any sort of team friendly extension. The Twins haven't even been able to lock down some of the younger guys so how confident are you they'd be able to/or desire to do so with any of the above? How about paying market value to bring all of them, or any starter for that matter, back in FA? We've watched the FO successfully trade for a back end starter so there's that I guess. I'm on the Romero bandwagon but if he's the best hope they have leading in 20' I'd be disappointed barring an absolute breakout this season. All those options you presented are valid, I just don't know how much stock we should put into THIS organization exhausting all of them, and therein lies much of the angst with procrastinating adding long term talent.

 

1. "Smart price means avoiding contracts which decimate a palyer's trade value and make the player an illiquid asset. "Smart" contracts are not limited to bargain-hunting deals.

 

2. It's EASY to fill three holes in an offseason, not HARD. Especially if you have cash, have a positional surplus of attractive and valuable players in MLB and/or the minors (the Twins are getting there), and there's a supply (numbers are important) of what you need. For example, there was a supply of decent relievers this year, and there's never really a decent supply of #1-2 starters to bid on.

 

3. Short term contracts and needle-moving talent are NOT mutually exclusive, Cruz and Schoop are examples of that.

 

4. Bad assumptions: Twins won't offer a contract that's market friendly rather than "team friendly", and Pineda, Gibson, and Odorizzi won't sign here as future mainstays if the stars align performance-wise.

 

5. The Twins are ABLE to lock down the core players. They've chosen not to so far.

 

6. I get your pessimism. It's understandable. I see a number of reasons not to share it.

  • KirbyDome89 likes this

#455 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,525 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 07:30 PM

1. "Smart price means avoiding contracts which decimate a palyer's trade value and make the player an illiquid asset. "Smart" contracts are not limited to bargain-hunting deals.

2. It's EASY to fill three holes in an offseason, not HARD. Especially if you have cash, have a positional surplus of attractive and valuable players in MLB and/or the minors (the Twins are getting there), and there's a supply (numbers are important) of what you need. For example, there was a supply of decent relievers this year, and there's never really a decent supply of #1-2 starters to bid on.

3. Short term contracts and needle-moving talent are NOT mutually exclusive, Cruz and Schoop are examples of that.

4. Bad assumptions: Twins won't offer a contract that's market friendly rather than "team friendly", and Pineda, Gibson, and Odorizzi won't sign here as future mainstays if the stars align performance-wise.

5. The Twins are ABLE to lock down the core players. They've chosen not to so far.

6. I get your pessimism. It's understandable. I see a number of reasons not to share it.



I wouldn’t put all your eggs in that basket. Cruz is coming off one of the worst years in his career and he isn’t getting younger.

Schoop has had two seasons with bWAR over 1.4 and just one above 2.4. The chances of him being a “needle mover” are slim.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#456 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 11:45 AM

Cory
4:33 What are the Twins going to do the rest of the offseason?
Jeffrey Todd
4:35 Got me. I mean, I believe I stated in last week's chat my general feeling on the subject. That club had more holes than the Braves, more reason for urgency (best young players already in arb), and an even better division opening. But they have been ultra-conservative. Maybe that'll change. Maybe they are the dark horse on Machado (!). Perhaps that explains the otherwise very cautious movement. But I do think they can and should go for something bigger. What are they waiting for?

https://www.jotcast....-chat-4402.html
  • Twins33 and Dman like this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#457 luckylager

luckylager

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts
  • LocationStuck in the middle

Posted 23 January 2019 - 11:49 AM

http://skfb.ly/6Gw8w

 

New "blinged" out alternative home unis, replacing the classic cream ones. Another lame decision, but "this is how we baseball". 


#458 RatherBeGolfing

RatherBeGolfing

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 264 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 02:05 PM

 

http://skfb.ly/6Gw8w

 

New "blinged" out alternative home unis, replacing the classic cream ones. Another lame decision, but "this is how we baseball". 

 

Arguably a worse decision than the choice to just sit back and not improve our bullpen. That is maybe about as bad of a jersey as I've seen and then to be replacing easily their best... pure tragedy

  • luckylager likes this

#459 GP830

GP830

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Members
  • 505 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis

Posted 23 January 2019 - 02:19 PM

 

Arguably a worse decision than the choice to just sit back and not improve our bullpen. That is maybe about as bad of a jersey as I've seen and then to be replacing easily their best... pure tragedy

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I LOVE these uniforms. They're totally different than anything they've done, or anyone else has done before. Your best jersey should never be a throwback. Out with the old, in with the new. 

  • pbrezeasap, Monkeypaws and dbminn like this

#460 luckylager

luckylager

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts
  • LocationStuck in the middle

Posted 23 January 2019 - 02:38 PM

The addition of "Kasota Gold" to the Twins color scheme a year or two ago was totally unnecessary. Wrecked the main home uniforms, especially the classic TC logo on the caps (one of the simplest and best logos in baseball). Gaudy, ugly. Looks like something a teenager would come up with in the uniform design program of a video game.

  • Thrylos, Twins33 and KirbyDome89 like this