Jump to content

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

Article: Emptying the Notebook: Happ, Dipoto, Boras and Blueprints

j.a. happ
  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#41 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Content Editor

  • Administrators
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:25 PM

 

No. It's quite suspect and I think that's the general feeling here but it still gets used often because of the summary nature of this measure. It also does not need to be precise in this context. Look down the list any year and the ranking by WAR looks pretty reasonable. In other words, it's hard to justify the gigantic cost and risk associated with this type of contract (see Heyward) for a player that has not ranked as elite in 4 years. 

 

It appears to me that one great year gives players a higher profile than 1 great year of performance deserves. Compare Harper's first six years to Albert Pujlos. It's not even close

The differences are Jason Heyward had a .784 OPS entering free agency (Harper is at .900) and Pujols didn't reach free agency until he was entering his age 31 season (Harper is entering his age 26 season).

 

And while Harper's only had one insane MVP season, he's had several great seasons now. He's 26 and one of the best offensive weapons in baseball, he's going to get a gigantic contract, and deserving so.

  • Carole Keller, USAFChief, Jerr and 3 others like this

#42 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:29 PM

 

Is WAR really that great of a stat?

 

wRC+ 2016-18

Harper 132

Segura 117

Dozier 116

 

wOBA 2016-18

Harper .375

Dozier .346

Segura .345

 

OPS 2016-18

Harper .897

Dozier .817

Segura .803

 

I have a really hard time believing that whatever contributions Dozier and Segura make defensively and on the base paths makes up for that big of a gap in overall offensive production.

 

He is 21st in wRC+ for players with 1200+ ABs over the past 3 years. That's very good but $35M/year good? Daniel Murphy was 5 pts higher.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 08 November 2018 - 01:31 PM.

  • Minny505 likes this

#43 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,789 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:32 PM

Let’s say we followed the wishes of many and signed Greinke 3 years ago. Add Mr. Popular (Marwin Gonzalez) and the RPs suggested by Lev.

I haven't done a plan yet, in part because I am discouraged about nearly all the possibilities I have looked into. (Our FO doesn't have that luxury of course!) But, I've stated elsewhere that I'm not enthused in the slightest about your Mr. Popular. Likewise, the slate of relievers isn't something I'm advocating. So you're replying to something else than I posted.

 

Actually, I can make-up a far fetched scenario where we have several prospects play at a very high level on costs controlled contracts and we add once such player.

We can't know what the conditions will be like next July. Even if low-probability, there is some chance that a successful young core will emerge where we'd be glad if we had acquired some additional high-end veteran talent when we had the chance. I don't see Greinke as low-risk, but Arizona has borne a lot of the risk already and he hasn't dropped off the cliff, and if they want to shed some salary he seems like a good target - in hopes they will cover $10M a year, leaving $25M, I'm not sure exactly where that can negotiation can go.

 

Let's just say that I see nearly as much risk in Marwin, or in a lengthy Buxton extension that some propose, as Greinke. So why not aim high. You could fritter away the $25M or $35M I target for Greinke, on a group of lesser talents adding up to the same amount, and the risks for them will hardly be non-zero, plus taking up more 25-man spots.

  • USAFChief, Mike Sixel, howieramone2 and 2 others like this

I always go the extra mile. That's what happens when you get lost easily.


#44 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,267 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:36 PM

 

Let’s say we followed the wishes of many and signed Greinke 3 years ago. Add Mr. Popular (Marwin Gonzalez) and the RPs suggested by Lev. Here is what we can say for sure.

Add roughly $65M annually which would max out payroll. In other words, we are not adding anyone for the next 3 years and we would have to replace Gibson at the cost of his final year of arbitration.

WAR for these players over the past 3 years
----- Greinke 2.2 / 5.1 / 3.5 for an average of 3.6
----- Gonzalez .4 / 4 / 1.6 for an average of .8
----- Allen 1 / 1.5 / 0 for an average of .833
----- Herrera 2.0 / .1 / .4
----- Total = 6.07 wins

WAR for these players last year was
----- Greinke = 3.5 for an average of 3.6
----- Gonzalez = 1.6 for an average of .8
----- Allen = 0
----- Herrera .4
----- Total = 4.5 wins

 

Let’s use the last 3 years instead of last year because that’s more optimistic. Let’s assume Greinke does not regress even though that is not consistent with history. Let’s forget Gonzalez is basically replacing Escobar who had two war before the deadline and let’s pretend Greinke replaces a replacement level player even though I am pretty sure Mejia is worth at least 1 WAR. We have a 500 team under this generous scenario with no available payroll for the next 3 years.

 

There is no scenario where paying 10M/WAR is effective. We would need to spend an incremental $200M to field a team reasonably close to the top AL teams. That is the definition of an ineffective plan. Actually, I can make-up a far fetched scenario where we have several prospects play at a very high level on costs controlled contracts and we add once such player. We are a VERY long way from that scenario right now.

 

Another, perhaps simpler way to evaluate this specific year is that we are in need of several players. If we an incremental $70M on two high profile players we pick up 7 war and have some holes to fill. If we spend $35M on 7 players that generaten 2 WAR we pick up 14 (double) WAR and have $40M to spend next year. I think it's pretty clear which approach has more value to any team, especially a mid-market or small market team. 

 

that's assuming Buxton and Sano aren't any better than last year......in which case no plan works. 

 

Has any team ever picked up 7 players in FA that did 2 WAR in that year? Did they then have to do it again the following year, because they signed a bunch of 1 year deals? Where, exactly, would you fit 7 new players on this roster? Who goes under this plan?

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#45 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Content Editor

  • Administrators
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 02:00 PM

 

He is 21st in wRC+ for players with 1200+ ABs over the past 3 years. That's very good but $35M/year good? Daniel Murphy was 5 pts higher.

A 26-year-old who can boast that resume should be able to command something like that on the open market, yes.

  • Mike Sixel, gagu and Don Walcott like this

#46 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 03:53 PM

 

that's assuming Buxton and Sano aren't any better than last year......in which case no plan works. 

 

Has any team ever picked up 7 players in FA that did 2 WAR in that year? Did they then have to do it again the following year, because they signed a bunch of 1 year deals? Where, exactly, would you fit 7 new players on this roster? Who goes under this plan?

 

You are making a different argument, Mike. The conversation was conceptual. I said its more important to find guys for $5M/yr that give you 2 WAR than it is to sign a 3.5 WAR guy for $35M. Any plan that produces 1WAR/$10M of payroll is self-defeating for any team other than the highest revenue teams. The Dodgers ? Yankees etc could easily add three such players in addition to the Twins available budget so it's a different equation for high revenue teams.

 

The 7 players were simply a way to get to the same spend. If you prefer a more practical vs conceptual example. How about if we say we sign 3 FAs. One generates .5 WAR the other 2 produce 4 WAR. We have + 1WAR over the Grienke and $20M to spend next year or use for an extension or add two BP arms for $10M each.

 

BTW ... We need a middle infielder, a corner IF and 3 BP pieces would fit. Plus Wouldn't it be great if we could ad this years version of Miles Mikolas. That's 6 players. The point being 


#47 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,267 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:36 PM

I'm all for them aiming at 4WAR players....those guys will cost in the 20MM per year range, maybe as low as 15MM per year. Corbin, who might produce that, will get around 25-30MM per year, I'd guess. 

  • ashburyjohn and tvagle like this

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#48 Han Joelo

Han Joelo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,436 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 08:43 PM

 

Boras wasn't really picking on the Twins. He did a short bit where he told similar jokes about other teams.

 

It's not a big deal. He was just warming up the crowd by telling baseball jokes that EVERYONE in the room could understand... Yes, anyone could have told that joke.

Let me have a stab at some of those jokes:

 

When you go to a game in Anaheim, only St. Peter shows up.

When you go to a game in Seattle, only Jacque Cousteau shows up.

When you go to a game in Milwaukee, only Adolphus shows up.

When you go to a game in Colorado, only Pike's Peak shows up.

 

You're right, there is a lot of low hanging fruit there.

  • ashburyjohn, USAFChief, Mike Sixel and 1 other like this

#49 Kirbek

Kirbek

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 10:43 PM

Scott Boras is a great agent.That's all I have good to say.

 

How about those Twins!

I once knew a man from Nantucket.  He too was a fan of Kirby Puckett.


#50 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,029 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:12 AM

 

Let me have a stab at some of those jokes:

 

When you go to a game in Anaheim, only St. Peter shows up.

When you go to a game in Seattle, only Jacque Cousteau shows up.

When you go to a game in Milwaukee, only Adolphus shows up.

When you go to a game in Colorado, only Pike's Peak shows up.

 

You're right, there is a lot of low hanging fruit there.

When you go to a game in Chicago, the fan is only wearing one sock.

 

When you go to a game in Miami, not even Marlin Perkins is there.

 

When you go to a game in Kansas City, only a Baron is there.

 

When you go to a game in Tampa, they don't even need to recount the attendance.

 

 

  • ashburyjohn, Jerr, diehardtwinsfan and 1 other like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#51 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,789 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:25 AM

You're right, there is a lot of low hanging fruit dead branches there.

FTFY. :)

  • USAFChief, Han Joelo and Riverbrian like this

I always go the extra mile. That's what happens when you get lost easily.


#52 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 08:50 AM

 

I also have no interest in winning the WAR/$ spent championship. I want to watch the Twins win the World Series championship.

 

You obviously don’t understand the correlation. The Red Sox had a phenomenal 108 win season. What if we were equally as effective per dollar spent? They spent 1.91M/win. Well …. That would equate to 68 wins in a year when the Twins had record spending.

 

What if we were as effective as Colorado or Atlanta. Both examples would equate to 102 wins. How about if our payroll dollar/win was as good as the Brewers. That would have been 137 wins. That sounds great until we put it in the context you used. That being “winning the payroll/win championship”. In that case we win all 162 games. Why does this not interest you, Chief or the people who liked the comment?

 

The necessity for teams with less revenue to produce more wins per payroll dollar is a very simple concept and it is absolute. Why anyone would argue against such a clear cut concept leaves me wondering exactly why. It makes zero sense.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 09 November 2018 - 08:51 AM.


#53 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,267 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:53 AM

 

You obviously don’t understand the correlation. The Red Sox had a phenomenal 108 win season. What if we were equally as effective per dollar spent? They spent 1.91M/win. Well …. That would equate to 68 wins in a year when the Twins had record spending.

 

What if we were as effective as Colorado or Atlanta. Both examples would equate to 102 wins. How about if our payroll dollar/win was as good as the Brewers. That would have been 137 wins. That sounds great until we put it in the context you used. That being “winning the payroll/win championship”. In that case we win all 162 games. Why does this not interest you, Chief or the people who liked the comment?

 

The necessity for teams with less revenue to produce more wins per payroll dollar is a very simple concept and it is absolute. Why anyone would argue against such a clear cut concept leaves me wondering exactly why. It makes zero sense.

 

because it is often used as an excuse not to get better, in the name of efficiency over effectiveness. If a team is 1 player away, and that player costs more $/WAR than is "right", they should or should not sign him? Because I don't care if they win 84 games efficiently, nor do most fans.

 

And, let's be honest, you have a bias for capital over labor. That's cool, but not everyone shares that bias. The value of teams is rising faster than payrolls are, and I'm not cool with that. Old, formerly interesting, people on the east coast might be, but I don't think everyone shares James' opinion. 

  • Carole Keller likes this

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#54 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 11:44 AM

 

because it is often used as an excuse not to get better, in the name of efficiency over effectiveness. If a team is 1 player away, and that player costs more $/WAR than is "right", they should or should not sign him? Because I don't care if they win 84 games efficiently, nor do most fans.

 

And, let's be honest, you have a bias for capital over labor. That's cool, but not everyone shares that bias. The value of teams is rising faster than payrolls are, and I'm not cool with that. Old, formerly interesting, people on the east coast might be, but I don't think everyone shares James' opinion. 

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

 


#55 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,267 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:16 PM

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#56 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,029 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:23 PM

 

You keep changing the scenario completely. Are the Minnesota Twins even remotely near a one player away scenario. It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion if you insist on using scenarios that don’t remotely resemble our current state. We are not even arguing the same point. We can’t possibly get to a point where we are one player away without being efficient with payroll. We produced a win for ever $1.7M in payroll and we were badly off the pace AND we max payroll. To suggest the solution is adding players that cost $10M/win is horribly ill-conceived and that is a very polite choice of words.

So...hope that the cheap stars develop, and then add expensive talent.

 

How is that different from adding expensive talent, and hoping the cheap stars develop?

 

 

  • Mike Sixel and Twins33 like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#57 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:50 PM

 

So...hope that the cheap stars develop, and then add expensive talent.

 

How is that different from adding expensive talent, and hoping the cheap stars develop?

 

The answer is extremely obvious for anyone who has ever had P&L responsibility of a 9 figure entity. Is it a better business practice to invest 50/60 or 70M on the low probability that the prospects that have struggled becomes stars or do you suppose the people who are investing that money would elect to invest once the prospects are proving to pan out? You know this how any team outside the top 10 in revenue operate so why would you ask such a silly question? 

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 09 November 2018 - 01:37 PM.


#58 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:57 PM

 

I'd suggest last year they didn't spend wisely.....that was the issue (and Sano and Buxton being bad, not stars.....nothing matters if those to are bad, no amount of spending or better decision making). They went cheap, 1 year deals, and didn't sign legit players to multi year deals. Now, they need to fill those same holes again, because they literally didn't try to fill them for this year. Hopefully two things change:

 

Buxton and Sano are stars again

They FO chooses actual good players for their deals

 

What was I thinking ... Had they only signed Darvish and Hosmer instead of Lynn and Morrison. 

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 09 November 2018 - 12:58 PM.


#59 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,267 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:59 PM

 

What was I thinking ... Had they only signed Darvish and Hosmer instead of Lynn and Morrison. 

 

As if I suggested they do both of those things.....Darvish got hurt. The Twins supposedly bid the 2nd most for him, so clearly they thought they should sign him......

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#60 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,543 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:41 PM

 

 

When you go to a game in Tampa, they don't even need to recount the attendance.

 

For what it's worth, I had the privilege at being at the lowest attended game in Ray's history against the Twins in 2017 less than a week before Irma hit. 

  • USAFChief likes this