Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

How high would you go for Cole?

  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#1 goulik

goulik

    Kernel of truth

  • Member
  • 1,908 posts
  • LocationElko

Posted 07 December 2019 - 04:29 PM

Let’s say Cole would sign if we gave him enough money. How high would you be willing to go? What if we could get him for 8 years, 300 million and no less. Would you for a shot at the World Series ring and probably mortgaging our future (years 5-8 of the contract)? I’m saying I would do it, but that’s probably my max.
Would you be willing to go higher knowing the long term consequences? If you won’t go that high, what is your max offer?
Feel free to include your max offers for Strasburg, Bumgarner and Ryu as well!
  • sweetmusicviola16 likes this

#2 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 163 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 04:44 PM

Cole for $245/7

Strasburg for $180/6

Bumgarner for $90/4

Ryu for $66/3

 

Next up: Teheran and Wood ... after trades.

 

Hopefully it all stops with Cole.

  • TopGunn#22 and PseudoSABR like this

#3 sweetmusicviola16

sweetmusicviola16

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 458 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 04:48 PM

I been saying 8/280 on Cole. But what the heck I'll match your 8/300.

 

Strasburg 6/210

 

Bumgarner 4/78

 

Ryu 3/60


#4 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,071 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 07 December 2019 - 04:52 PM

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Cole would be bad juju for the Twins.:)


#5 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,136 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 05:21 PM

 

Let’s say Cole would sign if we gave him enough money. How high would you be willing to go? What if we could get him for 8 years, 300 million and no less. Would you for a shot at the World Series ring and probably mortgaging our future (years 5-8 of the contract)? I’m saying I would do it, but that’s probably my max.
Would you be willing to go higher knowing the long term consequences? If you won’t go that high, what is your max offer?
Feel free to include your max offers for Strasburg, Bumgarner and Ryu as well!

 

That would be about 28% of the highest payroll the team has ever had. Has this ever happened before with any MLB team?


#6 Twins33

Twins33

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 542 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 05:23 PM

7/280, but if he’d say 8/300 I’d say okay.

#7 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,165 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 06:22 PM

Factoring in insurance, which would be a necessity on such a deal, the actual budget hit for 8/300 would be $40 million+ in year 1 and then gradually increasing from there. 

 

For me to allocate 28%+ of the budget to a single pitcher for 8 years, he needs to be something really special, better than Cole. Prime Randy Johnson, for instance (Cole's peak season to date would be Johnson's 8th best). I mean, Trout gets $37 million and is way more valuable and way less risky. 

 

Now, $40 million per year over the next several years for Cole would be perfectly fine. The problem is the latter years of the contract, which are effectively deferred payments from the period of time when he's still actually good. 

 

If Cole was magically guaranteed to pitch at his 2019 level for 3 or 4 years, I might do it, even with the pain in the later years. But in reality, the likelihood is that 2019 was actually his peak, and that he won't deliver that for a single year of his next contract. To roughly answer the OP question:

 

Cole - 8/225

Strasburg - 6/160

Ryu - 3/65 or 4/75

Bumgarner - 4/75

  • Major League Ready likes this

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#8 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,568 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 06:49 PM

Cole 8/300

Strasburg6/200

Ryu3/70

Baumgarner4/80

 

I believe Baumgarner will be a better pitcher longer into his career.As will Ryu.Question with Cole is can he become a pitcher midway in his contract, same with Strasburg.  

Bottom line is top line pitching wins championships.Go for it.


#9 Danchat

Danchat

    Pro Bowl Armchair QB

  • Member
  • 5,260 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 07:01 PM

There's no way in heck I would go 7-8 years for a pitcher, not even the great Gerrit Cole. I would be willing to go $30M+ a year for him, but I'm not paying him when he's 37 in 2027. I understand I'm not going to get him, then, but I just don't think it's worth throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a single pitcher.

  • SwainZag, spanman2, MN_ExPat and 1 other like this

Check out my work at Purple Pain, a Vikings forum: 

Analyzing the Past Decade of Vikings Offseasons


#10 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,388 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 07:33 PM

If you were hiring a portfolio manager to run a stock portfolio for you, as part of your due diligence, you'd look for the clause in your contract that limits her to investing no more than 5% of your cash in the stock of any single security, this to ensure proper diversification of your bets, and to exercise prudent avoidance of undue concentration risk.

 

If you were the CEO of a $1B corporation, your board of directors would have formally approved an established set of rules that would require management to come to the board for approval of single expenditures which exceeded pre-determined amounts and a second number, most likely, that is not to be exceeded even by the board action. There would also be financial guidelines covering lesser expenditures by management that would NOT require board action.

 

If I replaced Jim Pohlad, most of you would hate my guts. The guideline would be to keep players at 5% of total payroll (roughly $7.5M). Part of the financial discipline would be to begin to consider a sell strategy on players who hit that clearing price. Going above $15M (10% of total payroll) would trigger board action. Hard limit, regardless of talent level, would be $30M, or 20%. 

 

Guideline on length of term, 3 years, board approval required over 5 years, no contract exceeding 7, ever.

 

The offer that I would not bother faxing to Cole would be 5/150

Strassburg would also not see one faxed to him for 5/150

 

I'd take a 4/80 offer to my board on MadBum, with reservations and a mild apology for putting the corporation into a pickle. 

 

Maybe 3/66 to the board for Ryu, with permission to increase it if needed to as much as 4/75.

  • Mike Frasier Law, PseudoSABR, ewen21 and 1 other like this

#11 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,921 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 08:13 PM

I don't care - its not my money.He gets more per pitch than I get per year.

  • Tomj14 likes this

#12 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,076 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 08:18 PM

 

If you were hiring a portfolio manager to run a stock portfolio for you, as part of your due diligence, you'd look for the clause in your contract that limits her to investing no more than 5% of your cash in the stock of any single security, this to ensure proper diversification of your bets, and to exercise prudent avoidance of undue concentration risk.

 

If you were the CEO of a $1B corporation, your board of directors would have formally approved an established set of rules that would require management to come to the board for approval of single expenditures which exceeded pre-determined amounts and a second number, most likely, that is not to be exceeded even by the board action. There would also be financial guidelines covering lesser expenditures by management that would NOT require board action.

 

If I replaced Jim Pohlad, most of you would hate my guts. The guideline would be to keep players at 5% of total payroll (roughly $7.5M). Part of the financial discipline would be to begin to consider a sell strategy on players who hit that clearing price. Going above $15M (10% of total payroll) would trigger board action. Hard limit, regardless of talent level, would be $30M, or 20%. 

 

Guideline on length of term, 3 years, board approval required over 5 years, no contract exceeding 7, ever.

 

The offer that I would not bother faxing to Cole would be 5/150

Strassburg would also not see one faxed to him for 5/150

 

I'd take a 4/80 offer to my board on MadBum, with reservations and a mild apology for putting the corporation into a pickle. 

 

Maybe 3/66 to the board for Ryu, with permission to increase it if needed to as much as 4/75.

I agree with this assessment (although you may not agree with what I am going to say).Very rarely does a player who signs the big splashy contracts lives up to his billing.Giving Cole 8 years insane for the Twins. INSANE.To allocate that much money for one guy as a mid-market team just never works.It is suicide

 

What we need to do is find the guy who is 25/26 that has a shot at being what Cole became when he got to Houston (or something resembling an ace).To get a guy like that we need to trade prospects and a major leaguer most people don't even want to trade.  

 

Besides, the idea of these FA pitchers getting us to the promised land is a bunch of fairy dust to me.We scored seven stinking runs in three games in October.We have not hit in the playoffs the last four times we went.Even if we had three HOFers starting those games and we still might not have even won a series with the way we have hit each time we have made itr.

 

What needs to happen is we need to start drafting and developing starting pitching and as a franchise we have been one of the worst in that area.People really need to wake up to the fact that these FA pitchers in the market this winter are not coming here.Had we gotten someplace in the post season I would be a lot more bent on bringing one in, but I can't be that way now.Not after another three-and-out.Being that team who lies down like lambs in the postseason doesn't make us attractive to any top quality FA arm.  

 

It would be best to just move on from this pipe dream about Cole and realize even if we had him we still might not have made it out of the first round.We need more than one guy can give us.

  • rdehring and Crackedfungo like this

#13 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,165 posts

Posted 07 December 2019 - 08:30 PM

 

If I replaced Jim Pohlad, most of you would hate my guts. The guideline would be to keep players at 5% of total payroll (roughly $7.5M). Part of the financial discipline would be to begin to consider a sell strategy on players who hit that clearing price. Going above $15M (10% of total payroll) would trigger board action. Hard limit, regardless of talent level, would be $30M, or 20%. 

 

One place your analogy breaks down is that it doesn't really work with the total payroll. Your limits would prevent the signings that would reach the payroll limit in the first place.

 

So if you set the payroll cap at $130 million and then issue the guidelines above, your team will be far below the cap, because a big chunk of the club are guys making very limited salaries (in MLB terms), and the rest wouldn't be there. Unless you ignore the guidance when it's a 'good move' (e.g., getting Odorizzi for 1 year), in which case the guidance is meaningless. And if you come in under payroll, you aren't maximizing production within the budget.

 

But just in general, it's not a good analogy, because baseball players do not have the same correlations to each other that securities or other assets do. It's closer to being like a manufacturing company with a line of different products, trying to maximize revenue . . . prospects are like innovative new ideas with a high failure rate, while a free agent is a tried-and-true option with less risk and less upside. You wouldn't necessarily prefer two 10% revenue products vs. one 20% revenue product, because a single product is less overhead.

 

The baseball equivalent is that you have a limited supply of PAs and pitches to throw, between the various players.

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#14 SwainZag

SwainZag

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,622 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 07 December 2019 - 10:53 PM

 

I don't care - its not my money.He gets more per pitch than I get per year.

 

This might be an exaggeration.Cole made $13.5M last year and threw 3362 pitches.That comes out to $4,015 per pitch.Even if he gets...say....$35M AAV and throws the same number of pitches, you are still only looking at $10,410 per pitch, which......I would dare to guess you make more than that.

  • Mike Frasier Law, SF Twins Fan and Tomj14 like this

#15 SwainZag

SwainZag

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,622 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 07 December 2019 - 10:54 PM

 

There's no way in heck I would go 7-8 years for a pitcher, not even the great Gerrit Cole. I would be willing to go $30M+ a year for him, but I'm not paying him when he's 37 in 2027. I understand I'm not going to get him, then, but I just don't think it's worth throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a single pitcher.

 

I gotta agree.As much as I would love to have Cole on this staff, that 7-8 years for a starter just seems nuts, especially at that price.  

  • Danchat, mikelink45 and rdehring like this

#16 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,921 posts

Posted 08 December 2019 - 07:43 AM

 

This might be an exaggeration.Cole made $13.5M last year and threw 3362 pitches.That comes out to $4,015 per pitch.Even if he gets...say....$35M AAV and throws the same number of pitches, you are still only looking at $10,410 per pitch, which......I would dare to guess you make more than that.

Since my base is social security - it is not as big a stretch as you might imagine.So I will modify my statement - he makes more per really good batter and even an immaculate inning of three perfect strikeouts is more than I make in a year.I believe that stills puts us in slightly different brackets. 

 

And it also means I stop reading the full dollar values in these negotiations.I prefer to think of them as just numbers or my head swims when someone says its just a million dollars, what difference does that make?

  • Tomj14 likes this

#17 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 12,062 posts

Posted 08 December 2019 - 09:44 AM

I wouldn’t bother with Cole, and 6/160 to Strasburg is a good open but lower than what the eventual number will be. If the Strasburg agent is signalling that that is competitive, I go higher.

Anything longer than five or six years for this team in this market, however, does seem unrealistic. Affordable, but unrealistic. And given that the Darvish and Wheeler offers both topped out at about $100 million, what I’m seeing from my couch is that the upper limit of what Pohlad will approve for one pitcher is about $100 million. (never mind Joe). So we need to work within that $100 million ceiling and consider higher AAV and fewer years.

I wonder if we’ll see another opt-out in Strasburg’s next contract. I might offer him something like 4/108 slightly front loaded with another opt-out after year two.
  • Brandon and 70charger like this
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

#18 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,101 posts

Posted 08 December 2019 - 09:45 AM

Blank check

  • Hosken Bombo Disco likes this

#19 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,165 posts

Posted 08 December 2019 - 11:21 AM

 

Blank check

 

Great idea, Cole can get $130 million a year and the other 25 spots can be at the minimum. World Series, here we come!

  • birdwatcher, goulik and Hosken Bombo Disco like this

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#20 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,388 posts

Posted 08 December 2019 - 11:22 AM

 

One place your analogy breaks down is that it doesn't really work with the total payroll. Your limits would prevent the signings that would reach the payroll limit in the first place.

 

So if you set the payroll cap at $130 million and then issue the guidelines above, your team will be far below the cap, because a big chunk of the club are guys making very limited salaries (in MLB terms), and the rest wouldn't be there. Unless you ignore the guidance when it's a 'good move' (e.g., getting Odorizzi for 1 year), in which case the guidance is meaningless. And if you come in under payroll, you aren't maximizing production within the budget.

 

But just in general, it's not a good analogy, because baseball players do not have the same correlations to each other that securities or other assets do. It's closer to being like a manufacturing company with a line of different products, trying to maximize revenue . . . prospects are like innovative new ideas with a high failure rate, while a free agent is a tried-and-true option with less risk and less upside. You wouldn't necessarily prefer two 10% revenue products vs. one 20% revenue product, because a single product is less overhead.

 

The baseball equivalent is that you have a limited supply of PAs and pitches to throw, between the various players.

 

 

Maybe you're right. But yes, my strategy would be to ultimately avoid these types of signings altogether. Of course, my team isn't in a position to do that today.

 

I was assuming a $150M allocation of annual revenues towards player salaries. This would allow the team to have 3 players averaging $15M, a dozen players averaging $7.5M, and 10 players averaging $1M. Rough math of course, and I'm not at all concerned about exceeding the $150M by 10% or so in a given year.

 

In your example, Odo fits just fine. I went to the board and got approval to exceed my 10%. I'm not concerned about how much gets spent in total. I'm concerned about maximizing my wins, and if I can do that with 26 rookies, cool. I'm trying to also minimize risk through prudent governance and explicit financial disciplines, like all good companies do.

 

My thinking is that paying the Crons or the Rosarios makes little sense when you can get equal production from a Kirilloff and a Larnach. It's the 1+ bWAR guys about to make that $7.5M number that get moved to let you retain a couple of frontline starters and a couple of perennial all-star position players, but yeah, I'm a fan of Tampa Bay. I'm looking to trade high-value veterans, at close to peak trade value, when I have a replacement, if I think the rookie will almost immediately exceed the current player's production. So if I think, for example, that Gordon and Lewis are going to produce more than Arraez and Polanco, I'm shopping the latter two for a prospect haul. It may not work, as it places the onus squarely on exceptional prospect development.

  • Eris likes this