FA Pitching Targets

[DocBauer]

This means that it's still about the money.

 

Sure there are some pitchers that fall apart at the end but many have decent seasons all the way to the end.  And taking this strategy pretty much means that you can never sign a really good FA ever because this is the risk with nearly all of them.

In reality, it's only partially about the money.

 

It's also about the length of time you have to spend that money. You tell me the Twins could sign one of the top FA pitchers next season for 4 years, I'm all in. 18-22M depending on who, per year, I'm all in. 5 years kind of stinks, and I'm not sure I could say yes...were it up to me. 6 or 7 years? Absolutely not! Now, calculate the odds of one of those pitchers, and their agents, saying yes to 4 years. Unless there is a major market shift, there's no way based upon precedence.

 

If you draft, develop and trade properly, something the Twins appear to have been doing lately, you generally aren't forced to sign a big time, big name, expensive and long term pitcher. Additionally, who says the Twins can't ever sign a quality FA pitcher? What did they do with Hughes? Or Nolasco? And they also took a real shot at Garza as well. Aces? Quality ML SP? Absolutely.

[kab21]

In reality, it's only partially about the money.

 

It's also about the length of time you have to spend that money. You tell me the Twins could sign one of the top FA pitchers next season for 4 years, I'm all in. 18-22M depending on who, per year, I'm all in. 5 years kind of stinks, and I'm not sure I could say yes...were it up to me. 6 or 7 years? Absolutely not! Now, calculate the odds of one of those pitchers, and their agents, saying yes to 4 years. Unless there is a major market shift, there's no way based upon precedence.

 

If you draft, develop and trade properly, something the Twins appear to have been doing lately, you generally aren't forced to sign a big time, big name, expensive and long term pitcher. Additionally, who says the Twins can't ever sign a quality FA pitcher? What did they do with Hughes? Or Nolasco? And they also took a real shot at Garza as well. Aces? Quality ML SP? Absolutely.

 

So you're concerned contracts longer than 4 years affecting future Twins payrolls?  Nolasco is a FA in 3 yrs and Mauer's contract is up in 4 years.  There will still be money to spend.

 

I guess I'm just not buying into this notion that the popularly mentioned pitchers are going to turn into Corriea at the end of their contracts.  they won't be near elite but a lot of the big signings have been fairly good late into their contracts.  I would have a bigger concern that the guys available on 4 yr 50-60M contracts are complete dead weight because they weren't nearly as good in the first place.

 

You are talking about signing #3's and not really good FA's.  Yes, you can get those guys in FA but it's not the same as adding an ace to a rotation.  If the Twins put a Garza type in the rotation then it's at best an okay rotation unless Meyer turns into an ace (could happen).  If the Twins put Scherzer/Lester in the rotation then it becomes a playoff caliber (competitive in the playoffs) rotation.  That's my goal.

 

Yes, a team doesn't have to ever sign a top FA but relying on the farm to produce an ace in addition to several other top players could lead to a lot of waiting.  Right now the Twins have a potential 7-8 yr window to do something with Buxton/Sano if they become 80% of what they can.  You can't assume that they will be here longer than that and I would hate to see their prime wasted by not having talent around them.  If the Twins aren't spending on Lester/Scherzer this year then I hope they are in on Price next year.  Of course there is a chance he doesn't even hit FA.

[tobi0040]

This is only a problem if the Twins have too many good pitchers in the rotation.  Pelfrey will get a chance to compete for a rotation spot but there is no way that he is guaranteed a spot regardless of his contract.  They certainly don't need to trade him to bring in a FA starter that would be the best pitcher in the entire rotation.

 

I don't neccesarily agree with your take regarding Pelfrey. I can see a situation where he breaks camp and gets 8-10 starts no matter how bad the those starts are, because of his contract.  I hope you are right, he should make the team if he is one of the best five starters in camp (highly unlikely).

[Physics Guy]

I hope you are right, he (Pellfrey) should make the team if he is one of the best five starters in camp (highly unlikely).

This should absolutely be the case.  He doesn't make enough to warrant a spot in the starting rotation.  I'd hazzard to guess that there are non-closers in bullpens around the league making what he makes.  Put him there if need be.

[Oldgoat_MN]

I predict they sign a lesser guy for a year, hoping for a bounce back type (or first really good bounce) season. I actually expect little in FA this year, the classes (by position) are not ideal.....

 

Hoping, indeed.

It seems Ryan does this every year. This is a pretty safe prediction.

 

And it is getting old.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

The strategy that makes the most sense to me is for the Twins to target SP that are expected to be better than Hughes was expected to be this season. There won't be a ton of guys that are expected to be better than Hughes actually was this year as a free agent.

 

To the point being made about having a logjam of SP is really only a problem if you have a logjam of Tommy Milones, Pelfreys, Darnells, Pinos, etc. all vying for position in the ML rotation. The Twins can add guys a tier above that list and make the rotation better. The competiton on that list should be for the 5th starter / long man in the bullpen, not for the guy that follows Hughes in the Rotation. 

 

I think May should be the #5 behind Hughes, (a free agent/trade), Gibson, and Nolasco (who will hopefully find Correia-level stuff in 2015), but I don't know that the Twins will be willing/able to move that whole list to AAA. I think they have to be ok with DFA'ing a handful of those pitchers to make room for someone better.

[tobi0040]

This should absolutely be the case.  He doesn't make enough to warrant a spot in the starting rotation.  I'd hazzard to guess that there are non-closers in bullpens around the league making what he makes.  Put him there if need be.

 

Very best case they bury him in the pen.  But the Twins do not understand what a sunk cost is.

[Oldgoat_MN]

So Max is getting >10 SO/9. Pretty impressive, but no one wants to sign him for 6 years.

 

OK, so what about 3 years, $90 million?

 

I know, it's a huge investment, but it is less than the (projected) 3 good years at $24M and basically just a final $54M bonus for signing with us in the first place.

 

Not saying this is the best idea, just one that has not been kicked around much.

 

If Scherzer has confidence in himself he may expect that he could make more than $25M per year at that point. Who knows what an 'average' pitcher will be making then?

[tobi0040]

So Max is getting >10 SO/9. Pretty impressive, but no one wants to sign him for 6 years.

 

OK, so what about 3 years, $90 million?

 

I know, it's a huge investment, but it is less than the (projected) 3 good years at $24M and basically just a final $54M bonus for signing with us in the first place.

 

Not saying this is the best idea, just one that has not been kicked around much.

 

If Scherzer has confidence in himself he may expect that he could make more than $25M per year at that point. Who knows what an 'average' pitcher will be making then?

 

I think he gets 6, if not 7 years.  If Detroit was going to go 6 years outside of free agency he will get that.

[Linus]

Very best case they bury him in the pen.  But the Twins do not understand what a sunk cost is.

This is a complete non-factor - his contract isn't that much.  They can just release him like they did with Marquies.  With his arm troubles of the last couple years, I bet the Twins aren't even counting on him for next year.

[tobi0040]

This is a complete non-factor - his contract isn't that much.  They can just release him like they did with Marquies.  With his arm troubles of the last couple years, I bet the Twins aren't even counting on him for next year.

 

They can release him, but I really don't see it.  He pitched 152 innings at a 5.19 ERA, then got a two year deal.

[drjim]

So Max is getting >10 SO/9. Pretty impressive, but no one wants to sign him for 6 years.

 

OK, so what about 3 years, $90 million?

 

I know, it's a huge investment, but it is less than the (projected) 3 good years at $24M and basically just a final $54M bonus for signing with us in the first place.

 

Not saying this is the best idea, just one that has not been kicked around much.

 

If Scherzer has confidence in himself he may expect that he could make more than $25M per year at that point. Who knows what an 'average' pitcher will be making then?

 

Why would Scherzer take $90 mil when he wants $150-160?

[drjim]

So you're concerned contracts longer than 4 years affecting future Twins payrolls?  Nolasco is a FA in 3 yrs and Mauer's contract is up in 4 years.  There will still be money to spend.

 

I guess I'm just not buying into this notion that the popularly mentioned pitchers are going to turn into Corriea at the end of their contracts.  they won't be near elite but a lot of the big signings have been fairly good late into their contracts.  I would have a bigger concern that the guys available on 4 yr 50-60M contracts are complete dead weight because they weren't nearly as good in the first place.

 

You are talking about signing #3's and not really good FA's.  Yes, you can get those guys in FA but it's not the same as adding an ace to a rotation.  If the Twins put a Garza type in the rotation then it's at best an okay rotation unless Meyer turns into an ace (could happen).  If the Twins put Scherzer/Lester in the rotation then it becomes a playoff caliber (competitive in the playoffs) rotation.  That's my goal.

 

Yes, a team doesn't have to ever sign a top FA but relying on the farm to produce an ace in addition to several other top players could lead to a lot of waiting.  Right now the Twins have a potential 7-8 yr window to do something with Buxton/Sano if they become 80% of what they can.  You can't assume that they will be here longer than that and I would hate to see their prime wasted by not having talent around them.  If the Twins aren't spending on Lester/Scherzer this year then I hope they are in on Price next year.  Of course there is a chance he doesn't even hit FA.

 

You strike me as someone who would be aware of the history of 6-8 year contracts for pitchers. People have been making the same arguments you just did to convince themselves to keep signing these disasters.

 

It is 100% about the years, and is exactly the reason mid-market teams like the Twins don't lock themselves into contracts like that

[nicksaviking]

Why would Scherzer take $90 mil when he wants $150-160?

 

Well I think the implication is that he gets $30 million per year instead of $22 million and also gets a chance to hit the free agent market when he still has a chance to get another mega contract.  Two $90 million deals is larger than one  $160 million deal.  Guys generally don't go for it, but his suggestion probably was more along the lines of would it be better to make him a short term offer he can't refuse, even if unprecedented.

[tobi0040]

Well I think the implication is that he gets $30 million per year instead of $22 million and also gets a chance to hit the free agent market when he still has a chance to get another mega contract.  Two $90 million deals is larger than one  $160 million deal.  Guys generally don't go for it, but his suggestion probably was more along the lines of would it be better to make him a short term offer he can't refuse, even if unprecedented.

 

 I think most players, especially starting pitchers that are around 30 view free agency as the last chance to get as much money as they can.   True 6/150 is less than 3/90 x 2.   But 3/90 x 2 is way riskier.  it assumes the player is both healthy and a top pitcher in the game 3 years from now.   The same reason why the 6 year deal is bad for a team is why the 3 year deal is bad for the player. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

You strike me as someone who would be aware of the history of 6-8 year contracts for pitchers. People have been making the same arguments you just did to convince themselves to keep signing these disasters.

For 7-year deals, the modern ones are Brown, Hampton, Zito, and Sabathia:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/16295472/

 

Interesting that one of the criticisms of Scherzer, Lester, and Shields ("wrong side of 30") -- three of these pitchers were only 28 when they signed their 7-year deals, and two of them turned into pumpkins pretty much immediately.  (Those two were also lefthanders with fairly pedestrian/mediocre peripherals.)

 

Brown, by far the oldest of this group (34), turned out to be a fair deal overall, even with some injuries and ineffectiveness later on.  Maybe it is better to target quality rather than focus so much on age?

 

Sabathia, the other 28 year old lefty in this group, was actually quite good for the first 4 years of his deal.  He even opted out after 3 years, and the Yankees would have been better off letting him walk, or at least taking a much firmer stance in re-signing him at that point.  Maybe the Twins could include an opt-out?  I know that limits some of the upside in theory, but it could be a way to escape the last few years of the deal if so desired.

 

I don't know the stats on 6 year deals... Greinke has been great for 2 so far.  First 5 year deal that comes to mind is Cliff Lee, another oldie (32 at time of signing) but was an easy ace for 3 years, basically paying for the deal right there (and he was still solid when healthy this year).  He's another example like Brown where quality was emphasized more than age.

[cmb0252]

I would love for them to go for Lester with Shields being the back up plan if they decided to go the FA route (which they won't). Honestly if the rumors were true that the reds might trade Latos in the off season he would be my #1 target. I would have no problem with them trading Meyer+ for him.

[Oldgoat_MN]

Well I think the implication is that he gets $30 million per year instead of $22 million and also gets a chance to hit the free agent market when he still has a chance to get another mega contract.  Two $90 million deals is larger than one  $160 million deal.  Guys generally don't go for it, but his suggestion probably was more along the lines of would it be better to make him a short term offer he can't refuse, even if unprecedented.

 

I thought it was fairly clear, but yes, that is exactly what I was trying to imply.

 

Thank you.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So Max is getting >10 SO/9. Pretty impressive, but no one wants to sign him for 6 years.

 

OK, so what about 3 years, $90 million?

More likely, if that's what he's after, he gets both -- a 6 year deal with an opt-out after 3 years.

 

And as I alluded to in my post above, that wouldn't be a bad deal for a team.  You lose the benefits that accrue if he's good through all 6 years, but you also lose the (more likely) downside that comes with being good for the first 3 years and not so good for the last 3.  (Plus you can probably still net a compensation pick when he opts out.)

 

And honestly, this whole discussion seems pointless, because I am virtually 100% sure the Twins will not seriously pursue Scherzer or Lester (and probably not even Shields).  The jump from Nolasco/Hughes to one of Scherzer, Lester, or Shields is much larger than the jump from Correia/Pelfrey to Nolasco/Hughes was, in terms of FA strategy/approach/mindset.  Would love to be proven wrong, though!

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would love for them to go for Lester with Shields being the back up plan if they decided to go the FA route (which they won't). Honestly if the rumors were true that the reds might trade Latos in the off season he would be my #1 target. I would have no problem with them trading Meyer+ for him.

That, to me, is crazy.  Latos is a FA after 2015.  Even if you can extend him, you're going to be paying near-FA prices for the guy anyway (think Homer Bailey).  On top of that, you'd want to give up our closest, perhaps best SP prospect?

 

And what's more, Latos isn't even a clear ace who would provide a great benefit in that first year.  He's much closer to Garza-level (especially since he's missed some time this year), who wasn't exactly unobtainable on the FA market.

[golfboy1]

Volquez is definitely a gamble but unless you want to pay $120 million + you are going to end up signing someone with question marks. After Shields, Lester & Scherzer they are all a lottery ticket of some sort.

 

 Volquez has a very good fastball & when healthy he has had pretty good results so I don't agree he has been getting by on smoke & mirrors. I would think he could be signed for a 2 yr. deal with an option for a 3rd yr. at a reasonable price. That list doesn't look that great.  Who else on that list do you think would be a good FA signing?

[tobi0040]

More likely, if that's what he's after, he gets both -- a 6 year deal with an opt-out after 3 years.

 

And as I alluded to in my post above, that wouldn't be a bad deal for a team.  You lose the benefits that accrue if he's good through all 6 years, but you also lose the (more likely) downside that comes with being good for the first 3 years and not so good for the last 3.  (Plus you can probably still net a compensation pick when he opts out.)

 

And honestly, this whole discussion seems pointless, because I am virtually 100% sure the Twins will not seriously pursue Scherzer or Lester (and probably not even Shields).  The jump from Nolasco/Hughes to one of Scherzer, Lester, or Shields is much larger than the jump from Correia/Pelfrey to Nolasco/Hughes was, in terms of FA strategy/approach/mindset.  Would love to be proven wrong, though!

 

I agree we are not doing this.

I believe the high profile opt outs have all been one way though (A-Rod and CC for example).  So the player can opt out after 3 but if they have a Zito like implosion the team can't opt out.  That would be worst case.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

The only reason to hope that the Twins will spend on a FA pitcher this offseason is that they were still trying to sign Garza and Ervin Santana after they had spent on Nolasco.  

 

I could see the Twins pursuing anyone except for Scherzer and Lester, based on the players they tried to sign in 2014.

 

Nolasco's rough year might make the Twins gun-shy, or the success of Suzuki and Hughes will make them bolder than they've been in the past.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree we are not doing this.

I believe the high profile opt outs have all been one way though (A-Rod and CC for example).  So the player can opt out after 3 but if they have a Zito like implosion the team can't opt out.  That would be worst case.

I am fully aware the opt out is only one-way (player opt-out).  But it's still not a bad deal for the team, necessarily.  Zito-like implosion is bad for the team, either with or without the opt-out.  The question is, which is more likely:

 

1) The player is good all 6-7 years of the contract

2) The player is good for the first 3-4 years, and not so good for the last few years

 

I think clearly #2 is more likely, and that's the downside scenario you could escape with a player opt-out, while only sacrificing the less-likely upside scenario in #1.  (And as I mentioned above, you should also net a comp pick if the player opts out, which is unlikely at the conclusion of the full 6 or 7 year deal).

[DJL44]

Why would any pitcher agree to a 3 year deal with a 90+ loss team? A pitcher agreeing to give up years is going to want to go to a contender.

[tobi0040]

I am fully aware the opt out is only one-way (player opt-out).  But it's still not a bad deal for the team, necessarily.  Zito-like implosion is bad for the team, either with or without the opt-out.  The question is, which is more likely:

 

1) The player is good all 6-7 years of the contract

2) The player is good for the first 3-4 years, and not so good for the last few years

 

I think clearly #2 is more likely, and that's the downside scenario you could escape with a player opt-out, while only sacrificing the less-likely upside scenario in #1.  (And as I mentioned above, you should also net a comp pick if the player opts out, which is unlikely at the conclusion of the full 6 or 7 year deal).

 

I agree under scenario two wher he is good three years and opts out, then stinks for 3 years it would work out well for the team. But yet another scenario exists, he is good for 3 years and we are married to him ad extend him longer.

 

By and large, this opt out is player friendly.

[Steven Buhr]

The best argument I can make for it being likely that Terry Ryan makes a splash of some sort in Free Agency is that I don't expect him to do so. Since returning to the GM chair, he has consistently done exactly the opposite of what I've expected him to do each off-season.

 

Since I'm expecting little-to-nothing this off-season, clearly he will be signing John Lester and probably a big-money outfielder, as well.

[Willihammer]

I agree under scenario two wher he is good three years and opts out, then stinks for 3 years it would work out well for the team. But yet another scenario exists, he is good for 3 years and we are married to him ad extend him longer.

 

By and large, this opt out is player friendly.

If you buy a stock at $10, sell at $20, and watch the stock push upwards to $30, you're still up 200%

 

edit: ah, I see what you mean. Extension - I don't see it as very likely since the extension years would probably for ages 37+, if you assume the 4 pitchers we're talking about will get 6-7 year contracts.

 

The question I'd ask about the player option is this. After projecting age related decline and salary inflation, how much money do these players stand to gain by re-entering the market in 3-4 years versus 6-7 years? I suspect its on the order of 40-50 million for a couple of these guys, and possibly a lot more.

[drjim]

For 7-year deals, the modern ones are Brown, Hampton, Zito, and Sabathia:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/16295472/

 

Interesting that one of the criticisms of Scherzer, Lester, and Shields ("wrong side of 30") -- three of these pitchers were only 28 when they signed their 7-year deals, and two of them turned into pumpkins pretty much immediately.  (Those two were also lefthanders with fairly pedestrian/mediocre peripherals.)

 

Brown, by far the oldest of this group (34), turned out to be a fair deal overall, even with some injuries and ineffectiveness later on.  Maybe it is better to target quality rather than focus so much on age?

 

Sabathia, the other 28 year old lefty in this group, was actually quite good for the first 4 years of his deal.  He even opted out after 3 years, and the Yankees would have been better off letting him walk, or at least taking a much firmer stance in re-signing him at that point.  Maybe the Twins could include an opt-out?  I know that limits some of the upside in theory, but it could be a way to escape the last few years of the deal if so desired.

 

I don't know the stats on 6 year deals... Greinke has been great for 2 so far.  First 5 year deal that comes to mind is Cliff Lee, another oldie (32 at time of signing) but was an easy ace for 3 years, basically paying for the deal right there (and he was still solid when healthy this year).  He's another example like Brown where quality was emphasized more than age.

 

Thanks for breaking that down. Greinke is obviously still too early, and while Lee had a good run but he is breaking down before it is over.

 

Either way, not a good track record and really tough for a mid market team to risk, especially when there is still some distance to being a legitimate contender.

[drjim]

I thought it was fairly clear, but yes, that is exactly what I was trying to imply.

 

Thank you.

 

For the record I appreciated what you meant, it just didn't strike me as a viable alternative. I second the expanded explanation that was given in reply.