Why the Twins should stick to the 4/48 bin in free agency

[gunnarthor]

 

So are we saying that Ryan didn't spend like perhaps he could have because of the Pohlads, not because he was risk adverse and had a misguided/outdated belief of what players are actually worth and wouldn't go over that?

The first. The second is just a strawman and not really relevant to anything except turning this thread into a Ryan discussion instead of why we shouldn't spend outside of the second tier of FA pitchers.

[jimmer]

Lester was worth 2.7 fWAR this year (so over 21M worth and more than he got paid).  And he was supposedly bad this year.  

 

Ervin Santana was worth 2.9 fWAR.  How was his year looked at by the majority of Twins fans? A success right? Lester wasn't good at 2.7 fWAR,  Santana was very good at 2.9 fWAR.

 

Lester was also very underpaid his first two years in Chicago. He was worth almost 3 times what he was paid in 2015 and twice as much as he got paid in 2016. No one seems to take into account the years when a player is underpaid or well underpaid when talking about contract being bad towards the end.  In his three years as a Cub, Lester has already provided 48M in excess value, which is more than what he'll get paid the next two years.  His contract was a winner.

[USAFChief]

That's really not true. If you sign Arrieta (for example) at 4/100 you are going to limit future options, regardless of how he pitches in the future. Would you trust that Arrieta would be worth twice what Cobb is going to be worth over the next four years?

 

I think you're really ignoring how bad a Sanchez like deal would affect the Twins in 2019 and beyond. On paper, it would be great to be able to spend whatever we wanted but since we have some of the worst owners in sports you have to take those limitations into consideration.  Misspent money is going to affect this team a lot more than it'll affect other teams.

Limit options?

 

I’ll ask the same question I asked a month or so ago...why preserve options when you never exercise those options?

 

It’s rather ironic to argue that a past FA contract would hurt the Twins now...and in the same breath argue they shouldn’t spend the money now. A Sanchez deal wouldn’t have hurt the Twins at all, because they aren’t spending the money now anyway. The effect would be zero.

[USAFChief]

Just saying cheaper, while certainly part of the equation, really ignores how risk fits in, especially on the back end of the deal. It's years, not aav.

There are certainly times for big money, long year contracts, but as shown, you are almost certainly going to get crushed hard for multiple years of the contract. Question is how well your revenue structure can support large amounts of dead (or declining) money over mulitple seasons.

If this core is legit, it will start getting really expensive after 4 more years. Attaching dead or declining money beyond that is a massive risk.

A 4 year free agent deal for a pitcher right now fits about perfectly.

Not attaching pitching over the next four years, while this core costs peanuts, ISNT a risk?

 

What is the goal here, anyway? Compete for a WS or two, or compete for the $/W trophy?

[gunnarthor]

 

Limit options?

I’ll ask the same question I asked a month or so ago...why preserve options when you never exercise those options?

It’s rather ironic to argue that a past FA contract would hurt the Twins now...and in the same breath argue they shouldn’t spend the money now. A Sanchez deal wouldn’t have hurt the Twins at all, because they aren’t spending the money now anyway. The effect would be zero.

Actually, a Sanchez deal would have probably kept the Twins from signing Santana and miss the playoffs this year because the money we would have spent on Santana would have gone to Sanchez (and then some) who was, of course, awful this year.

 

The Twins have limited payroll. It's probably going to stay around 110-115m for the foreseeable future. Is giving 22% of our payroll to Arrieta for the next four years a great idea?

[gunnarthor]

 

 

Lester was worth 2.7 fWAR this year (so over 21M worth and more than he got paid).  And he was supposedly bad this year.  

 

Ervin Santana was worth 2.9 fWAR.  How was his year looked at by the majority of Twins fans? A success right? Lester wasn't good at 2.7 fWAR,  Santana was very good at 2.9 fWAR.

 

Lester was also very underpaid his first two years in Chicago. He was worth almost 3 times what he was paid in 2015 and twice as much as he got paid in 2016. No one seems to worry about when a player is underpaid or well underpaid.

Looks a lot better when we can say we have the better pitcher and spending 50m less over the remaining value of the two contracts. And you bring up a good point - just because Lester gets paid more doesn't mean he'll be the better pitcher. I think it's quite possible that Alex Cobb will be a better bet over the next four years than Arrieta over four years, for example.

 

 

(And you are right that player's salaries in general are underpaid, especially guys under team control before they get to free agency. If there's a side, I'd take the players over ownership every time. But this isn't really relevant. Lester has a pretty good agent who got him his deal as the player wanted. But that's the system we have and the system we have to discuss when we try and think about what the Twins FO should do going forward. A system that would let players opt out of contracts if they overperformed is pretty interesting but not really what this thread is about).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Just saying cheaper, while certainly part of the equation, really ignores how risk fits in, especially on the back end of the deal. It's years, not aav.

There are certainly times for big money, long year contracts, but as shown, you are almost certainly going to get crushed hard for multiple years of the contract. Question is how well your revenue structure can support large amounts of dead (or declining) money over mulitple seasons.

If this core is legit, it will start getting really expensive after 4 more years. Attaching dead or declining money beyond that is a massive risk.

A 4 year free agent deal for a pitcher right now fits about perfectly.

I don't know what Cobb's market is, but hypothetically which would you prefer for the Twins-- Cobb signed for 4/48 (est per MLBTR) or Cobb signed for, say, 3/44?

[drjim]

I don't know what Cobb's market is, but hypothetically which would you prefer for the Twins-- Cobb signed for 4/48 (est per MLBTR) or Cobb signed for, say, 3/44?

4/48. The extra year is fine if the difference is that small.

[drjim]

Not attaching pitching over the next four years, while this core costs peanuts, ISNT a risk?

 

What is the goal here, anyway? Compete for a WS or two, or compete for the $/W trophy?

Um, I literally advocated for a 4 year deal (in the bin suggested in the thread topic) in the post you quoted.

[Mike Sixel]

How has going cheap and bad worked out any better for wins and losses exactly? Chief is right, every year people say don't spend money so when they are good, they can spend money..... And then people say don't spend money....santana is gone in a year, you need to replace him then....i assume they shouldn't spend any money next year either?

[prouster]

How has going cheap and bad worked out any better for wins and losses exactly? Chief is right, every year people say don't spend money so when they are good, they can spend money..... And then people say don't spend money....santana is gone in a year, you need to replace him then....i assume they shouldn't spend any money next year either?

Hughes pitched like a no. 1 in the first year of his contract, and Santana has already exceeded the value of his contract. So there are two examples. The argument isn't, "they shouldn't spend"; it's more like, "spending big might not work as well as we hope, and it actually might hurt in the long run."

[gunnarthor]

 

How has going cheap and bad worked out any better for wins and losses exactly? Chief is right, every year people say don't spend money so when they are good, they can spend money..... And then people say don't spend money....santana is gone in a year, you need to replace him then....i assume they shouldn't spend any money next year either?

No one has suggested they don't spend. This very thread has suggested that they make another Santana like signing. What some of us are saying - and supplying some data - is that long term free agent pitchers are extremely dangerous and several deals greater than this bin have been disasters. Had the Twins signed Anibal Sanchez as you wanted, they probably don't make the playoffs this year.

 

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How has going cheap and bad worked out any better for wins and losses exactly? Chief is right, every year people say don't spend money so when they are good, they can spend money..... And then people say don't spend money....santana is gone in a year, you need to replace him then....i assume they shouldn't spend any money next year either?

It seems to me like there's a bit of a strawman fight happening in this thread.

 

Is anyone saying "don't spend money"?

 

Is anyone saying "Darvish or bust"?

 

If anyone is arguing either point, they're probably wrong. What I want is for the Twins to improve and spend money in the process. How they get there... well, there are several right answers, I only hope the front office picks the best option.

[The Wise One]

18 deals, only a couple of contracts worth it. The 4/48 bin likely is a little better ratio, but not necessarily.  Falvey is the genius who is going to guess right, unlike the fans who thought Edwin Jackson was going to be great, or Sanchez would stay great

[drjim]

No one has suggested they don't spend. This very thread has suggested that they make another Santana like signing. What some of us are saying - and supplying some data - is that long term free agent pitchers are extremely dangerous and several deals greater than this bin have been disasters. Had the Twins signed Anibal Sanchez as you wanted, they probably don't make the playoffs this year.

 

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.

This is an important point. Those advocating for the biggest spending now advocated for the biggest spending in the past that would have actual real negative consequences in the present.

 

It really was presented well in the initial post, with actual, real world examples amd consequence of going after the really big deal.

[drjim]

It seems to me like there's a bit of a strawman fight happening in this thread.

 

Is anyone saying "don't spend money"?

 

Is anyone saying "Darvish or bust"?

 

If anyone is arguing either point, they're probably wrong. What I want is for the Twins to improve and spend money in the process. How they get there... well, there are several right answers, I only hope the front office picks the best option.

To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

 

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

 

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

This years crop of FA pitchers is pretty blah. Only three pitchers - now that Tanaka is staying put - are likely to get contracts above Ervin Santana's contract - Darvish, Arriata and Lynn. (And Lynn will be pretty close). None of them are worth it.

 

Honestly, if Lynn is going to get Erv money on the market, that's who I sign... He wants a lot more than that, from what I understand, and I suspect some team will give it to him.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.

 

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it. 

 

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him. I would think that the multiple playoff runs before that would certainly help in the revenue area as well. They have some nice prospects in the lower minors who will be ready to slide in at that point. Simply put, I'm not sure I agree that one big splash will force the Twins to limit options down the road. The Twins are a mid market team, one big splash shouldn't hurt them (especially with Mauer coming off the books). I agree that they cannot do this all the time, but I don't think we are in a place right now where we cannot.

 

[Doctor Wu]

I like Yu Darvish, both for his impressive "stuff" and his makeup. Seems like a quality pitcher with a good work ethic. But he is worth the big bucks? I  don't have a link but I read an alarming stat about Darvish earlier this year, citing the high number of runs he usually gives up ... in the first inning!

 

I also read this online today:

 

Which brings us to our next and final example of Yu’s tendency to allow runs at inopportune times, runs scored with two outs in the inning. Two-out runs can be demoralizing for a team. Especially with your best pitcher on the mound. In the eight wins this season, Yu gave up a total of 5 two-out runs. In the 12 losses, that number swelled to 14, more than 1.2 per game. Of the 15 homeruns that Darvish has allowed this season, more than half have come with two outs in the inning.

 

http://dallassportsfanatic.com/darvish-conundrum-explained-sort/

[gunnarthor]

 

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it. 

 

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him.

You know, that's a fair point and one I didn't really look into much. In 2021 Sano, Rosario, Kepler, Buxton, Rogers, Duffey will all be in their third arbitration year and Polanco and Berrios will be in Arb 2. Imagine those 8 could easily make 80m combined in 2021 but admittedly, I haven't run any numbers.  Payroll will probably remain around 115m (until Pohlads show that they'll increase payroll, I think it's fair to say it'll stay in the current range).  2021 season will be midway through a six year Darvish deal so (in this example), he'd be making 25m in 2021, 2022 and 2023. (A four year Arrieta deal might be more helpful in that example).

 

I think determining how much dead weight we could carry in 2021 and beyond has a lot to do with two things we don't really know right now - future payroll (I tend to be pessimistic on it) and arbitration or extension salaries to that young core. Next years free agency group is probably going to push salaries up throughout the game and if the Pohlads don't follow suit, they'd be left behind.

[drjim]

I have to admit that the OP presented some fairly sobering statistics about go big or go home. The part about Nolasco being the best mid-range contract signing makes me throw up in my mouth just thinking about it.

 

The first question I would ask though is whether it is unreasonable to assume that the Twins cannot afford to have some dead weight towards the end of the deal. I think they can, if the core is there (which presumably will be addressed this offseason), they should be able to afford to have some dead weight in a guy like Darvish if by chance he's under team control when father time finally kisses him. I would think that the multiple playoff runs before that would certainly help in the revenue area as well. They have some nice prospects in the lower minors who will be ready to slide in at that point. Simply put, I'm not sure I agree that one big splash will force the Twins to limit options down the road. The Twins are a mid market team, one big splash shouldn't hurt them (especially with Mauer coming off the books). I agree that they cannot do this all the time, but I don't think we are in a place right now where we cannot.

Depends on how long Darvish signs for. The Twins have significant payroll flexibility the next 4 years. After that the current core starts to hit their fa years and will become much more expensive, even if they are locked up to an extension early.

 

It is probably not impossible to have an extra $25mil in dead/declined money, but that would really hamper options when this core would still be in tge backend of its prime.

 

Darvish will almost certainly provide good value the first couple of years, but the performance and odds of achieving it seem like it would decrease pretty substantially after that. Is that really a smart gamble for the Twins to take? To likely hamper options when the core is really good?

 

I would much prefer a signing in this 4 year bucket and then have options for a midseason trade for a starter on a shorter deal. Keeps the window open and flexible.

[Major League Ready]

 

To be fair, some people are saying both those things.

But the premise of this thread is the Twins should sign someone like Santana instead of going really big for Darvish or Arrieta and provides evidence and numerous examples of why that is the case.

To respond to that by accusing someone of not spending money or just going cheap does strike me as disingenuous.

When fans advocate an acquisition or a trade, they tend to provide significant statistical support.  When they advocate the Twins SHOULD spend more there is generally little or no supporting evidence.   It’s actually a more straight forward assessment.  Is the Twins spending consistent with the rest of the league?  Are their profits greater than the norm for the rest of the league?  Assuming Forbes is a credible source, the answer is no.  This fact has been posted here several times.

 

All of the failed contracts have also been listed.  Even now after the OP did a great job of illustrating just how often these contracts fail, some still cling to the premise the failed contracts won’t hurt the team as if there is no better way to spend the money which I outlined earlier in this thread as well as others.

 

It’s pretty simple in concept.  We have considerably less revenue than several teams.  If we are going to compete with those teams we have to get the most out of every available dollar.  Some of the top teams could sign 5 or 6 elite free agents and still have our available payroll left over.  The real failure of the previous regime is they did not build the requisite analytics, scouting, and operating practices needed to get the most out of our available dollars.

 

I would sure like to see one of the posters who constantly complain about the Twins spending to provide evidence that the Twins spending practices are different than the rest of the league.  The simple reality is that other teams have significantly more revenue and we should be debating what is the best way to overcome that disadvantage.

[laloesch]

 

Keep an eye on thorpe.

 

I would be happy as a clam if he pitched very well in AAA for 2018 and earned an August callup.  But your right he's a couple of seasons away realistically.

[USAFChief]

 

When fans advocate an acquisition or a trade, they tend to provide significant statistical support.  When they advocate the Twins SHOULD spend more there is generally little or no supporting evidence.   It’s actually a more straight forward assessment.  Is the Twins spending consistent with the rest of the league?  Are their profits greater than the norm for the rest of the league?  Assuming Forbes is a credible source, the answer is no.  This fact has been posted here several times.

 

All of the failed contracts have also been listed.  Even now after the OP did a great job of illustrating just how often these contracts fail, some still cling to the premise the failed contracts won’t hurt the team as if there is no better way to spend the money which I outlined earlier in this thread as well as others.

 

It’s pretty simple in concept.  We have considerably less revenue than several teams.  If we are going to compete with those teams we have to get the most out of every available dollar.  Some of the top teams could sign 5 or 6 elite free agents and still have our available payroll left over.  The real failure of the previous regime is they did not build the requisite analytics, scouting, and operating practices needed to get the most out of our available dollars.

 

I would sure like to see one of the posters who constantly complain about the Twins spending to provide evidence that the Twins spending practices are different than the rest of the league.  The simple reality is that other teams have significantly more revenue and we should be debating what is the best way to overcome that disadvantage.

The Twins haven't lived up to their own promises regarding spending for at least the previous 4 seasons.

 

Ownership has repeatedly stated a goal of spending at/near 50-55 percent of revenue.  Using best available estimates, they haven't done that since at least 2011.

 

This is not remotely controversial, or questionable.  

 

 

[nicksaviking]

Hughes pitched like a no. 1 in the first year of his contract, and Santana has already exceeded the value of his contract. So there are two examples. The argument isn't, "they shouldn't spend"; it's more like, "spending big might not work as well as we hope, and it actually might hurt in the long run."

Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

 

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.

[howieramone2]

 

The nature of the 4/48M pitchers almost guarantees they'll never be the kind of guy who could lead a WS contender though.

If they were already good enough to do so they'd be getting a bigger free agent deal, but the solid deal they received is just reinforcement that they don't and won't have to change their game in effort to become that guy.

If the Twins can't or shouldn't sign the big shots, they should get the guys who have the ability to become a big shot but still have something to prove.

Easier said than done.

[prouster]

Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

 

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.

Peak Hughes put up a 6 fWAR season, which is better than Darvish has ever done by almost a win and a half. We wouldn't be having this conversation right now if the Twins had a 6 win pitcher in their rotation. It's only one example, of course, but we're able to talk about who the Twins should sign largely because Hughes wasn't the kind of guy you'd give a 7 year deal at 25 million or more AAV. I say spend, but do it wisely.

[howieramone2]

 

You don't go to "Ryan's plan." You build from within. Collect as many assets as possible during your down years. When you are ready to compete, you find a free agent or a trade to supplement what you have.

 

Ryan's two biggest problems were poor drafting, failed trades and poor preparation due to his failure to keep up with the times. But he was right in that free agency isn't a way to build a pitching staff, it's only a way to supplement your pitching staff because the available pitchers are usually older and more expensive than they should be. 

 

Theoretically, Jose Berrios takes a step forward to lead the staff next year (his stuff is ridiculous). And then perhaps Gonsalves and Romero do well once they get called up. 

 

Perhaps the new regime will let a few of those assets go to get a guy who would be better than any of the free agent options. 

TR's first draft back in 2012 was a strong one. Take a look at how well the 2013 draft matured this season. When all is said and done, all of TR's drafts will be good ones. 

[laloesch]

 

Peak Hughes or peak Santana still aren't going to get this team past Houston, Cleveland, New York or Boston. Neither will Cobb nor Lynn.

Frankly, I'm not even picking a side in the spend big/be conservative debate, I just don't like the kinds of pitchers you get on these half-measure deals; nearly to a man they never have the upside to get to the elite level this team so desperately needs.

 

I would be happy to have Lynn or Cobb as accessory pieces though.  If they got one of those two and an ace that would be pretty good in my opinion. 

[nicksaviking]

Easier said than done.

Not for Cleveland. Not for Houston.