Article: Twins Must Get Creative To Lure Darvish

[Squirrel]

 

With all due respect what are you talking about?  You repeatedly say BALK & BALKING which implies illegality or hesitation which i never said.  Are you sure your replying to the right post? 

 

What I said initially in that post was EXACTLY what mlbtraderumors stated in that they (Twins) don't like the idea of going six years on Darvish.  Again re-read what i posted.  The rest of it was sarcasm followed by an emoji.  And like or not they struck out on Ohtani whether people accept that or not because they stated it was a high priority to woo him to Minnesota and GUESS WHAT? IT DIDN'T WORK OUT! 

 

And despite similar happy talk it now appears possible that the could very well miss on Darvish given their stated reluctance to go six years + on Darvish which i'm sure the Astros, Cubs, Rangers will easily and willing throw at him, so i'm not sure what your angst against my initial post is. As far as i can tell there were no rules violations so i'm not sure what you are getting at.    

The definition of balk is: to hesitate or be unwilling to accept an idea or undertaking.

 

And in your initial post you said this:

 

Yep.  I just read on mlb rumors that he is asking for 6+ years and the Twins don't want to do that.  There's the excuse folks.  SO what's plan C?  Ohtani, Darvish.....strike one, strike two......Lynn anyone?  You wait, they are gonna enter spring training with basically the same rotation as last season minus Colon while saying "we tried really hard".      

 

 

Ps....Colon has been in contact with the FO

That is NOT what the article said, at all, so no, you did NOT say 'exactly' what the article said. There have been no offers or statements of demands or any such thing. Yes, the Twins have a history of not wanting to go long on contracts, and yes, they likely have said they aren't 'in love' with that idea (which is what the link you posted said). And yes, it's (I think) very probably Darvish wants 6 years, that's no secret. But it's not like anyone has put anything out there in writing or verbally as to any specifics as your 'Darvish said this and the Twins don't want to' as if it was a specific thing said and responded to, not as rumor and speculation, which is what it is. And, which I think will be the case. I'll repeat it ... I don't think he'll be coming here, something I've said all along, or at least have said 'I'm very skeptical.' And that feeling is from the Twins history of long contracts and money.

 

 

[FunnyPenguin]

If the Twins miss Darvish and it comes down to the fact they wouldn't go 6 years, count me disappointed.  The window for success is now and we need someone like him or our rotation is going to be struggly yet again.  Come on guys, break the mold!  It's not like you'd be paying him through age 40.

Edited December 20, 2017 by FunnyPenguin

[Squirrel]

 

If the Twins miss Darvish and it comes down to the fact they wouldn't go 6 years, count me disappointed.  The window for success is now and we need someone like him or our rotation is going to be struggly yet again.  Come on guys, break the mold!  It's not like you'd be paying him through age 40.

Maybe this is the creative part ... but I wonder what combination will get it done for him ... less years, but more guaranteed money? More years but less guaranteed money? Or will someone go both more years and more guaranteed money?

 

As I've said, I don't see the Twins winning this if others are seriously in on it. And I don't know what other 'intangibles' will have an effect, if they even could, but I'd think the intangibles would only come into play if two teams have similar offers of guaranteed years and money.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Minnesota was in on Drew Smyly until the end, per Wolfson, before Smyly chose to sign with the Cubs. Minnesota gave an identical two-year, $10MM guarantee to Michael Pineda instead.

 

BIZARRE.  

Not really it's a calculated risk assessment move to get ahead of the starting pitching situation and to save $$ the next season.  Even though Smyly and Pineda likely won't pitch in 2018, IF they are healthy in 2019, having them pitch at 8M or even 10M is a bargain given their prior abilities and track record given what FA SP are getting on the open market.

[Loosey]

Here is how I would devise a way to get Darvish and it is somewhat outside the box.  

 

1) I would go to Mauer and ask him honestly how badly he wants to win a world series with the Twins.  I renegotiate his deal. 

 

In 2018 Mauer defers half his contract, making it $11.5M for 2018.  However, the Twins will then offer an additional 2 year $16M deal for 2019-2020.  Beginning in 2021-2016 the Twins will pay back Joe his remaining $11.5M so for 6 years he gets $1.92M but the Twins will pay 9% interest on the $11.5 for each year.  Making his annual payback $2.84M through 2026.  That's about $5.5M more than if he just takes $23M in 2018.

 

Mauer's New Deal:

 

2018: $11.5M

2019: $8M

2020: $8M

2021: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2022: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2023: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2024: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2025: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2026: $2.84M Deferred Payment

 

2) Now I would use that freed up $11.5M and front end load the Darvish deal.  Here is how I would structure it:

 

6 Years $156M overall contract

 

Year 1:  $36M

Year 2:  $27M

Year 3:  $27M

Year 4:  $22M Opt Out Option after 2021

Year 5:  $22M

Year 6:  $22M

 

In this Scenario the Twins are basically paying Darvish $27M + $9M of Mauer's freed up money in year 1 (2018).  Then in years 2-3 he is back to making most likely "market" value of $27M.  Year 4-6 his contract value declines but he has already made that up in year one.  

 

However, if he outperforms a $22M/year pitcher in 2021 he has the option to opt out after the season.  Darvish would be 35 then and this could be 50/50 move at this point.  

 

I really think if Mauer would be on board with this deal, it would make signing Darvish a reality. Who doesn't turn down $156M guaranteed over 6 years with nearly 25% of it paid in year 1?   The only way that is beat is if someone else comes out with 5 years / $175M or something outrageous.

[Mr. Brooks]

Here is how I would devise a way to get Darvish and it is somewhat outside the box.

 

1) I would go to Mauer and ask him honestly how badly he wants to win a world series with the Twins. I renegotiate his deal.

 

In 2018 Mauer defers half his contract, making it $11.5M for 2018. However, the Twins will then offer an additional 2 year $16M deal for 2019-2020. Beginning in 2021-2016 the Twins will pay back Joe his remaining $11.5M so for 6 years he gets $1.92M but the Twins will pay 9% interest on the $11.5 for each year. Making his annual payback $2.84M through 2026. That's about $5.5M more than if he just takes $23M in 2018.

 

Mauer's New Deal:

 

2018: $11.5M

2019: $8M

2020: $8M

2021: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2022: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2023: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2024: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2025: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2026: $2.84M Deferred Payment

 

2) Now I would use that freed up $11.5M and front end load the Darvish deal. Here is how I would structure it:

 

6 Years $156M overall contract

 

Year 1: $36M

Year 2: $27M

Year 3: $27M

Year 4: $22M Opt Out Option after 2021

Year 5: $22M

Year 6: $22M

 

In this Scenario the Twins are basically paying Darvish $27M + $9M of Mauer's freed up money in year 1 (2018). Then in years 2-3 he is back to making most likely "market" value of $27M. Year 4-6 his contract value declines but he has already made that up in year one.

 

However, if he outperforms a $22M/year pitcher in 2021 he has the option to opt out after the season. Darvish would be 35 then and this could be 50/50 move at this point.

 

I really think if Mauer would be on board with this deal, it would make signing Darvish a reality. Who doesn't turn down $156M guaranteed over 6 years with nearly 25% of it paid in year 1? The only way that is beat is if someone else comes out with 5 years / $175M or something outrageous.

Of course Mauer would probably do that. But, why would the Pohlad's, who I believe made their money in banking, pay 9% interest?

[laloesch]

The definition of balk is: to hesitate or be unwilling to accept an idea or undertaking.

 

And in your initial post you said this:

 

That is NOT what the article said, at all, so no, you did NOT say 'exactly' what the article said. There have been no offers or statements of demands or any such thing. Yes, the Twins have a history of not wanting to go long on contracts, and yes, they likely have said they aren't 'in love' with that idea (which is what the link you posted said). And yes, it's (I think) very probably Darvish wants 6 years, that's no secret. But it's not like anyone has put anything out there in writing or verbally as to any specifics as your 'Darvish said this and the Twins don't want to' as if it was a specific thing said and responded to, not as rumor and speculation, which is what it is. And, which I think will be the case. I'll repeat it ... I don't think he'll be coming here, something I've said all along, or at least have said 'I'm very skeptical.' And that feeling is from the Twins history of long contracts and money.

 

And with all due respect, tone down the all caps. I disagree with your take. And you disagree with me. Fine, but there's no reason to get so high strung about it all.

 

Again what are you talking about and who are you talking too?  What do you mean that is not what the article said? 

 

Are you sure your not thinking about message #72 in this thread because that user was using the phrases balk and balking and discussing some of the things your saying in more detail. 

 

What i said was quick and to the point and I paraphrased what Steve said.  I never claimed to have quoted him but i guess i have to now.

 

MLBtraderumors

Steve Adam's

Article "Twins Interested In Trevor Rosenthal"

 

"Minnesota has shown no inclination to spent upwards of $9MM on multi-year deals for relievers and doesn’t love the idea of going to six years on Yu Darvish"

 

Also balk DOES HAVE an illegality meaning in baseball terms as in pitcher balk.

 

 

[laloesch]

Here is how I would devise a way to get Darvish and it is somewhat outside the box.

 

1) I would go to Mauer and ask him honestly how badly he wants to win a world series with the Twins. I renegotiate his deal.

 

In 2018 Mauer defers half his contract, making it $11.5M for 2018. However, the Twins will then offer an additional 2 year $16M deal for 2019-2020. Beginning in 2021-2016 the Twins will pay back Joe his remaining $11.5M so for 6 years he gets $1.92M but the Twins will pay 9% interest on the $11.5 for each year. Making his annual payback $2.84M through 2026. That's about $5.5M more than if he just takes $23M in 2018.

 

Mauer's New Deal:

 

2018: $11.5M

2019: $8M

2020: $8M

2021: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2022: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2023: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2024: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2025: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2026: $2.84M Deferred Payment

 

2) Now I would use that freed up $11.5M and front end load the Darvish deal. Here is how I would structure it:

 

6 Years $156M overall contract

 

Year 1: $36M

Year 2: $27M

Year 3: $27M

Year 4: $22M Opt Out Option after 2021

Year 5: $22M

Year 6: $22M

 

In this Scenario the Twins are basically paying Darvish $27M + $9M of Mauer's freed up money in year 1 (2018). Then in years 2-3 he is back to making most likely "market" value of $27M. Year 4-6 his contract value declines but he has already made that up in year one.

 

However, if he outperforms a $22M/year pitcher in 2021 he has the option to opt out after the season. Darvish would be 35 then and this could be 50/50 move at this point.

 

I really think if Mauer would be on board with this deal, it would make signing Darvish a reality. Who doesn't turn down $156M guaranteed over 6 years with nearly 25% of it paid in year 1? The only way that is beat is if someone else comes out with 5 years / $175M or something outrageous.

Here is how I would devise a way to get Darvish and it is somewhat outside the box.

 

1) I would go to Mauer and ask him honestly how badly he wants to win a world series with the Twins. I renegotiate his deal.

 

In 2018 Mauer defers half his contract, making it $11.5M for 2018. However, the Twins will then offer an additional 2 year $16M deal for 2019-2020. Beginning in 2021-2016 the Twins will pay back Joe his remaining $11.5M so for 6 years he gets $1.92M but the Twins will pay 9% interest on the $11.5 for each year. Making his annual payback $2.84M through 2026. That's about $5.5M more than if he just takes $23M in 2018.

 

Mauer's New Deal:

 

2018: $11.5M

2019: $8M

2020: $8M

2021: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2022: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2023: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2024: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2025: $2.84M Deferred Payment

2026: $2.84M Deferred Payment

 

2) Now I would use that freed up $11.5M and front end load the Darvish deal. Here is how I would structure it:

 

6 Years $156M overall contract

 

Year 1: $36M

Year 2: $27M

Year 3: $27M

Year 4: $22M Opt Out Option after 2021

Year 5: $22M

Year 6: $22M

 

In this Scenario the Twins are basically paying Darvish $27M + $9M of Mauer's freed up money in year 1 (2018). Then in years 2-3 he is back to making most likely "market" value of $27M. Year 4-6 his contract value declines but he has already made that up in year one.

 

However, if he outperforms a $22M/year pitcher in 2021 he has the option to opt out after the season. Darvish would be 35 then and this could be 50/50 move at this point.

 

I really think if Mauer would be on board with this deal, it would make signing Darvish a reality. Who doesn't turn down $156M guaranteed over 6 years with nearly 25% of it paid in year 1? The only way that is beat is if someone else comes out with 5 years / $175M or something outrageous.

Interesting idea. However aren't teams required to make a "qualifying offer" once a player has spent 6+ years with a team and that offer is the average of the top 125 players in the game (well over 2.84 million)? Maybe this only applies to free agents and not contract renegotiations, would be interesting to find out. I gotta imagine the players union would freak out on a deal like this. Edited December 21, 2017 by laloesch

[DaveW]

The Twins don't need to worry about deferring money on ANY contracts, they make plenty of money and would make plenty of money even with signing Darvish, Mauer (in the future) and other Free Agents.

[ashbury]

1) I would go to Mauer and ask him honestly how badly he wants to win a world series with the Twins.  I renegotiate his deal.

My guess is that you'd have to be really careful not to run afoul of the players' union. A lot of the safeguards they have negotiated are to prevent teams from putting a strong-arm on players to give back anything. While your proposal may seem favorable to both sides, I could foresee some hidden obstacle very easily.

[IndianaTwin]

 

Yeah my thoughts exactly.  Drew Smyly     Doesn't Pineda fit that bill already?  Doesn't matter now as the Cubs signed him, but still pretty weird. 

 

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but the Cubs signed Smyly before the Twins signed Pineda.  

[Twins33]

Yeah my thoughts exactly.  Drew Smyly     Doesn't Pineda fit that bill already?  Doesn't matter now as the Cubs signed him, but still pretty weird.

 

The Twins were in on Smyly before the Cubs signed Smyly and before the Twins signed Pineda. That's what that says. They pivoted to Pineda once Smyly chose the Cubs.

[laloesch]

The Twins were in on Smyly before the Cubs signed Smyly and before the Twins signed Pineda. That's what that says. They pivoted to Pineda once Smyly chose the Cubs.

Ah i see. I missed that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Yeah my thoughts exactly.  Drew Smyly     Doesn't Pineda fit that bill already?  Doesn't matter now as the Cubs signed him, but still pretty weird.

 

Nothing special about Pineda; just give us whichever broken armed guy is left over

[DaveW]

 

My guess is that you'd have to be really careful not to run afoul of the players' union. A lot of the safeguards they have negotiated are to prevent teams from putting a strong-arm on players to give back anything. While your proposal may seem favorable to both sides, I could foresee some hidden obstacle very easily.

Since Mauer has been a Twin the value of the Twins franchise has gone up hundreds of millions of dollars (not saying it's due to him) but his answer to ownership should be 'why don't you just spend more money if you want to win a championship'?

I'm getting pretty tired myself of this 'aww shucks, small market club' that some people gobble up hook line and sinker.

[Loosey]

 

Of course Mauer would probably do that. But, why would the Pohlad's, who I believe made their money in banking, pay 9% interest?

I don't even know if this idea is within the bounds of the CBA, but the reason you would pay 9% is because anything less Mauer could realistically achieve on his own.  9% guaranteed is about 1% above the adjusted average return on the market since the S&P's inception.  Trust me, the Pohlad's are making more than that return.

 

 

[Loosey]

 

Since Mauer has been a Twin the value of the Twins franchise has gone up hundreds of millions of dollars (not saying it's due to him) but his answer to ownership should be 'why don't you just spend more money if you want to win a championship'?

I'm getting pretty tired myself of this 'aww shucks, small market club' that some people gobble up hook line and sinker.

Obviously, just paying Darvish more than any other team offers is the best way to get him.  And I agree with your statement to spend  money to win.  BUT, this team has never operated that way.  If they truly are in on Darvish and they aren't completely opening up the checkbook, outside the box ideas to fund 2018 would need to occur.

[Doomtints]

 

Obviously, just paying Darvish more than any other team offers is the best way to get him.  

 

*only

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't even know if this idea is within the bounds of the CBA, but the reason you would pay 9% is because anything less Mauer could realistically achieve on his own. 9% guaranteed is about 1% above the adjusted average return on the market since the S&P's inception. Trust me, the Pohlad's are making more than that return.

Adjusted average since inception is not the same thing as a GUARANTEED rate over 5 years.

[PseudoSABR]

[Loosey]

 

Adjusted average since inception is not the same thing as a GUARANTEED rate over 5 years.

I know.  I think we are agreeing, but I am not sure.  I would rather have guaranteed 9% rate over 5 years, rather than risk market declines or bad investment decisions.  But 

[Mr. Brooks]

I know. I think we are agreeing, but I am not sure. I would rather have guaranteed 9% rate over 5 years, rather than risk market declines or bad investment decisions. But

Yeah, that's my point. It's a no brainer guaranteed investment. That should give you pause to wonder why the other side would consider that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

LENIII says the Twins know that if they want to sign Darvish, they will need to offer him the biggest contract in team history. ("Club record offer" is how he describes it.) Does he mean in terms of total dollars? Mauer signed for 8/184 in 2010.

 

Early estimates for Darvish were around 6/140, but if Darvish is demanding close to $200 million, at that price we gotta let him go somewhere else and not let the door hit him on the way out, right?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Twins people seem to have clammed up. But it’s clear their top target remains Yu Darvish.

via Heyman's Inside Baseball. 

[Twins33]

LENIII says the Twins know that if they want to sign Darvish, they will need to offer him the biggest contract in team history. ("Club record offer" is how he describes it.) Does he mean in terms of total dollars? Mauer signed for 8/184 in 2010.

Early estimates for Darvish were around 6/140, but if Darvish is demanding close to $200 million, at that price we gotta let him go somewhere else and not let the door hit him on the way out, right?

I would assume he's talking about club record FA dollars, as that's what was written in a previous article before today's. So basically old and obvious news. Because of course he's going to get a bigger contract than Santana did.

 

From an article five days ago:

"How the Twins react when/if Darvish asks for six years and $140 million-$150 million — which would easily be a club record for a free agent — will be the test of their willingness to dive into the deep waters of free agency to add top talent."

 

Again the words club record mentioned. I think in the article today, it was implied that he meant FA dollars based on this article. And I know there was one other which directly mentioned the Santana contract. So I'm 99% sure he did not mean 200 million.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Twins33

[Squirrel]

 

via Heyman's Inside Baseball. 

Hmm ... wonder if that means they are close to something? 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Hmm ... wonder if that means they are close to something?

 

Either that, or they feel they are out completely.

(which imho could be a blessing)

[Squirrel]

 

Either that, or they feel they are out completely.
(which imho could be a blessing)

Yeah ... just not sure what 'mum' means, but it doesn't sound like the Cubs are all that close on Darvish, either, but who knows. When that item was tweeted that the Cubs had a deal, Darvish was pretty quick to tweet back 'Fake News' so ... 

 

Meh ... just can't worry about it any, not that I have. Out of my control. But speculation can be fun.

[Twins33]

Hmm ... wonder if that means they are close to something?

 

I recall similar words being said deep into the Dozier rumors last year. That led to nothing, which was probably a good thing.

 

I want Darvish so I hope it's not a similar result.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I would assume he's talking about club record FA dollars, as that's what was written in a previous article before today's. So basically old and obvious news. Because of course he's going to get a bigger contract than Santana did.

From an article five days ago:

"How the Twins react when/if Darvish asks for six years and $140 million-$150 million — which would easily be a club record for a free agent — will be the test of their willingness to dive into the deep waters of free agency to add top talent."

Again the words club record mentioned. I think in the article today, it was implied that he meant FA dollars based on this article. And I know there was one other which directly mentioned the Santana contract. So I'm 99% sure he did not mean 200 million.

Thanks for the clarification. I am leaning towards "not interested" in Darvish, especially if he wants to drag this negotiation out through mid-January. Sounds like Gerrit Cole could be acquired for less, and sooner, and Berrios might be better than Darvish after a couple more years anyway.