Don’t hold your breath Twins fans

[Major League Ready]

 

This has been debunked over and over.

 

BTW, the original point being discussed..."the Twins must develop their pitching from within"...is also so non-specific it can't really be argued.  But it is also so non-specific as to be meaningless.

 

Even if the Twins COULD somehow do that, it's a 5-10 year project, which does NOTHING to help in the meantime.

 

It has never been debunked.  You apparently think the Diamondbacks signing Grienke after signing a $1.5 Billion dollar TV deal debunks this position.  Any of the other examples are teams resigning players like we did with Mauer.  The only one that is somewhat reasonable to compare is the Nationals and Max Sherzer.  The National have $40-50M more in revenue than the Twins which is obviously enough to pay that entire contract and have enough left over for a top bullpen arm so it certainly is not fair to say the Nationals and Twins have sufficiently equivalent revenue to make this a good comparison.

 

So, let's sum up.  One of the comparison's is a team that had just signed a $1.5B TV contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay for the entirety of the contract and then some.  Even if they were reasonable comparisons, two instances for the 18 teams in the bottom 1/3 of the league for the past couple of decades would qualify as rare and these most certainly are not good comparisons.  One is actually a ridiculous comparison given the TV deal.

[Danchat]

 

It's the same song and dance every off-season and every trade deadline...

There's a refusal to pay market rates for free agents because the years are too long. The market isn't going to change. If anything salary rates are going to continue to climb.

There's a refusal for making trades because it's not wise to give up 6-7 year assets for players with 2-3 years of control left.

So let's rely on internal prospects... Probably the most risky proposition out there. Any injury or regression from prospects and there goes your depth. There's no magic potion out there that will make your prospects hit their ceilings or make them fly through the system faster. I see 3 SP that MAY help the team in some way (Gonsalves, Slegers, Jorge). That's still asking an awful lot for them to provide positive value in their first extended time in the MLB. We've seen countless prospects fall on their face in this circumstance.

So I'm at a loss. What do people want this team to do? The pitching is still not good.

The answer is this: balance free agent signings with developing internal prospects. Take a bunch of prospects and develop them into a strong core (Twins hitters at this point) and then add on to the weak areas (pitching) with free agents. The time to strike is now, the window has opened and we don't know how long it's going to be open, so let's spend some cash. Sure, they might have to overpay to get a good starter, but that's just the cost of supplementing the core. Let's make that signing now before the core gets more expensive.

 

Falvey and Levine seem willing to make a signing, and we know they want Darvish. If they can't get him, I'd hope there's a solid plan B. I'd even be fine trading prospects for a reliever as long as it isn't an elite prospect (Royce Lewis) or someone who can help our team's weakness very soon (Gonsalves). Not much has happened in the MLB offseason thus far - I'm confident the Twins will make at least one bold move. Let's just hope it works out.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

i didn’t know they had Napoli inked

Noooooooooooooo!

[Vanimal46]

The answer is this: balance free agent signings with developing internal prospects. Take a bunch of prospects and develop them into a strong core (Twins hitters at this point) and then add on to the weak areas (pitching) with free agents. The time to strike is now, the window has opened and we don't know how long it's going to be open, so let's spend some cash. Sure, they might have to overpay to get a good starter, but that's just the cost of supplementing the core. Let's make that signing now before the core gets more expensive.

 

Falvey and Levine seem willing to make a signing, and we know they want Darvish. If they can't get him, I'd hope there's a solid plan B. I'd even be fine trading prospects for a reliever as long as it isn't an elite prospect (Royce Lewis) or someone who can help our team's weakness very soon (Gonsalves). Not much has happened in the MLB offseason thus far - I'm confident the Twins will make at least one bold move. Let's just hope it works out.

I agree with all of this Danchat. There needs to be a balance. And we need to lose this fear of offering pitcher's contracts longer than 1 year.

 

That's all I want. One bold move to improve the pitching staff. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a starter or reliever. It's impossible to plan 5-6 years in advance, so take advantage of the window that's open right now.

[Doomtints]

 

I agree with all of this Danchat. There needs to be a balance. And we need to lose this fear of offering pitcher's contracts longer than 1 year.

That's all I want. One bold move to improve the pitching staff. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a starter or reliever. It's impossible to plan 5-6 years in advance, so take advantage of the window that's open right now.

 

How many years have we been waiting for "one bold move"?

 

Eh, I'm going to bed.

[Mike Sixel]

It has never been debunked. You apparently think the Diamondbacks signing Grienke after signing a $1.5 Billion dollar TV deal debunks this position. Any of the other examples are teams resigning players like we did with Mauer. The only one that is somewhat reasonable to compare is the Nationals and Max Sherzer. The National have $40-50M more in revenue than the Twins which is obviously enough to pay that entire contract and have enough left over for a top bullpen arm so it certainly is not fair to say the Nationals and Twins have sufficiently equivalent revenue to make this a good comparison.

 

So, let's sum up. One of the comparison's is a team that had just signed a $1.5B TV contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay for the entirety of the contract and then some. Even if they were reasonable comparisons, two instances for the 18 teams in the bottom 1/3 of the league for the past couple of decades would qualify as rare and these most certainly are not good comparisons. One is actually a ridiculous comparison given the TV deal.

Is the answer never sign a big time free agent? Or break the mold? I hope the latter, or it is very unlikely they ever win consistently,imo. I remain hopeful.

[sampleSizeOfOne]

How many years have we been waiting for "one bold move"?

 

Eh, I'm going to bed.

Good point. And i applaud your resolute action thus inspired.

 

I was also going to point out that if the market seems slower to develop this year than previously, it could be in part due to our feistly little FO getting down and dirty and actually making competitive offers such that those free agents decisions are not so cut and dry as they may have been in previous years.

 

If there is such a thing as a good time for it, i might as well start holding my breath,,.

 

And i probably will stay up a bit later, although that is perhaps more because a weird sleep schedule than anything else.

[Major League Ready]

 

Is the answer never sign a big time free agent? Or break the mold? I hope the latter, or it is very unlikely they ever win consistently,imo. I remain hopeful.

 

Mike,

A’s fans and Ray’s fans, and the other very bottom revenue teams know their team is never going to sign a top of the market (6-7 year contract) for a FA pitcher unless they are absolutely delusional.  The Twins Revenue position is just enough higher that it seems plausible so a few Twins fans pray that the team would not be so cheap and just go for it.  So, you have to ask yourself why they don’t and why does the national media always assume this type of approach is outside the Twin's economic viability?  Is there something they just don’t understand?  Do they not understand this is the best path to success as you and a few others have advocated here or is it the fans that don’t understand the model MOST LIKELY to achieve sustained success?

 

If this were a consulting project, one of the first things I would look at in deciphering this sort of question is how does this specific company’s (team) practices compare to industry best practices.  In this case, other teams have not utilized the practice you propose, at least not by a reasonably objective standard.  There are really only two deals in the last decade that anyone can come up with as comparable.  As I stated these deals are not reasonably comparable given the revenue advantages of those two teams used as examples.  Is the problem that all of those GMs over the course of all of those years just did not see that signing this specific type FA is key to success or is the fans that don’t understand that the probability of success is too low that they opted to utilize other approaches?

 

There is a ton of data available to make this decision.   I would first look at the statistical models to determine the likelihood of regression at a given age.  When looking at Darvish this means age 32 season through whatever age contract is proposed.  Of course, we would also look at any other relevant data.  For example, frequency of injury and recovery times at this age.    Do you suppose the GMs, especially the newer GMs with an excellent business education and analytical support teams are looking at this in a more sophisticated fan?  Are fans building these models or do you suppose they just want to get better as fast as possible?

 

How many SPs (what percentage) have performed relatively close to their prime at ages 35-37 which is the case with Darvish?  Shields is a reasonable example because his contract runs through his age 36 season.  There were participants here who insisted James Shield would be as anyone else on our staff over the remaining 3 years of his deal.  Nolaco and an fWar of 1 the first year and -1.1 last year.  Streamer project .2 for next year.  Based on the assumption you like to use that the money would go unused, who cares right.  The problem with that assumption is that we have 3 or 4 young players that money could be used to extend into their prime years.

 

I would love to see the calculation for Darvish’s estimated fWAR ages 35-37.  I don’t know if Buxton would extend 3 years at $84M beyond whatever we would pay him over his arbitration years but I think that if calculated with all the relevant data available, extending Buxton s a much better risk.   

The bottom line is that mold as you call it is consistent across the league for team’s of similar revenue. 

 

Do you really think they are all wrong?  If so, there is a multi million dollar/yr job waiting for anyone that can demonstrate to them there is a better approach.

[laloesch]

 

This is my feeling too. I don't want them to give out a six year deal, but I do want Darvish here for years 1-4. Years 5 and 6 may suck, but years 1-4 could make it completely worth it.

Front load it a bit and bite the bullet.

 

I'm not sure that's realistically going to happen.  If Darren Wolfson is correct seems like both sides (Darvish and the Twins) are having a hard time "trying to match schedules" for a sit-down meeting.  If that's the case if i were the Twins i'd start going after Lynn or Cobb or Cole heavily.  They had better be careful how long they chase Darvish because they could be left without a chair when the music stops.

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm not sure that's realistically going to happen.  If Darren Wolfson is correct seems like both sides (Darvish and the Twins) are having a hard time "trying to match schedules" for a sit-down meeting.  If that's the case if i were the Twins i'd start going after Lynn or Cobb or Cole heavily.  They had better be careful how long they chase Darvish because they could be left without a chair when the music stops.

 

If Darvish is holding out for 6 or even some report 7 years, Cobb & Lynn might be holding out for 5 years.  Teams have realized how much these deals that go well past a players prime are hurting their ability to add pieces.  Even the Yankees have to be really regretting the Ellsbury deal.  Of course, it only takes one desperate (poorly run) team to make they holdout workout for the player.

 

I would rather have Cobb at 4 years 18M (age 30-33) if Darvish requires 6 years (ages 32-37).  Take the leftover money and extend one of our core.  That would also leave plenty of money left over to extend another member of the core and then some.  The window argument goes right out the window.  That plan gives us a reasonable shot at fielding a very good team for a decade.  That males a lot more sense to me that pushing our chips in.

[HitInAPinch]

IMHO:  It's not quite time to invest too heavily in FA's.  I'd like to first see what happens to Buxton and Kepler this year.  Buxton took a big step decent size step at the plate last year, ignoring the 150k's for the time being.  Defense:  still elite.

 

Kepler:  I leave that to Tom. 

http://twinsdaily.com/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/will-max-kepler-take-the-next-step-in-2018-r6305

 

I'm still looking on the upside.

 

If Sano stays healthy and Buxton and Kepler keep trending up, only then would I consider any highly prized pitcher.

 

But that's just me, I'm a cheapskate      

[snap4birds]

 

Mike,

A’s fans and Ray’s fans, and the other very bottom revenue teams know their team is never going to sign a top of the market (6-7 year contract) for a FA pitcher unless they are absolutely delusional.  The Twins Revenue position is just enough higher that it seems plausible so a few Twins fans pray that the team would not be so cheap and just go for it.  So, you have to ask yourself why they don’t and why does the national media always assume this type of approach is outside the Twin's economic viability?  Is there something they just don’t understand?  Do they not understand this is the best path to success as you and a few others have advocated here or is it the fans that don’t understand the model MOST LIKELY to achieve sustained success?

 

If this were a consulting project, one of the first things I would look at in deciphering this sort of question is how does this specific company’s (team) practices compare to industry best practices.  In this case, other teams have not utilized the practice you propose, at least not by a reasonably objective standard.  There are really only two deals in the last decade that anyone can come up with as comparable.  As I stated these deals are not reasonably comparable given the revenue advantages of those two teams used as examples.  Is the problem that all of those GMs over the course of all of those years just did not see that signing this specific type FA is key to success or is the fans that don’t understand that the probability of success is too low that they opted to utilize other approaches?

 

There is a ton of data available to make this decision.   I would first look at the statistical models to determine the likelihood of regression at a given age.  When looking at Darvish this means age 32 season through whatever age contract is proposed.  Of course, we would also look at any other relevant data.  For example, frequency of injury and recovery times at this age.    Do you suppose the GMs, especially the newer GMs with an excellent business education and analytical support teams are looking at this in a more sophisticated fan?  Are fans building these models or do you suppose they just want to get better as fast as possible?

 

How many SPs (what percentage) have performed relatively close to their prime at ages 35-37 which is the case with Darvish?  Shields is a reasonable example because his contract runs through his age 36 season.  There were participants here who insisted James Shield would be as anyone else on our staff over the remaining 3 years of his deal.  Nolaco and an fWar of 1 the first year and -1.1 last year.  Streamer project .2 for next year.  Based on the assumption you like to use that the money would go unused, who cares right.  The problem with that assumption is that we have 3 or 4 young players that money could be used to extend into their prime years.

 

I would love to see the calculation for Darvish’s estimated fWAR ages 35-37.  I don’t know if Buxton would extend 3 years at $84M beyond whatever we would pay him over his arbitration years but I think that if calculated with all the relevant data available, extending Buxton s a much better risk.   

The bottom line is that mold as you call it is consistent across the league for team’s of similar revenue. 

 

Do you really think they are all wrong?  If so, there is a multi million dollar/yr job waiting for anyone that can demonstrate to them there is a better approach.

How many pitchers have signed 6 year contracts overall?  To me, that's a pretty SSS.  Maybe there are more than I remember, but I'd think that there aren't all that many examples in the last decade.  (The 1st 2 I thought of were Mike Hampton & Barry Zito......)  So if you're going to posit that teams in the Twins financial situation don't sign that type of contract, I think you should show which teams have signed them and their relative revenue stream.

[Doomtints]

 

I was also going to point out that if the market seems slower to develop this year than previously, it could be in part due to our feistly little FO getting down and dirty and actually making competitive offers such that those free agents decisions are not so cut and dry as they may have been in previous years.

 

This is what we thought last year too. I'm not putting myself through that a second time. If they make a move, great, but I'm not getting my hopes up about anything happening.

[mike8791]

Some bit of "good" news out of Chicago today.  Cubs have apparently offered Arrietta a 4 year deal @ $110MM.  Theo and co. seem adverse to giving more than 4 years to any FA pitcher.  If ( and a big if), Jake signs ror 4 with Cubs, this could enhance Twins' chances to sign Darvish maybe for 5 years, especially since it takes Cubs out of bidding and lowers signing ceiling a bit.

 

One can only hope at this stage!

[gocgo]

 

Come on.

 

Look, if come February the Twins haven't done much, then it's time to start hammering the team. But look at the facts:

 

1. TONS of free agents have yet to sign. That includes Yu Darvish, Alex Cobb and Jake Arrieta.

2. The overall market for starting pitchers has been completely non-existent thus far. Name one major trade involving a starter or free agent signing.

3. Few players have signed with new teams. Carlos Santana is the exception.

4. Few teams have done much. Outside the Yankees, Angels and Phillies, name one team that has made a major move?

5. Thus far, teams in the AL Central have gone backwards. 

6. There are plenty of reasons to be cautious about free agent starters. Would you give a six-year deal to Yu Darvish? I think the Twins should, even if it hurts them in that last year. But it's perfectly reasonable for a team to be cautious about such a contract given how fragile pitchers are these days. 

 

Seriously. There is no reason to start trashing the front office at this point. 

Totally agree...and the fact that Big Sexy was left off the list renders it invalid anyway.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

They had better be careful how long they chase Darvish because they could be left without a chair when the music stops.

This is the perfect metaphor.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

How many pitchers have signed 6 year contracts overall?  To me, that's a pretty SSS.  Maybe there are more than I remember, but I'd think that there aren't all that many examples in the last decade.  (The 1st 2 I thought of were Mike Hampton & Barry Zito......)  So if you're going to posit that teams in the Twins financial situation don't sign that type of contract, I think you should show which teams have signed them and their relative revenue stream.

The 6 year plus contracts for Starting Pitchers that I can come up with are:

 

Kevin Brown

Pedro Martinez

Barry Zito

Matt Cain

Johan Santana

Cole Hamels

Zack Grienke

CC Sabathia

Felix Hernandez

Justin Verlander

Max Scherzer

Clayton Kershaw

 

 

 

[Doomtints]

 

Some bit of "good" news out of Chicago today.  Cubs have apparently offered Arrietta a 4 year deal @ $110MM.  Theo and co. seem adverse to giving more than 4 years to any FA pitcher.  If ( and a big if), Jake signs ror 4 with Cubs, this could enhance Twins' chances to sign Darvish maybe for 5 years, especially since it takes Cubs out of bidding and lowers signing ceiling a bit.

 

One can only hope at this stage!

 

That's not guaranteed. It took Arrieta a few months to get going last year so the Cubs could still be looking for another ace. There was even talk of moving Arrieta to the bullpen last June!

 

Plus, they don't want Darvish to go to a rival like the Dodgers (again) or the Cardinals. The Cubs have bottomless pockets and want to one-up the Dodgers and keep ahead of the Cardinals.

[bird]

 

I agree with all of this Danchat. There needs to be a balance. And we need to lose this fear of offering pitcher's contracts longer than 1 year.

That's all I want. One bold move to improve the pitching staff. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a starter or reliever. It's impossible to plan 5-6 years in advance, so take advantage of the window that's open right now.

 

Yes, this.

 

And it wouldn't be breaking the mold. There's a new mold. The mold has changed in a number of ways, and it isn't solely related to the regime change. First and foremost, the "window" is an undeniable reality now. It can't be argued. Second, it could hardly be more obvious that a front-line starter is a necessity (on paper, always on paper) in order to remain as a viable wild card aspirant. Remember that in past years, one front-line starter would not have been enough. Third, both of the ways to pay for said pitcher, cash or prospects, are now finally available within some reasonable set of restraints. 

 

I've been critical of both the new and the old regimes for their failures to make bolder moves, front-line relievers in particular for years in a row. I have not been critical about avoiding cash or prospect exchanges for a front-line starter because in the past the conditions described above have not been there.

 

I'll be critical of the FO if they fail to acquire a front-line (better than or equal to what they have now as the #1 and 2 starters) starter before spring training. I'm encouraged by the signs Jim Pohlad has given us, although I'd like him to somehow acknowledge the existence of "retained earnings" from past years when they spent less than 50% of revenue on player personnel that are available for the FO should they need to go "over budget" to get the job done. My personal opinion is they have a perfect opportunity here to remove some of the rubble left over from previous PR blunders by signing Darvish, and that it would be cash well-spent.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Take the leftover money and extend one of our core.  That would also leave plenty of money left over to extend another member of the core and then some.  The window argument goes right out the window.  

No, it doesn't. We're assuming all of those players are willing to sign extensions and not test FA. That seems unlikely. 

 

Also, why does it have to be an either/or scenario? The Twins have plenty of money coming off of payroll next offseason, but the FA pitching market looks horrendous. Part of the appeal of signing a big FA pitcher this offseason is that they would being paying him for 4 years before any of the core hits FA. There is ample time and opportunity during that 4 year stretch where the team can extend Buxton, Sano, Berrios, ect.

[Major League Ready]

 

How many pitchers have signed 6 year contracts overall?  To me, that's a pretty SSS.  Maybe there are more than I remember, but I'd think that there aren't all that many examples in the last decade.  (The 1st 2 I thought of were Mike Hampton & Barry Zito......)  So if you're going to posit that teams in the Twins financial situation don't sign that type of contract, I think you should show which teams have signed them and their relative revenue stream.

 

I did ... about two years ago.   Instead of just trying to blindly support a position I actually went out and looked at ALL of the date.  I must admit I missed the Mike Hampton example.  It's the only actual reasonable example of any team in a similar revenue position signing such a player.  Every single contract was by a top 10 revenue team.  The Nationals might have been 11th.  As I recall, one source had them 9 or 10th and another 11th.  Of course, I am omitting Arizona because of the TV contract and I missed Hampton.  That is the totality of the this type of contract signed by teams of equal or less revenue.

 

BTW ... How did Zito and Hampton pan out.  You are not helping your point.  These two were deals were disasters.

 

I can see still kind of hoping the Twins sign a big name even when without really having all the facts serious baseball fans like the those who post here know many of these deals are huge busts.  What I don't understand is the absolute instance that the Twins must do this to succeed.  Is this how Cleveland, a team of similar revenue built a world series winner and sustained success?  The royals were build primarily on high draft picks and the trading away of their best player.  They never signed a big FA.  They did trade for Shileds but was there potentially a better strategy.  They did not even make the playoffs the first year and they were better after he left.  Could they have perhaps sustained their success had they traded for a rental the first year they actually made the playoffs for much less in terms of prospects.   Could they have traded Meyers for a couple of good SP prospects and retained Odorizzi. 

[snap4birds]

 

I did ... about two years ago.   Instead of just trying to blindly support a position I actually went out and looked at ALL of the date.  I must admit I missed the Mike Hampton example.  It's the only actual reasonable example of any team in a similar revenue position signing such a player.  Every single contract was by a top 10 revenue team.  The Nationals might have been 11th.  As I recall, one source had them 9 or 10th and another 11th.  Of course, I am omitting Arizona because of the TV contract and I missed Hampton.  That is the totality of the this type of contract signed by teams of equal or less revenue.

 

BTW ... How did Zito and Hampton pan out.  You are not helping your point.  These two were deals were disasters.

 

I can see still kind of hoping the Twins sign a big name even when without really having all the facts serious baseball fans like the those who post here know many of these deals are huge busts.  What I don't understand is the absolute instance that the Twins must do this to succeed.  Is this how Cleveland, a team of similar revenue built a world series winner and sustained success?  The royals were build primarily on high draft picks and the trading away of their best player.  They never signed a big FA.  They did trade for Shileds but was there potentially a better strategy.  They did not even make the playoffs the first year and they were better after he left.  Could they have perhaps sustained their success had they traded for a rental the first year they actually made the playoffs for much less in terms of prospects.   Could they have traded Meyers for a couple of good SP prospects and retained Odorizzi. 

OK, I didn't really explain my point then.  Hampton & Zito don't count, because this was limited to the past decade (not sure if that was by you or someone else in the thread-I'm not going back & re-reading it).  My point is that if you are looking at free agent starting pitchers signing contracts for 6 or more years in the past decade, you're not really looking at very many actual examples.  So is it valid to state that teams of the Twins financial position never sign them?  If there are only 3 examples, does it really amount to any sort of statistical significance?  (Just used 3 as an example, I have no idea how many there were.....)

 

And I said nothing about the wisdom of signing Darvish, Hampton or Zito, I was just commenting on the history of the market size of teams that make signings like this, and the rarity of free agent pitchers actually receiving them.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

OK, I didn't really explain my point then.  Hampton & Zito don't count, because this was limited to the past decade (not sure if that was by you or someone else in the thread-I'm not going back & re-reading it).  My point is that if you are looking at free agent starting pitchers signing contracts for 6 or more years in the past decade, you're not really looking at very many actual examples.  So is it valid to state that teams of the Twins financial position never sign them?  If there are only 3 examples, does it really amount to any sort of statistical significance?  (Just used 3 as an example, I have no idea how many there were.....)

 

And I said nothing about the wisdom of signing Darvish, Hampton or Zito, I was just commenting on the history of the market size of teams that make signings like this, and the rarity of free agent pitchers actually receiving them.

 

but the longer contracts for Pitchers are becoming more common

 

Kevin Brown -1998
Pedro Martinez - 1998
Barry Zito - 2006
Matt Cain – 2012 (retired after 2017, so maybe not)
Johan Santana 2008
Cole Hamels 2013
Zack Grienke 2016 Dbacks, Dodgers 2012
CC Sabathia 2009
Felix Hernandez 2013
Justin Verlander 2013
Max Scherzer 2015
Clayton Kershaw 2014

[Major League Ready]

 

OK, I didn't really explain my point then.  Hampton & Zito don't count, because this was limited to the past decade (not sure if that was by you or someone else in the thread-I'm not going back & re-reading it).  My point is that if you are looking at free agent starting pitchers signing contracts for 6 or more years in the past decade, you're not really looking at very many actual examples.  So is it valid to state that teams of the Twins financial position never sign them?  If there are only 3 examples, does it really amount to any sort of statistical significance?  (Just used 3 as an example, I have no idea how many there were.....)

 

And I said nothing about the wisdom of signing Darvish, Hampton or Zito, I was just commenting on the history of the market size of teams that make signings like this, and the rarity of free agent pitchers actually receiving them.

 

Fair enough.  I understand where you are coming from.  When I looked into this I went back to 2000 because the context of my point is that this is very rare so why do we expect it. Going back further not only provides more data it is central to the point  Your point about the small sample supports this position.  There has been one or two pretty much every year and they are signed by the largest revenue teams.  This is hardly a surprise.  I am pretty sure I save the information I put together.  I will post it again if I am able to find it in 3 minutes or less.  It's just not worth much effort because I have made the point ad nauseam and the point is completely ignored or the response Chief gave that this has been debunked when the debunking is two examples  The fact that there are two example basically proves the point.  However,   One is a team that just landed a $1.5B contract and the other has enough incremental revenue to pay the entire contract and then some.

 

[Major League Ready]

Here is the info.  I had it in a spreadsheet so the formatting is horrible.  I included 4 year contracts in the years there were not any 5+ year deals to FAs.

 

Year Player Yrs Amt AAV Team Rev Rank   NOTES:
2015 Lester 6 155 25.83 Cubs  6
2015 Scherzer 7 210 30.00 Nationals  8
2014 Tanaka 7 155 22.14 Yankees  1 Does not include posting fee
2013 Greinke 6 147 24.50 Dodgers  6
2013 Hyun-Jin Ryu 6 36 6.00 Dodgers  6 Does not include posting fee
2013 Sanchez 5 80 16.00 Tigers  9 Resigned with previous team
2012 Darvish 6 60 10.00 Rangers  10
2012 Wilson 5 77.5 15.50 Angels  7 Signed a huge TV deal in 2011
2011 Cliff Lee 5 120 24.00 Phillies  6
2010 Lackey 5 82 16.40 Angels  8
2010 Arguelles 5 7 1.40 Royals  27 Total of $7M
2009 Sabathia 7 161 23.00 Yankees  1
2009 Burnett 5 82.5 16.50 Yankees  1
2008 Silva 4 48 12.00 Mariners  No contracts of 5+ yrs in 2007
2007 Vito 7 126 18.00 Giants 8
2006 Kei Igawa 5 20 4.00 Yankees  1
2006 Meche 5 55 11.00 Royals  27
2005 Martinez 4 51.7 12.93 Mets  3 Highest contract of 2005?
2004 Colon 4 51 12.75 Angels  7 No contracts of 5+ yrs in 2004
2003 Glavine 4 42.5 10.63 Mets  3
2002 Smoltz 7 72 10.29 Braves  7 Resigned with previous team
2002 Park 5 64.4 12.88 Rangers  10
2001 Hampton 8 121 15.13 Rockies   21 Traded to Braves in 2003
2000 Mussina 6 87 14.50 Yankees  1

[Mike Sixel]

The As and Rays don't win much. As a fan, I don't care if they make some money, or a ton of money. I want winning. Never said what I want is rational.

 

But I do believe that if they won't play at the high end of the market ever, they won't win much. Could be wrong, they could get lucky.

[Major League Ready]

 

The As and Rays don't win much. As a fan, I don't care if they make some money, or a ton of money. I want winning. Never said what I want is rational.

But I do believe that if they won't play at the high end of the market ever, they won't win much. Could be wrong, they could get lucky.

 

The most successful team of late in our revenue bracket has been Cleveland.  Did they play in the high-end of the market?  Certainly not in pitching.  Yet, they are amongt the best in MLB.  They did sign a couple of fairly expensive FA position players in Swisher and Bourne.  Swisher was mediocre and certainly not a difference maker and Bourne was a bust.

 

The Royals had some success and never signed anyone that could be considered a high-end FA.  I They traded for Shields but were better after he left.  They got nothing at all out of the first year.  Is it possible they could have been even better and extended their window had they traded for Shields as a 2 month rental like they did with Cueto and not given up Myers.  What if they had instead traded Myers for a couple good SP prospects?  It's speculative but it's hard to argue that could have turned out much better for them.

 

I just gave you two examples of teams with similar revenue that won the world series in the past 5 years without "playing in the high end" of free agency.  Can you give me an example in the past 10 or even 15 years of a team similar to the Twins in revenue who won or even made it to the world series where a key player was a "top end" free agent?  I am not sure you can because the list above illustrates the top end free agents are signed by teams at the top end of the revenue spectrum.  Therefore, you have taken a position in direct opposition to the approach taken by every GM of every team with equal or less revenue as compared to the Twins.  With all due respect, I doubt you have figured out something this collective group has failed to understand.  I realize that what's sports fans do but that adds no merit to the position.

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The most successful team of late in our revenue bracket has been Cleveland. Did they play in the high-end of the market? Certainly not in pitching. Yet, they are amongt the best in MLB. They did sign a couple of fairly expensive FA position players in Swisher and Bourne. Swisher was mediocre and certainly not a difference maker and Bourne was a bust.

 

The Royals had some success and never signed anyone that could be considered a high-end FA. I They traded for Shields but were better after he left. They got nothing at all out of the first year. Is it possible they could have been even better and extended their window had they traded for Shields as a 2 month rental like they did with Cueto and not given up Myers. What if they had instead traded Myers for a couple good SP prospects? It's speculative but it's hard to argue that could have turned out much better for them.

 

I just gave you two examples of teams with similar revenue that won the world series in the past 5 years without "playing in the high end" of free agency. Can you give me an example in the past 10 or even 15 years of a team similar to the Twins in revenue who won or even made it to the world series where a key player was a "top end" free agent? I am not sure you can because the list above illustrates the top end free agents are signed by teams at the top end of the revenue spectrum. Therefore, you have taken a position in direct opposition to the approach taken by every GM of every team with equal or less revenue as compared to the Twins. With all due respect, I doubt you have figured out something this collective group has failed to understand. I realize that what's sports fans do but that adds no merit to the position.

the Royals and Indians acquired their top end talent via trade. With what capital would you expect the Twins to acquire top end players that will be top end in 2018-2020?

[howieramone2]

 

I feel like the only time the Twins had any contracts that limited what they could do was under Terry Ryan's second tenure, when he sold the outfield for prospects and then blocked the prospects with mediocre pitchers on long contracts. 

 

What I'm getting at is ... as Twins fans we shouldn't worry about ridiculous $ contracts. Contracts that were too long were a problem, sure, but that's only if your philosophy as a GM is "sign and forget" rather than to keep watching and keep working!

If you only want a guy for 3 years but he demands 6, sign himto a 6 year contract. If he is still serviceable in 3 years, trade him and let someone else have the tail end of the contract. Even if the trade is for long term prospects, hopefully you did this more than once so you have other competent pitchers, right? If he is winning Cy Youngs for you in year 3, celebrate and keep him longer.....

 

GMs who worry about contract length aren't what I would call geniuses. Just keep the trading leverage if a guy demands a long contract. If Nolasco can be dumped, anyone can be dumped. The only true risk is if someone blows his arm out, but people in the DL don't block anybody......

I certainly hope you are not thinking Alex Meyer and Trevor May. The only thing blocking those 2 is lack of ability. You do understand all of of our star players are TR's guys right. 

 

A bad contract is a bad contract, no matter how you spin it.

[Major League Ready]

 

the Royals and Indians acquired their top end talent via trade. With what capital would you expect the Twins to acquire top end players that will be top end in 2018-2020?

 

I am not sure where you are going with this ... Mike's position is that the Twins can't be successful without playing in the high end" of free agents.  Neither the Royals or the Indians got there best players via top end free agents. 

 

If your point is the Twins don't have assets to trade and the only way to get there is free Agents, I would remind you that the trades that catapulted the Indians were trades for under valued assets like Kluber and Bauer.  They did not trade up top tier assets to acquire them.  There other top players were drafted or international signings.

 

The Shields trade did not put the Royals over the top.  They did not make the playoffs the 1st year and were a wildcard team that got hot the 2nd year.  They were still on the rise when that trade was made and were definitely better after he left.

 

Am I not understanding something else you are trying to bring to light?