Don’t hold your breath Twins fans

[notoriousgod71]

 

indeed it does, but you are still locked in to Mejia and Gibson at 4/5.

What happens when time catches up to Santana? It’s bound to happen sooner or later.

 

still better than Gibson, Mejia, and Cluster**** at 3,4,5.

[jorgenswest]

They have to develop their own pitching to win.

 

Mejia and Gibson are relatively inexpensive solutions for the 4th and 5th spots with some upside. Steamer projections have that pair at 3.4 fWAR. For comparison, a Lynn and Cobb pairing project for 3.0 fWAR by steamer.

 

I don’t accept that Mejia and Gibson will outperform Cobb and Lynn next year but it is possible and gets more likely in each successive year. The Twins must develop their own league average pitching to win. They can’t keep signing free agents to take 3 or more rotation spots. They need to put their money or prospects towards acquiring top of the rotation pitching.

[Mike Sixel]

They have to develop their own pitching to win.

 

Mejia and Gibson are relatively inexpensive solutions for the 4th and 5th spots with some upside. Steamer projections have that pair at 3.4 fWAR. For comparison, a Lynn and Cobb pairing project for 3.0 fWAR by steamer.

 

I don’t accept that Mejia and Gibson will outperform Cobb and Lynn next year but it is possible and gets more likely in each successive year. The Twins must develop their own league average pitching to win. They can’t keep signing free agents to take 3 or more rotation spots. They need to put their money or prospects towards acquiring top of the rotation pitching.

No one is arguing otherwise. But they don't have the pitching ready. Should they just pocket the money, or try to get better?

[Mike Sixel]

The money might be spent extend ending the contracts of Buxton and the gang.

 

We would lose a 40 man roster spot and he might turn out to be Big Papi .

 

Those are 2 ways they could lose existing talent before their time.

 

You don't think they have room on the 40 man for one good starting pitcher to be added? I do. I guess we just disagree on their MLB quality depth.

[jorgenswest]

No one is arguing otherwise. But they don't have the pitching ready. Should they just pocket the money, or try to get better?

They should invest everything in developing their own pitching. They should overhaul the pitching development throughout the system. They should invest in coaching to do so. They should invest in analytics to develop those skills.

 

The old front office bought 80% of their rotation in 2015. When all were healthy or not on suspension they needed to move Trevor May to the bullpen. He had back trouble which he attributed to relieving. I wonder if they had a commitment to development over the long term rather than trying to patch the short term if Trevor May would be a starter they could count on for 2018.

 

I do not want them to make long commitments to pitchers unless that pitcher projects to be above league average. That will give them space to still be valuable as they decline.

 

They did not get enough good years from the signings of Nolasco, Santana and Hughes. I don’t want to continue that cycle.

[jimmer]

They didn't NEED to move May to the bullpen.  They chose to.  Not the same thing.

[Mike Sixel]

They should invest everything in developing their own pitching. They should overhaul the pitching development throughout the system. They should invest in coaching to do so. They should invest in analytics to develop those skills.

 

The old front office bought 80% of their rotation in 2015. When all were healthy or not on suspension they needed to move Trevor May to the bullpen. He had back trouble which he attributed to relieving. I wonder if they had a commitment to development over the long term rather than trying to patch the short term if Trevor May would be a starter they could count on for 2018.

 

I do not want them to make long commitments to pitchers unless that pitcher projects to be above league average. That will give them space to still be valuable as they decline.

 

They did not get enough good years from the signings of Nolasco, Santana and Hughes. I don’t want to continue that cycle.

So, do what for next year? What you propose will take multiple years. I don't want another year of this core wasted, personally. No team, zero, is built solely through the draft.

[jorgenswest]

So, do what for next year? What you propose will take multiple years. I don't want another year of this core wasted, personally. No team, zero, is built solely through the draft.

This is so tiresome. You ask questions as if you aren’t reading what is written.

 

In short for next year...

 

Go big for an ace through free agency or trade. If that doesn’t happen they go with what they have - filling with players on one year deals.

 

Please have the last word. Just don’t leave the same question to answer. We can disagree.

[twins_89]

Over half way through their second off-season and to date the new Twins front office has essentially signed one mid-tier free agent to multiyear deal (Castro). The only other free agents to sign major league deals were a few non-inspiring relievers (Belisle, Rodney, and Duke) and a TJ rehab pitcher (Pineda is unlikely to contribute this season so I count his deal as a one year deal for next season). I had real hope the Twins would make better use of free agency when Falvey/Levine took over, but that hope is getting pretty dim.

[Mike Sixel]

This is so tiresome. You ask questions as if you aren’t reading what is written.

In short for next year...

Go big for an ace through free agency or trade. If that doesn’t happen they go with what they have - filling with players on one year deals.

Please have the last word. Just don’t leave the same question to answer. We can disagree.

There is one ace free agent this year. It will most likely take six years to get him. And he's probably a two, not an ace. I doubt any ace free agent pitcher ever signs for less than four years in the future, probably five years or more. Those wasted years are part of the price for getting an ace, most likely. It stinks, but it is the market. If the team won't go for wasted years, it will have to trade multiple big time prospects. Imo, it is better to waste a year or two of money than to give up three or more top prospects.

[beckmt]

Still better to sign a #1 or #2 at this stage than to sign a Cobb or a Lynn and hope they do not have downside at year 3 rather than year 4.  Plus both of those seem to want around $20 million a year, Darvish is not going to be that much higher per year for the upside in talent.  

Twins farm system is not good enough at the high levels to trade  2 - 3 top prospects for a starter, you are just creating a different hole.  Archer looks nice, but TB will start the conversation with Lewis or good major league talent.  Cole is different but only has 2 years of control.  I would rather spend the money then rather than giving up multiple good prospects for a 2 year player.

[Major League Ready]

 

So, do what for next year? What you propose will take multiple years. I don't want another year of this core wasted, personally. No team, zero, is built solely through the draft.

 

To say no team is built entirely through the draft is so non-specific the point could not possible be argued.  The question is can other team's outside the top 1/3 in revenue afford those non-productive years and how often do they sign the specific type of deal you suggest.  Looking at the entire population of similar entities is solid analysis.  When you do this with all of the teams of similar and less revenue than the Twins .... How many of them have signed FA pitchers (not resigned) to 6 plus years in the past decade?  The answer is ZERO.  You simply refuse over and over to accept this FACT.

 

The cone back of would you rather have them pocket the money is equally inept.  There are plenty of other ways to spend the money.  Invest in scouting, analytics, and player development.  That would only take a small portion of the money we are talking about.  So, we could also do things like extend Byron Buxton 3-4 years beyond his arbitration years instead of insisting the Twins must act immediately because the core will be gone. 

 

We have a mountain of data that shows on average SPs are starting their regression around age 32.   To take a hard stance as you have that a 6 year contract with such a player is absolutely the thing to do and justify it with that's just the cost is a product of passion not reason.  That cost has been established because there are several teams who can absorb it 2 or 3 or 5 times and still have the Twins payroll left over.     

 

[Doctor Wu]

 

How could you forget the incredible mass of the king of the geriatric pitchers, Bartolo Colón, that had been declared an emerging nation and torched Atlanta with great ineptitude for half of the year?

I for one am hoping that Colon pitches in the majors in 2018. Maybe not for the Twins, but I hope some team gives him a shot. I love seeing colorful players like him playing the game for the sheer love of it, rather than these dull nimrods with bad facial hair who take themselves too seriously.

[mikecgrimes]

I don't know how much credit the upgrade behind the plate last offseason deserves but sometimes the small moves that work are the key.  Remember at this time last year the name Chris Carter kept coming up.  For whatever it's worth pitching worked out well enough last year.  If somehow pitching improves slightly over last year were in good shape.  I don't know but Duke and Rodney alone along with talent within the system could accomplish that.  Add any reliable starter to that and lets start playing games and see what the record is at the end of April.  This is baseball as much as we all predict the Yankees Astros and Indians will win the divisions we know it's more likely 2 of those are wrong then not.

[Mr. Brooks]

To say no team is built entirely through the draft is so non-specific the point could not possible be argued. The question is can other team's outside the top 1/3 in revenue afford those non-productive years and how often do they sign the specific type of deal you suggest. Looking at the entire population of similar entities is solid analysis. When you do this with all of the teams of similar and less revenue than the Twins .... How many of them have signed FA pitchers (not resigned) to 6 plus years in the past decade? The answer is ZERO. You simply refuse over and over to accept this FACT.

 

The cone back of would you rather have them pocket the money is equally inept. There are plenty of other ways to spend the money. Invest in scouting, analytics, and player development. That would only take a small portion of the money we are talking about. So, we could also do things like extend Byron Buxton 3-4 years beyond his arbitration years instead of insisting the Twins must act immediately because the core will be gone.

 

We have a mountain of data that shows on average SPs are starting their regression around age 32. To take a hard stance as you have that a 6 year contract with such a player is absolutely the thing to do and justify it with that's just the cost is a product of passion not reason. That cost has been established because there are several teams who can absorb it 2 or 3 or 5 times and still have the Twins payroll left over.

The Diamondbacks were estimated 19th in revenue the year they signed Grienke to a 6 year deal.

 

And I think mlb payroll budget is generally separate from other operating budgets, so I'm not sure that extra money not spent on payroll would be invested into scouting and analytics.

[amjgt]

The Daimondback, Twins, and Rockies are all basically the same 2016 revenue ranking (21,23,24.... but within $5M). The Grienke example was used above and the Rockies just spent $33M annually on three relievers.

[USAFChief]

 

 .  The question is can other team's outside the top 1/3 in revenue afford those non-productive years and how often do they sign the specific type of deal you suggest.  Looking at the entire population of similar entities is solid analysis.  When you do this with all of the teams of similar and less revenue than the Twins .... How many of them have signed FA pitchers (not resigned) to 6 plus years in the past decade?  The answer is ZERO.  You simply refuse over and over to accept this FACT.

 

 

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.

[twinssouth]

I'm not too concerned as their really haven't been a lot of activity league wide.

 

Been thinking the same thing and it also tells me the money may not be their for some of these top free agents otherwise you would have signings by now. I still cannot get out of my mind that godawful WS performance by Darvish. To me, you'd have to be crazy to throw $150 plus million to Darvish

 

To sign somebody for the sake of it doesn't make sense, then to get stuck with a ridiculous contract (see Hughes, thanks T Ryan) is worse because you get a Manager throwing him out their on a daily basis when better in house options exist.

 

 

I was looking over other teams young pitching studs and man, not a lot out there. Using Sickles Grading scale, only saw less then 5 Pitchers with A- or A with Atlanta holding a couple and only a few B+/B and that includes our Gonsalves and Romero. And those grades per Sickles are quite subjective. So, going to be tough to pull a trade off unless you rob the Farm. Instead, I'd rather get Gonsalves and Romero up.

 

 

Also, per the author of this subject, last I looked, Obama is an Ex Pres that would come to your house for dinner, not the President.

[Jham]

I never get the heartburn with years of contracts. Everyone knows the performance value on those deals is front loaded. I literally heard Mackie and Judd suggest that 6 years $140m was too much for Yu, then suggest we offer 5 years $150m so we're less committed. Literally paying more for fewer years.

 

If we all know you're paying for 6 years to get 3 or 4 good years, then it really is a 3 or 4 year deal financed over 6 years. No gm expects to get a full contracts worth of top production. The market is what the market is.

 

I look at long contracts as a finance agreement. If I buy a new car, I need to finance it. I understand that my payment is the same at the beginning and at the end. The value of the car goes down with mile 1. It is what it is. Shorter free agent contacts would just end up with "inflated" annual salaries. Longer contracts may actually allow smaller payroll teams to compete for a top player by adding more years. Inflation also tells us that what seems absurd one year seems run of the mill 10 years later. And of course, some players are productive all the way through their contracts. There are some benefits to longer term deals.

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

[Tomj14]

 

The money might be spent extend ending the contracts of Buxton and the gang.

 

We would lose a 40 man roster spot and he might turn out to be Big Papi .

 

Those are 2 ways they could lose existing talent before their time.

 

You could say holding onto prospects beyond their trade value or over valueing them can cause the loss of 40 man roster spots?

[Twins33]

I never get the heartburn with years of contracts. Everyone knows the performance value on those deals is front loaded. I literally heard Mackie and Judd suggest that 6 years $140m was too much for Yu, then suggest we offer 5 years $150m so we're less committed. Literally paying more for fewer years.

If we all know you're paying for 6 years to get 3 or 4 good years, then it really is a 3 or 4 year deal financed over 6 years. No gm expects to get a full contracts worth of top production. The market is what the market is.

I look at long contracts as a finance agreement. If I buy a new car, I need to finance it. I understand that my payment is the same at the beginning and at the end. The value of the car goes down with mile 1. It is what it is. Shorter free agent contacts would just end up with "inflated" annual salaries. Longer contracts may actually allow smaller payroll teams to compete for a top player by adding more years. Inflation also tells us that what seems absurd one year seems run of the mill 10 years later. And of course, some players are productive all the way through their contracts. There are some benefits to longer term deals.

It's all a matter of perspective.

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.

[nicksaviking]

 

I never get the heartburn with years of contracts. Everyone knows the performance value on those deals is front loaded. I literally heard Mackie and Judd suggest that 6 years $140m was too much for Yu, then suggest we offer 5 years $150m so we're less committed. Literally paying more for fewer years.

If we all know you're paying for 6 years to get 3 or 4 good years, then it really is a 3 or 4 year deal financed over 6 years. No gm expects to get a full contracts worth of top production. The market is what the market is.

I look at long contracts as a finance agreement. If I buy a new car, I need to finance it. I understand that my payment is the same at the beginning and at the end. The value of the car goes down with mile 1. It is what it is. Shorter free agent contacts would just end up with "inflated" annual salaries. Longer contracts may actually allow smaller payroll teams to compete for a top player by adding more years. Inflation also tells us that what seems absurd one year seems run of the mill 10 years later. And of course, some players are productive all the way through their contracts. There are some benefits to longer term deals.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

And that's a particularly valuable perspective for GMs as it may be best to just walk away from the player and use the roster spot for a better player at the end of such a deal. The player's salary and his production should only be tied at day one, after that they should be on completely different evaluation models.

[Vanimal46]

And that's a particularly valuable perspective for GMs as it may be best to just walk away from the player and use the roster spot for a better player at the end of such a deal. The player's salary and his production should only be tied at day one, after that they should be on completely different evaluation models.

Sounds like you're describing Justin Verlander. Who else is open to trading a player better than Darvish at the end of his long term contract?

[Doomtints]

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......

[nicksaviking]

 

Sounds like you're describing Justin Verlander. Who else is open to trading a player better than Darvish at the end of his long term contract?

 

Well I was hypothesizing a complete lack of on-field value and a DFA rather than a trade. My position is basically, "So what, our valuation of the player was based on his first 3-4 years anyway."

[KirbyDome89]

 

This is baseball as much as we all predict the Yankees Astros and Indians will win the divisions we know it's more likely 2 of those are wrong then not.

If we're placing bets I'll take the over.

[Vanimal46]

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.

[prouster]

 

Thus thread is built off fallacious assumptions?

Falvine themselves have declared Darvish "a priority." Those two clearly believe upgrading the pitching is a necessity.

Now I guess you can split hairs and say "them declaring they need it is not the same as them saying they'll go get it," but thats hardly ridiculous.

And btw...please be careful about using the term ridiculous to describe someone's thread

 

It's fallacious to assume people are fervently celebrating low key free agent additions. It's fallacious to assume that the FO is only paying lip service to the idea of improving the team, when their actions say otherwise. It's fallacious to assume that players don't have the final say on who they sign with as free agents. It's also a very different thing to call something a priority and guarantee it as an outcome. Think of New Years resolutions as an example. Saying "I'm going to prioritize my health" is not the same as actually going to the gym and eating healthier foods.

 

But whatever. It's only baseball. My resolution is to not get worked up by others who are worked up.

[Major League Ready]

 

The Diamondbacks were estimated 19th in revenue the year they signed Grienke to a 6 year deal.

And I think mlb payroll budget is generally separate from other operating budgets, so I'm not sure that extra money not spent on payroll would be invested into scouting and analytics.

 

The Diamondbacks just signed a TV deal that added $50+ million a year.  I have made this same statement in the past and prefaced the statement with show me an example where the team did not just have a huge addition to revenue.  I failed to do that here but it should go without saying that this is a very unusual circumstance.  If the Twins add $50M to their annual TV contract I would have a vbery different position.  Even if they had not gained this financial windfall, it would still have to be deemed a very rare thing.

[Major League Ready]

 

The Daimondback, Twins, and Rockies are all basically the same 2016 revenue ranking (21,23,24.... but within $5M). The Grienke example was used above and the Rockies just spent $33M annually on three relievers.

 

Those were all 3 year deals and 2 of them were (9M/year.  This is an absolutely irrelevant comparison to giving 1 player 6 years starting their age 32 season.  The risk is spread out over three players and more importantly the Rockies are not on the hook for their age 35, 36, 37 seasons.  I expect the Twins would jump all over Darvish for 3 years @ 30M/year.  Not even remotely the same thing.

 

The Diamondbacks had just signed a $1.5B TV contract that raised their revenue by almost $50M/year.  azsnakepit.com/2015/2/23/8097375/arizona-diamondbacks-tv-deal-1-5-billion

Hardly a fair comparison. We should expect the same if the Twins sign a mega TV deal.