Don’t hold your breath Twins fans

[bird]

 

Revenue is not a barrier for the Twins to sign free agents. Not sure why convos always end up going that way. It's not reality.

 

There's certainly some truth to this statement. There is also some falsehood in a blanket conclusion that, when a team falls short of fans' hopes or expectations regarding FA spending, that it's because a team is "cheap". Sometimes, even good baseball people who have cash burning a hole in their pocket are going to forego bidding on an attractive FA, and as is pointed out often and quite eloquently, on TD and elsewhere, it more often than not is because of the years, not the dollars. Despite all the historical facts that bolster the argument that it pays to be careful about these long term pitching contracts, fans are going to be upset if the team gets outbid and passes (theoretically) on making a higher offer. Most are going to ignore the organization's logic of mitigating the two big potential risks related to these long contracts, which are the chance of a performance meltdown by the FA himself or his team, and the financial inflexibility the commitment causes.

 

That said, I agree with you that the timing, the need, and the financial wherewithal are aligned for the Twins. The question is: can they address the need without doing something stupid. A lot of us think the numbers being suggested for Darvish, in both dollars and years, if accurate, are not terribly stupid, just a little dumb, and therefore they should do it if he lets them. Lynn and Cobb? An argument can be made that neither of those pitchers moves the needle (on paper) enough to warrant the asking price and that they fit snugly in the stupid category. A lot of comments on here seem to support that view.

[Riverbrian]

 

There's certainly some truth to this statement. There is also some falsehood in a blanket conclusion that, when a team falls short of fans' hopes or expectations regarding FA spending, that it's because a team is "cheap". Sometimes, even good baseball people who have cash burning a hole in their pocket are going to forego bidding on an attractive FA, and as is pointed out often and quite eloquently, on TD and elsewhere, it more often than not is because of the years, not the dollars. Despite all the historical facts that bolster the argument that it pays to be careful about these long term pitching contracts, fans are going to be upset if the team gets outbid and passes (theoretically) on making a higher offer. Most are going to ignore the organization's logic of mitigating the two big potential risks related to these long contracts, which are the chance of a performance meltdown by the FA himself or his team, and the financial inflexibility the commitment causes.

 

That said, I agree with you that the timing, the need, and the financial wherewithal are aligned for the Twins. The question is: can they address the need without doing something stupid. A lot of us think the numbers being suggested for Darvish, in both dollars and years, if accurate, are not terribly stupid, just a little dumb, and therefore they should do it if he lets them. Lynn and Cobb? An argument can be made that neither of those pitchers moves the needle (on paper) enough to warrant the asking price and that they fit snugly in the stupid category. A lot of comments on here seem to support that view.

 

I hope Falvey and Lavine have so many irons in the fire that anybody stopping by will assume they have enough Iron to feed a large congregation of elderly. 

 

I hope Falvey and Lavine have so many irons in the fire that Tony Stark sets up an account with them. 

 

 

[jimmer]

Now is the time to make a move.  You have three teams in the Central who are going to be a non-factor.  Need to improve the team.  Go get some pitching.

 

Heck, I wouldn't even mind of they could figure out a way to get Cain either.

[USAFChief]

There's certainly some truth to this statement. There is also some falsehood in a blanket conclusion that, when a team falls short of fans' hopes or expectations regarding FA spending, that it's because a team is "cheap". Sometimes, even good baseball people who have cash burning a hole in their pocket are going to forego bidding on an attractive FA, and as is pointed out often and quite eloquently, on TD and elsewhere, it more often than not is because of the years, not the dollars. Despite all the historical facts that bolster the argument that it pays to be careful about these long term pitching contracts, fans are going to be upset if the team gets outbid and passes (theoretically) on making a higher offer. Most are going to ignore the organization's logic of mitigating the two big potential risks related to these long contracts, which are the chance of a performance meltdown by the FA himself or his team, and the financial inflexibility the commitment causes.

 

That said, I agree with you that the timing, the need, and the financial wherewithal are aligned for the Twins. The question is: can they address the need without doing something stupid. A lot of us think the numbers being suggested for Darvish, in both dollars and years, if accurate, are not terribly stupid, just a little dumb, and therefore they should do it if he lets them. Lynn and Cobb? An argument can be made that neither of those pitchers moves the needle (on paper) enough to warrant the asking price and that they fit snugly in the stupid category. A lot of comments on here seem to support that view.

Great post.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Lynn and Cobb? An argument can be made that neither of those pitchers moves the needle (on paper) enough to warrant the asking price and that they fit snugly in the stupid category. A lot of comments on here seem to support that view.

I'm with you that they aren't thrilling candidates. I guess the way I see it is if the Twins don't sign Darvish they're in a position where they almost have to make an offer to either of those two barring a trade being made. They're in a s*** situation right now. You're right, neither moves the needle forward much, but adding one of them would be an improvement over Gibson/Mejia/who knows. If they don't do something to solidify some of that rotation they're burning a year, which I would hate to see. Fingers crossed for Darvish or a good trade. 

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm with you that they aren't thrilling candidates. I guess the way I see it is if the Twins don't sign Darvish they're in a position where they almost have to make an offer to either of those two barring a trade being made. They're in a s*** situation right now. You're right, neither moves the needle forward much, but adding one of them would be an improvement over Gibson/Mejia/who knows. If they don't do something to solidify some of that rotation they're burning a year, which I would hate to see. Fingers crossed for Darvish or a good trade. 

 

Many of you absolutely ignore where "baseball experts" position this team relative to the rest of the league.  This is not a team that is a one piece away from truly contending.  Darvish alone does not come close to putting this team on equal footing with Cleveland.  Therefore, we would still likely be playing for wildcard spot.  Let's not forget the wildcard no longer means getting into the playoffs. It is the equivalent to a game 163.  So, its a 50/50 shot of getting into the playoffs regardless of its position as the playoffs to increase fan interest.   With Darvish, they would not even be among the favorites for a wildcard spot.  They also would not be competitive with Houston, NY, and Boston. 

 

I am not suggesting they should not try to sign Darvish but the basic position here has been just sign him and worry about years 35, 36, 37, and maybe even 38 when we get there.  I would rather they position this team for the next 10 years.   The probability of Darvish being more than a 4/5 beyond 3 years is very low.  I would much rather extend our core and have whatever (roughly $30M/year) to spend on a free agent(s) with a core that is still with us and in their prime.

 

An alternative scenario under the assumption they retain our core players and maintain the ability to add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract.  Darvish at the point is very unlikely to be a difference maker and our core will all be in their prime.  Plus, it's reasonable to believe that a couple prospects rise up with all the depth we have we in the minors.  Lewis, Rooker and others could be impact players by then.  The point being the premise we are burning a year right now assumes we are a contender with him which we really are not.   Darvish being slightly above replacement for 3 years of a six year deal is more probable than us be a contender with him.  I would not go more than 5 years.  Something like 5/140 structured 32 | 32 | 30 | 25 | 21. 

 

If it takes more than 5/140, take a look and compare the long-term implications of signing Cobb or Lynn.  4 years of Cobb/Lynn covers ages 31-34.  Extend Buxton now while we still can and determine the other core player(s) to extend over the course of this season.  Trade for a rental if the team exceeds projections enough to actually have a chance in the playoffs.  Perhaps even find a Verlander type acquisition.  

[Doomtints]

 

There's certainly some truth to this statement. There is also some falsehood in a blanket conclusion that, when a team falls short of fans' hopes or expectations regarding FA spending, that it's because a team is "cheap". Sometimes, even good baseball people who have cash burning a hole in their pocket are going to forego bidding on an attractive FA, and as is pointed out often and quite eloquently, on TD and elsewhere, it more often than not is because of the years, not the dollars. Despite all the historical facts that bolster the argument that it pays to be careful about these long term pitching contracts, fans are going to be upset if the team gets outbid and passes (theoretically) on making a higher offer. Most are going to ignore the organization's logic of mitigating the two big potential risks related to these long contracts, which are the chance of a performance meltdown by the FA himself or his team, and the financial inflexibility the commitment causes.

 

That said, I agree with you that the timing, the need, and the financial wherewithal are aligned for the Twins. The question is: can they address the need without doing something stupid. A lot of us think the numbers being suggested for Darvish, in both dollars and years, if accurate, are not terribly stupid, just a little dumb, and therefore they should do it if he lets them. Lynn and Cobb? An argument can be made that neither of those pitchers moves the needle (on paper) enough to warrant the asking price and that they fit snugly in the stupid category. A lot of comments on here seem to support that view.

No one expects the Pohlads to be giving the Twins front office a blank check, with ever increasing amounts of cash being available every year for all eternity with no budgets whatsoever. Only the defense industry gets this luxury.

Still, we all saw Jim Pohlad say when he fired Ryan that $ was never a big concern and he felt bad that Ryan thought it was. He said very clearly that the pocketbook opens if the front office can use the cash to field a winning team. Sure, we suspected this was BS and, so far, it has been.

 

When it comes to 'doing something stupid' as you say, I feel like Darvish is a risky move. I wouldn't do it as a GM. As for Arrieta, he's on the decline. I would be chasing after the others, and if that's happening we're not hearing about it.

I would just like to see something happen that matters. The Twins, thanks to a down year in the AL, won a wild card spot with giant holes in starting pitching. What happened in the playoffs was predicted by all of us. The Twins won't make the playoffs again with this same group of starters. Does the front office understand this, or are they still relaxing on Christmas break?

[bird]

Valid points in the last two posts by MLR and Doom. A couple of things though. First, can we agree that, costs aside, Darvish improves the odds (on paper of course), more that the other FA pitchers being mentioned? If I'm the GM, I'm just looking to improve the odds, knowing that s**t happens, and if I'm Falvey, I wish bad things for my former employer and more pleasant surprises for my current employer. I have no idea if going from 5 years to 6 turns a Darvish contract from merely dumb to really stupid. I'm sure that's all in the calculus, and despite their silence on the subject, I refuse to believe Falvine is sitting there with one iron in the fire. And I think that this regime is much much more willing to think about paying with prospects rather than cash if they can improve the odds without being stupid.

 

As for Jim Pohlad's stated willingness to open the coffers, I don't believe it's BS. Ryan was averse to the risks of a long term pitching contract, to a fault. In his partial defense, he never quite had all the things aligned like they are now. 

 

I have no opinion about what contract constitutes too much risk and what doesn't, or which pitchers make sense and which do not. All I see is that the conditions are ripe to take advantage of an opportunity if it's there. We can pay in prospects without mortgaging the future, and this option wasn't available in the past. We have ample room in the budget. Frankly, I think the 50% number, averaged out over a few years, allows for spending up to maybe even $150M, especially if Pohlad throws a little of the past underspending up for consideration as he should. We have an open window to shoot for it, even if the paper odds are still long. And the need for a front-line starter is even evident to my neighbor's chihuahua.

[howieramone2]

 

No one expects the Pohlads to be giving the Twins front office a blank check, with ever increasing amounts of cash being available every year for all eternity with no budgets whatsoever. Only the defense industry gets this luxury.

Still, we all saw Jim Pohlad say when he fired Ryan that $ was never a big concern and he felt bad that Ryan thought it was. He said very clearly that the pocketbook opens if the front office can use the cash to field a winning team. Sure, we suspected this was BS and, so far, it has been.

 

When it comes to 'doing something stupid' as you say, I feel like Darvish is a risky move. I wouldn't do it as a GM. As for Arrieta, he's on the decline. I would be chasing after the others, and if that's happening we're not hearing about it.

I would just like to see something happen that matters. The Twins, thanks to a down year in the AL, won a wild card spot with giant holes in starting pitching. What happened in the playoffs was predicted by all of us. The Twins won't make the playoffs again with this same group of starters. Does the front office understand this, or are they still relaxing on Christmas break?

I never saw anything which even closely resembles that statement. I do recall one of the selling points that made the Twins job attractive, was that we only had the one problematic contract.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Many of you absolutely ignore where "baseball experts" position this team relative to the rest of the league.  This is not a team that is a one piece away from truly contending.  Darvish alone does not come close to putting this team on equal footing with Cleveland.  Therefore, we would still likely be playing for wildcard spot.  Let's not forget the wildcard no longer means getting into the playoffs. It is the equivalent to a game 163.  So, its a 50/50 shot of getting into the playoffs regardless of its position as the playoffs to increase fan interest.   With Darvish, they would not even be among the favorites for a wildcard spot.  They also would not be competitive with Houston, NY, and Boston. 

 

I am not suggesting they should not try to sign Darvish but the basic position here has been just sign him and worry about years 35, 36, 37, and maybe even 38 when we get there.  I would rather they position this team for the next 10 years.   The probability of Darvish being more than a 4/5 beyond 3 years is very low.  I would much rather extend our core and have whatever (roughly $30M/year) to spend on a free agent(s) with a core that is still with us and in their prime.

 

An alternative scenario under the assumption they retain our core players and maintain the ability to add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract.  Darvish at the point is very unlikely to be a difference maker and our core will all be in their prime.  Plus, it's reasonable to believe that a couple prospects rise up with all the depth we have we in the minors.  Lewis, Rooker and others could be impact players by then.  The point being the premise we are burning a year right now assumes we are a contender with him which we really are not.   Darvish being slightly above replacement for 3 years of a six year deal is more probable than us be a contender with him.  I would not go more than 5 years.  Something like 5/140 structured 32 | 32 | 30 | 25 | 21. 

 

If it takes more than 5/140, take a look and compare the long-term implications of signing Cobb or Lynn.  4 years of Cobb/Lynn covers ages 31-34.  Extend Buxton now while we still can and determine the other core player(s) to extend over the course of this season.  Trade for a rental if the team exceeds projections enough to actually have a chance in the playoffs.  Perhaps even find a Verlander type acquisition.  

I think your plan involves as much, if not more risk than handing money to Darvish. You're assuming all of the core is open to extensions and don't have interest in hitting FA. Then they're guaranteed to find a front end starter in two years? I also don't understand how you can be worried about years 3/4-6 on a Darvish deal but somehow the ace we sign in 2 years locks us into contention for a 10 year window. Also, why are you trading for a "Darvish type," halfway through a contract if you're worried about the back end? If the Twins are paying for the back side of a contract wouldn't it make sense to just sign Darvish and get the first few years, which are the highest production, as well? Then, if an ace won't sign and they can't work out a trade they'll just find another Verlander? There are so many moving parts and all of them have to work in the Twins favor just to get a pitcher like the one they have an opportunity to sign right now. 

 

How are they supposed to catch NY, Boston, Houston, or Cleveland if they aren't adding pieces? Are we convinced those teams won't be good in two years? Should the Twins wait longer if they're not? I'm so over the argument that player X won't get them to the WS so don't sign them right now. They have a 4 year window where all their young talent it cheap. Take advantage, don't wait until they're all hitting arbitration and eventually FA to decided that adding pieces is a good idea. There is no reason Lewis and Co. can't supplement an already good team rather than be relied upon to get them to that point.  

 

We'll disagree on what kind of difference a front end starter makes for the Twins.  

[Mike Sixel]

They won't be positioned for the next ten years, if they always wait to add pieces until they are only one piece away. They certainly won't be positioned to win in year one of the next ten years if they don't add pitching. Probably not year two or three either, after ESan leaves and they don't replace him. And then why would anyone want to stay, if they see the front office not adding players? Then it would look like when Johan and Torri said it would.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming they are only one piece away. But it is hard to compete if you don't add pieces.

[Major League Ready]

 

I think your plan involves as much, if not more risk than handing money to Darvish. You're assuming all of the core is open to extensions and don't have interest in hitting FA. Then they're guaranteed to find a front end starter in two years? I also don't understand how you can be worried about years 3/4-6 on a Darvish deal but somehow the ace we sign in 2 years locks us into contention for a 10 year window. Also, why are you trading for a "Darvish type," halfway through a contract if you're worried about the back end? If the Twins are paying for the back side of a contract wouldn't it make sense to just sign Darvish and get the first few years, which are the highest production, as well? Then, if an ace won't sign and they can't work out a trade they'll just find another Verlander? There are so many moving parts and all of them have to work in the Twins favor just to get a pitcher like the one they have an opportunity to sign right now. 

 

How are they supposed to catch NY, Boston, Houston, or Cleveland if they aren't adding pieces? Are we convinced those teams won't be good in two years? Should the Twins wait longer if they're not? I'm so over the argument that player X won't get them to the WS so don't sign them right now. They have a 4 year window where all their young talent it cheap. Take advantage, don't wait until they're all hitting arbitration and eventually FA to decided that adding pieces is a good idea. There is no reason Lewis and Co. can't supplement an already good team rather than be relied upon to get them to that point.  

 

We'll disagree on what kind of difference a front end starter makes for the Twins.  

 

It's a fair point to say they might not be able to extend players.  So, let me revise my position accordingly.  At least try to extend a player or two before you spend $150M+ on a SP entering the decline phase of his career assuming he follows normal regression.

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?  The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.  If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnel  with Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.  They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

I did not say trade for a Darvish Type.  What I am suggesting is that it might make more sense to spend it when the addition actually puts them in contention.  It's a simple choice.  Spend the money now on a guy who won't be very good for the last 3 years of his contract or retain the ability to spend the money when the player they acquire puts them in contention.  It is true that day may never come but that approach is certainly no more risky than hoping Darvish somehow defies aging.  Of course, that's not impossible.  There have been a few SPs that have remained effective well past the norm.  The odds just are not good.

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

It's a fair point to say they might not be able to extend players.  So, let me revise my position accordingly.  At least try to extend a player or two before you spend $150M+ on a SP entering the decline phase of his career assuming he follows normal regression.

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?  The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.  If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnel  with Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.  They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

I did not say trade for a Darvish Type.  What I am suggesting is that it might make more sense to spend it when the addition actually puts them in contention.  It's a simple choice.  Spend the money now on a guy who won't be very good for the last 3 years of his contract or retain the ability to spend the money when the player they acquire puts them in contention.  It is true that day may never come but that approach is certainly no more risky than hoping Darvish somehow defies aging.  Of course, that's not impossible.  There have been a few SPs that have remained effective well past the norm.  The odds just are not good.

I think they can sign a pitcher and work out extensions over the next few years just as easily. 

 

My position is that he makes the Twins better. Do you see any of those 4 teams falling apart in the next few years?

 

"add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract."

I'm not sure how they're finding that type of player other than a trade but that isn't the point. You're against signing Darvish because of the back end of his contract but you're advocating they bring in pitcher like him on the back half of his contract, or sign a pitcher to a similar deal and that opens a massive window of contention. You can't have it both ways. If we're assuming the end of the Darvish deal will be disappointing, which I think we both agree it will be, then we have to assume that bringing in a pitcher at that point in his contract will be a disappointment as well. The same goes for signing a pitcher in a few years, not only are they failing to improve the pitching in the short term , but if the Twins are handing out extensions to all of the core alongside a massive pitching contract those "down years," become an even greater albatross than a Darvish deal. Signing Darvish now means he is gone within 1-2 years of the core extensions. There is still opportunity to reset and make another run. Committing 6 years to a pitcher at the beginning of the years severely limits the flexibility they might have with those players in their prime. 

[Halsey Hall]

The only thing I'm committing to is heading to Ft Myers.  I'm leaving tomorrow. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Heck, I wouldn't even mind of they could figure out a way to get Cain either.

They could still get Matt Cain!

[Squirrel]

The only thing I'm committing to is heading to Ft Myers.  I'm leaving tomorrow.

 

And I’ll be gone before you get here (leaving Thursday). But it’s nice and sunny and warm here ... I’m sure better than where you are now!

[Major League Ready]

 

I think they can sign a pitcher and work out extensions over the next few years just as easily. 

 

My position is that he makes the Twins better. Do you see any of those 4 teams falling apart in the next few years?

 

"add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract."

I'm not sure how they're finding that type of player other than a trade but that isn't the point. You're against signing Darvish because of the back end of his contract but you're advocating they bring in pitcher like him on the back half of his contract, or sign a pitcher to a similar deal and that opens a massive window of contention. You can't have it both ways. If we're assuming the end of the Darvish deal will be disappointing, which I think we both agree it will be, then we have to assume that bringing in a pitcher at that point in his contract will be a disappointment as well. The same goes for signing a pitcher in a few years, not only are they failing to improve the pitching in the short term , but if the Twins are handing out extensions to all of the core alongside a massive pitching contract those "down years," become an even greater albatross than a Darvish deal. Signing Darvish now means he is gone within 1-2 years of the core extensions. There is still opportunity to reset and make another run. Committing 6 years to a pitcher at the beginning of the years severely limits the flexibility they might have with those players in their prime. 

 

I think there are two points I am trying to make here that you are not considering.  This team is still very young and developing.  They also have a number of prospects that could step-up very soon.  Obviously, there is always risk with prospects as well as the current young core getting better.  However, this seems like a reasonable expectation given our young core and the depth of our prospect pool.  

 

The 2nd point is that if our young core does not step up it won't matter because they are not as good as the young core of our primary competition.  Houston's young core or even New York's young guys without considering they just traded for Stanton and have massive revenue.  Boston also has great young players and a massive budget.  The Angels are also looking better.  We should also keep in mind that next years FA class could shift the balance of power and that shift is likely toward to the markets with the revenue to afford their massive contracts.

 

A point I failed to make directly is that not every free agent SP is heading into their age 32 season.   His demand for a 6 year deal at this age can make this deal UGLY.  Depending on your definition of mid-market and "major contract" these deals are extremely rare or non-existent for mid market teams.  We just can't absorb several non-productive years the way a major market.  However, there is the occasion opportunity with a 28 or 29 y/o.  Granted, this further depletes the number of opportunities to sign FAs but that's how I think a GM in a mid to small revenue market has to play free agency.  The way its been played so far is that GMs of similar revenue teams simply never sign this kind of player.

 

6 years might actually be the best approach but at a number close to the 140.  Say something like 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 /25 | 12 with a 3M buyout the last year.  143 guaranteed which is an AAV of almost $24M.  That's still really risky but at least the diminishes the impact in year 6 when he is likely of very little or no value. 

 

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how much SPs decline years 32-37 and what percentage of them are above replacement after year 35.  This information must have been published somewhere.  Anyone know where that information can be obtained?

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think there are two points I am trying to make here that you are not considering.  This team is still very young and developing.  They also have a number of prospects that could step-up very soon.  Obviously, there is always risk with prospects as well as the current young core getting better.  However, this seems like a reasonable expectation given our young core and the depth of our prospect pool.  

 

The 2nd point is that if our young core does not step up it won't matter because they are not as good as the young core of our primary competition.  Houston's young core or even New York's young guys without considering they just traded for Stanton and have massive revenue.  Boston also has great young players and a massive budget.  The Angels are also looking better.  We should also keep in mind that next years FA class could shift the balance of power and that shift is likely toward to the markets with the revenue to afford their massive contracts.

 

A point I failed to make directly is that not every free agent SP is heading into their age 32 season.   His demand for a 6 year deal at this age can make this deal UGLY.  Depending on your definition of mid-market and "major contract" these deals are extremely rare or non-existent for mid market teams.  We just can't absorb several non-productive years the way a major market.  However, there is the occasion opportunity with a 28 or 29 y/o.  Granted, this further depletes the number of opportunities to sign FAs but that's how I think a GM in a mid to small revenue market has to play free agency.  The way its been played so far is that GMs of similar revenue teams simply never sign this kind of player.

 

6 years might actually be the best approach but at a number close to the 140.  Say something like 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 /25 | 12 with a 3M buyout the last year.  143 guaranteed which is an AAV of almost $24M.  That's still really risky but at least the diminishes the impact in year 6 when he is likely of very little or no value. 

 

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how much SPs decline years 32-37 and what percentage of them are above replacement after year 35.  This information must have been published somewhere.  Anyone know where that information can be obtained?

No, I've considered them. I agree that there is talent in the farm system, and if some of that high end talent was on the pitching side it would make the addition of a front end starter less of a necessity, but that isn't the case. 

 

The budgets of those teams aren't going to change anytime soon and their young players aren't going anywhere either. Should the Twins just sit this one out?  The point of adding Darvish is to catch those teams. If the threshold to cross before before adding FAs is reaching the talent level of Boston or NY then they're unlikely to sign anybody. 

 

When are you finding a 28 y/o ace in FA? None of the elite pitchers in the 19' or 20' fall in that age range. Gerrit Cole might be the closest they could find but he isn't available until 2020 and I wouldn't put him on the same level as Darvish. 

 

I get that FA signings are by definition an overpay. I feel like most posters in favor of bringing in Darvish are realistic about both the pros and cons. Like I said in the OP, the Twins have put themselves in a s*** situation, where they either have to overpay in FA or give up prized prospects just to put together a competent rotation. 

[Riverbrian]

 

 

 

Is it your position that Darvish makes them a contender?  The people who get paid to assess and rank team would not agree.  If you don't like the generalization, just compare the Twins personnel  with Darvish against Houston, NY, Boston, and Cleveland.  They are all considerably better even if the Twins sign Darvish.

 

 

 

I know you were having this discussion with others so forgive my intrusion. However... I can't help myself. 

 

You and I agree completely disagree here. I say the Twins are contenders right now! Before Darvish. 

 

This game isn't played on paper. I know the Yankees look scary right now but scary teams fall every year seemingly. The Yankees are going to look scary for awhile. So will the Red Sox and some new scary teams will appear and fade away. 

 

This young roster deserves immediate support. Those kids coming up that are going to give us our sustained run will get here. The risk, price tag, age... all of it. Darvish's price is a price that must be paid if you want the player. 

 

I've never been a spend money guy... I don't think we have to spend 300 million to win a world series... However... We've been under 100 million long enough.

 

We can buy now. This team is a contender right now.

 

I will also hand nothing to the Indians. They can be beat.

 

  

[Major League Ready]

 

I know you were having this discussion with others so forgive my intrusion. However... I can't help myself. 

 

You and I agree completely disagree here. I say the Twins are contenders right now! Before Darvish. 

 

This game isn't played on paper. I know the Yankees look scary right now but scary teams fall every year seemingly. The Yankees are going to look scary for awhile. So will the Red Sox and some new scary teams will appear and fade away. 

 

This young roster deserves immediate support. Those kids coming up that are going to give us our sustained run will get here. The risk, price tag, age... all of it. Darvish's price is a price that must be paid if you want the player. 

 

I've never been a spend money guy... I don't think we have to spend 300 million to win a world series... However... We've been under 100 million long enough.

 

We can buy now. This team is a contender right now.

 

I will also hand nothing to the Indians. They can be beat.

 

  

 

Hardly an intrusion and I hope you are right.  The people who get paid to assess the relative position of MLB teams do not think the Twins are a serious contender to win the division and certainly not a world series contender.   There opinion is unbiased and there methodology for coming to that conclusion more refined.  How many wins is Darvish good for?  It is not nearly enough to win the Division or become a serious contender. 

 

Becoming a serious contender would require that a few of our young core and/or prospects step up.

Most fans live in the now and most want the player now assuming their team is ready right now.  The reality is that it often takes awhile.  We have all kinds of examples of Twins and former Twins where that took until awhile.  Dozier was not an impact player early.  How about Hicks, Gomez, and several others.

 

There is also the assumption here that none of our prospect are going to make a difference because the only elite prospect we have is in A ball.  Well, Aaron Judge was not considered a top prospect either.  Let's also keep in mind that our President of Baseball Operations comes from an organization that acquired and developed a few players not considered to be impact players by others.

 

We are talking about alot of assumptions and unknowns.  The one thing we know for sure or know to be very probable is that Darvish or any other SP starts declining at roughly his present age.  With the exceptions of the Randy Johnsons and Roger Clemens, SPs are no longer impact players beytond age 35 which means we will very likely have $30M in dead money when all of our present core will be in there prime and players like Lewis, Graterol, Thorpe, Romero, Gonsalves, Kirilloff, etc are stregthening the team.  If I were placing a bet, I would bet that the money spent on Darvish today will be more valuable in three years in terms of contributing to a contender.  In other words, what ever player we could have added with the money will be more valuable to contention in 2021-23.