The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[mazeville]

In their bid to build a pitching staff, the Twins signed three pitchers to multi-year deals in 2013 and 2014: Phil Hughes, Ricky Nolasco and Ervin Santana. Only one of those was a true success. 

 

A .333 average might be good for baseball. It is not good for major, multi-million-dollar free-agent signings.

 

That's a good thing to keep in mind when the Twins consider signing Yu Darvish to a potential five-year contract worth $150 million or more. Long contracts to older pitchers are risky, and could backfire, especially toward the back end of any deal.

 

And yet I think the Twins should sign Darvish, anyway. I think they should give him the full five years and $150 million. And I think they should celebrate that signing mightily. 

 

Yes, that would be a costly deal that could hurt the team down the line. Yes, the Twins are a mid-market team that can't absorb a bad contract like the Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs can. But, they should do this for three reasons:

 

1. They need a starter that's at least equal to Santana, who is likely to regress this year.

 

2. They would not have to give up anything to get him. If the Twins were to trade for Chris Archer, they'd have to trade away young players. I'd rather keep those young players to make other trades.

 

3. The Twins need to sign Darvish for PR reasons. This is actually the most important reason.

 

I bet it doesn't take more than five comments before someone responds to this post with the phrase "cheap Pohlads," or some derivative. This team's ownership has a bad reputation. Some of it is well earned. Some of it is unfair. 

 

Spending prudence was required when the team plunged into its long string of 90-plus loss seasons. But the team's young core has emerged. It went to the Wild Card last year. The AL Central could be ripe for the picking with the Cleveland Indians losing Carlos Santana. And the Twins can afford it: They have money coming off the books in the next couple of years. Now is not the time for prudence. Now is the time for going all-in.

 

Mostly, this team and its management needs to show fans that they are willing to spend when necessary. And while it might not be a great idea to spend $150 million on a pitcher who will be in his mid-30s at the end of the deal, it would still be a great sign of faith to the fan base that has endured an awful lot of losing before last year. Doing so would go a long way toward ridding this team of its cheap heritage. 

 

Of course, if the Twins don't, and if they continue to operate with a middling budget despite the presence of Target Field, they will continue to face questions about ownership's willingness to spend on talent. Yes, this team has spent millions building its front office -- which is highly commendable. But until this team spends on the on-field product, that reputation will remain.

 

And the Pohlads, who tried contracting the team less than two decades ago, have earned that reputation.

[Doomtints]

Darvish has too many injury concerns. If it were me, I would not sign him.

 

For all we know, the mutual "interest" is a favor the Twins are giving their friend to boost his market value. There is no indication the parties have spoken in any serious way.

 

Ask yourself this... who has been the better pitcher over the past two years ... Ervin Santana or Yu Darvish? The answer might surprise you. Now ask yourself again why this contract would make sense.

 

For fun, look at the 2018 projections on Baseball Reference for Santana and Darvish.

[mazeville]

Fabulous. But I still say Santana is more likely to regress than he is to improve given his age. If he doesn't, great! But the Twins need some downside protection.

 

Santana's last couple of years have been great. But he has a much higher career ERA. He is four years older. And Darvish strikes out a lot more batters. 

 

But this isn't about Santana. It's about adding the top pitcher available on the market. Darvish is a more valuable pitcher than Santana. Would it cost a lot? Yep. But the Twins should make the deal.

[Doomtints]

Why can't both of them regress? Baseball-Reference thinks they will.

 

At Santana's salary, he can regress a lot and still be "valuable." What about Darvish regressing on a top tier salary and long-term contract?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

2. They would not have to give up anything to get him. If the Twins were to trade for Chris Archer, they'd have to trade away young players. I'd rather keep those young players to make other trades.

 

I know this thread is about Darvish, but who better to trade prospects for than a very good pitcher like Archer with team control?

[amjgt]

I'm sick of all this "Santana is going to regress" talk. No kidding he's going to regress. The Twins paid $13.5M last year for a guy that finished 7th in the AL Cy Young vote and one of the guys that finished above him was a reliever.

 

What are the odds he regresses? Pretty darn good, I'd say. But how much? And wouldn't a small regression still make him a pretty darn good #2 option? Maybe even still an OK #1 option?

 

Some might point to the Twins defense as a reason why he outperformed his peripherals and got Cy Young votes. Do we expect that to regress? I wouldn't. If it does, it would be barely.

 

So either his performance was a crazy personal outlier and it's bound to fall off the cliff, or his performance wasn't that big of an outlier because it was largely buoyed by another factor that probably will not regress (the defense)

 

I'd lean to option 2.

 

Also, why can't any pitcher we sign (Darvish please) also have their numbers buoyed by the Twins defense. 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I have never understood fans worrying about the team spending efficiently. They have money. They have needs. There are 3-4 pitchers that could help. Next year, those arguing not to spend will point out all the flaws of next year's class. I guess I just don't get why people think it is better for them as fans if owners pocket money, and don't try to make the team better. We just come from different votes, I guess.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Ask yourself this... who has been the better pitcher over the past two years ... Ervin Santana or Yu Darvish? The answer might surprise you. Now ask yourself again why this contract would make sense.

Because we can't clone 2016-2017 Ervin Santana?

 

Also, this exaggerates the difference in their recent performance record. Darvish was every bit as effective as the great Ervin in 2016 (pitching in a pennant race no less), it's just he was returning from TJ so he missed much of the first half of the season.

 

In 2017, Ervin was better overall, although Darvish wasn't a slouch -- 118 ERA+ versus 134 for Ervin.  Both were named all-stars (Darvish's 4th appearance in 4 tries when healthy). Darvish also had the edge in FIP.

 

Not to make excuses, but Darvish was also pitching under some unusual circumstances in 2017 -- first full season back from TJ, out of the pennant race and getting shopped by Texas (note Darvish's 2 worst starts both came in July), and then changing leagues for the first time going to LA. And for as much as he notably struggled in the World Series, he was brilliant in both the NLDS and NLCS (partially masked by LA's quick bullpen hook).

[Otto von Ballpark]

Furthermore, Ervin is 4 years older than Darvish, so having Ervin under contract for 2 more years doesn't really mean signing Darvish for ~5 doesn't make sense. In fact, it would seem an optimal time for their contracts to overlap, especially given the Twins SP prospect situation.

 

And to those who express concern over Darvish's health and durability, but marvel at Ervin's, note that Ervin has 6 seasons of topping 200 innings in MLB, and Darvish has a combined 5 between MLB and Japan.  Darvish would add a 6th in MLB if we counted postseason innings, plus a 7th finishing at 198. Ervin would add a 7th if we considered postseason and minor league innings.  The only real statistical difference from my vantage point is that Darvish went under the knife for TJ -- which is obviously worthy of concern, but not necessarily a dealbreaker in modern MLB.  Especially not with how Darvish has apparently responded so far (123 ERA+, 6.4 bWAR in 48 starts across 1.5 seasons since returning).

[Mike Sixel]

Darvish pitched the 24th most innings in MLB last year.....I have no idea why 200 is some mythical number still.....

[mazeville]

 

I know this thread is about Darvish, but who better to trade prospects for than a very good pitcher like Archer with team control?

 

I would not mind that. I just think that it would be better to sign someone like Darvish -- especially just to prove that they're willing to spend.

[TheLeviathan]

I wouldn't say "regardless", but no dollar figure thrown out so far would scare me away.

[Riverbrian]

 

 

 

Ask yourself this... who has been the better pitcher over the past two years ... Ervin Santana or Yu Darvish? The answer might surprise you. Now ask yourself again why this contract would make sense.

 

 

 

I've done what you have asked and it makes me feel good about Ervin Santana... Thank you for that. I'm asking myself again if this Darvish contract makes sense and my answer is: Yes... Perfect Sense. 

 

Put the algorithms away. This is free agency. The price of a player isn't determined by stats alone. It is determined by how much someone is willing to pay. 

 

Santana cost 4 years and 55 million. That contract will most likely not bring Darvish in the door this year. 

 

The Twins wanted Santana and they paid the price tag. 

 

If the Twins want Darvish they must pay the price tag. 

 

Trying to use Santana's 4 Years and 55 million as some sort of barometer will close the free agent door tight. 

 

It comes down to one simple question. Do you want the player? 

[FormerMinnasotan]

I tend to agree we should pay Darvish regardless of price. We could potentially sign Darvish for around what we paid Joe Mauer and so long as the legnth of the contract matches up I doubt imo that he will turn that offer down. I don’t think we will have to pay him $30 million/year to sign him so I don’t think we will be forced to pay him something we can’t offer. I also agree that we need to get a quality arm this off season, especially since I think we have a window of opportunity to win now. In order to do that we need to shore up our rotation, as of now we only have 2 quality starters in Santana and Berrios. To get either Darvish or Arrieta (or to a lesser extent Lynn, Archer, or Cobb) will strengthen our rotation and will allow the bottom two spots to be filled with the likes of Gibson, Mejia, Slegers, Jorge, Gonsalves, and perhaps Romero.

[mazeville]

There's probably a limit to what the Twins should pay. But personally I think the Twins should view this as an opportunity to show fans they're willing to spend. So perhaps they'd take on another year or spend a bit more than they would have liked.

 

It really would go a long way toward building faith in fans. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

No player should be signed regardless of price but the Twins should certainly stretch to get Darvish.

 

And if that doesn't get it done, it doesn't get it done.

[ahart10]

The longer this goes the less I like Darvish or Arrieta and the more I like rolling the dice on the young guns or something like Chris Tillman.

Archer costs too much in a different way, and I don’t think he’s more than a #2. I can’t help but feel like Sonny Gray was the answer.

[Monkeypaws]

Such folly is the free agent market when you sign someone for 6 years hoping to get 3 good years out of them.

 

Yeah, it's competition, but like a high-stakes poker table, few can afford to really play.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Such folly is the free agent market when you sign someone for 6 years hoping to get 3 good years out of them.

 

Not sure if it's really folly, just reality. Players aren't robots, their performances are variable.

[Riverbrian]

 

Such folly is the free agent market when you sign someone for 6 years hoping to get 3 good years out of them.

 

 

 

They are not hoping for 3 good years... They are hoping for 6 amazing years.

 

They are prepared for the possibility of zero good years. 

 

 

Also... If that is an example of folly. Then you also have to consider the folly on the other side. 

 

The Angels got 3 years of Mike Trout for a total of 1.4 Million. 

 

 

[sampleSizeOfOne]

Did we win yet?

[Major League Ready]

 

I have never understood fans worrying about the team spending efficiently. They have money. They have needs. There are 3-4 pitchers that could help. Next year, those arguing not to spend will point out all the flaws of next year's class. I guess I just don't get why people think it is better for them as fans if owners pocket money, and don't try to make the team better. We just come from different votes, I guess.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that spending on free agents is valuable but doing it efficiently is not important?  It would be important if we were in a top revenue market.  In our case, there are teams with 100M or 200M of incremental revenue.  Please explain how we are supposed to construct a World Series while spending our already disadvantaged revenue position inefficiently.  If you have listened to Falvey, he has stated on a few occasions in different ways this team needs to get the most out of their investments.   Is this not the a pretty much universal premise in any business?

 

I tend to follow Brock's position ... stretch but don't go nuts.

[Mike Sixel]

How do you come to the conclusion that spending on free agents is valuable but doing it efficiently is not important? It would be important if we were in a top revenue market. In our case, there are teams with 100M or 200M of incremental revenue. Please explain how we are supposed to construct a World Series while spending our already disadvantaged revenue position inefficiently. If you have listened to Falvey, he has stated on a few occasions in different ways this team needs to get the most out of their investments. Is this not the a pretty much universal premise in any business?

 

I tend to follow Brock's position ... stretch but don't go nuts.

Here is where I come from. If they don't spend money, because a pitcher wants four million more than they are worth, and they pocket the money, that does not help fans at all. Not one bit. They could buy a pitcher, inefficiently, and still have budget room. Or, they can pocket the money, and the team is worse. No one is arguing spending 200 million, or tripling what a player is worth. I am arguing that I would rather they overspend sometimes, than pocket the money.

 

I guess I could ask you how it is better they pocket the money, than to spend it at all? As we know, many free agent contracts don't work, and are not as efficient as other contracts. Should they only pay minimum salaries, since those are more efficient? That would be the logical conclusion some here are making.

[USAFChief]

I couldn’t care less about “efficient.” About winning the “dollar spent per win” trophy.

 

I want to watch them win 100 plus games, and win a WS.

 

Sign the players that will help do that. If it means there is less theoretical money to spend 5 years from now, oh well. I fail to see how not having money to spend 5 years from now is worse than not spending today because it’s “inefficient.”

[ashbury]

I fail to see how not having money to spend 5 years from now is worse than not spending today because it’s “inefficient.”

This argument reminds me of the quotation attributed to Mark Twain, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

[Major League Ready]

 

I couldn’t care less about “efficient.” About winning the “dollar spent per win” trophy.

I want to watch them win 100 plus games, and win a WS.

Sign the players that will help do that. If it means there is less theoretical money to spend 5 years from now, oh well. I fail to see how not having money to spend 5 years from now is worse than not spending today because it’s “inefficient.”

 

That's why fans in every sport with no managerial credentials somehow think they know how to run the team better than the people who had the requisite credentials to get the job.  Point being winning and spending effectively are at worst highly correlated and probably more accurately described as  essential when other teams have a serious revenue advantage. 

[AlwaysinModeration]

What are the chances the Twins won’t go over 23 million a year (or 163 million total) in their offer to Darvish?

[Platoon]

Several posters on here, Mike and Chief come to mind, have made a valid observation if I am interpreting them correctly. And that is that their is a time to "overspend" and a time not to. This would be a time for the Twins to overspend. All professional sports teams operate in windows of opportunity. While,the length of time between those windows varies for numerous reasons, the Twins are in one. And in the Twins most recent history, that is a rarity. While I wont relitigate the pros and cons of a trade v a big FA payout, the bottom line is either you pay up now and take a shot at winning it all, or you remain simply one of many competitive teams with its most important part missing. Elite baseball pitcher sand football QB's are unique in that you can surround either with an average team and win, but you cannot do the reverse.

[USAFChief]

That's why fans in every sport with no managerial credentials somehow think they know how to run the team better than the people who had the requisite credentials to get the job.  Point being winning and spending effectively are at worst highly correlated and probably more accurately described as  essential when other teams have a serious revenue advantage.

 

We are all fans with no managerial credentials. Point being an appeal to authority argument is just that.

[Riverbrian]

 

That's why fans in every sport with no managerial credentials somehow think they know how to run the team better than the people who had the requisite credentials to get the job. 

 

Point being winning and spending effectively are at worst highly correlated and probably more accurately described as  essential when other teams have a serious revenue advantage. 

 

I've decided to not hide your post. I should hide it but I will let it stand with the hope that it can be somehow constructive. 

 

I've separated your two sentences. 

 

(Mod Note)The purpose of your first sentence is to belittle and dismiss anybody who does not have the "requisite credentials".

 

I assume that close to "None of Us" have the requisite credentials. If you are really as smart as you present yourself, you would realize, that if you disqualify us all... there would remain very little reason for the forums.

 

Start your post with a sentence like this and you are going to get a defensive response and things go immediately off the rails. 

 

You have a history of this type of post, this isn't a moderator over reaction to a first mistake. You have been PM'd in the past... you have been disciplined in the past. You choose to either not understand or not care. Consider this a final warning and this final warning is being done publicly by my choice. Do it again and I (or one of the other moderators) will give you a long vacation. 

 

(Mod Note) Your second sentence is actual discussion.

 

I'm sure you are able to recognize the difference.