The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, this. The Twins are a postseason team built on a young core.

 

If now isn't the time to add, it's never the time to add and the Twins may as well become the St Louis Browns in perpetuity.

Yes, now is the time to add in order to stay relevant for postseason contention.  Like Smith did prior to the 2010 season.

[jud6312]

Anyone else just ready for the whole thing to be wrapped up? Whether it's the Twins, Dodgers, Cubs or someone else, I just want it done.

 

 

[Twins33]

Anyone else just ready for the whole thing to be wrapped up? Whether it's the Twins, Dodgers, Cubs or someone else, I just want it done.

Yes.

 

Personally, the one good thing about the slow market is that it's almost February already. In the past most of the big signings would be done in December and then it felt like for-freaking-ever to get to pitchers and catchers. This year, we're two weeks away for P&C and there are still big fish out there. For me, even though it's been slow...it's also somehow felt way faster in getting to February. Maybe if the Twins weren't "in" on one of the remaining guys it would have felt longer like it usually does.

[terrydactyls]

For the same reason you are attracted to committing to only $140M instead of $150M, the pitcher probably would accept the latter, if different teams offered this choice of contracts. He's at a stage in his career where guaranteed totals are likely the main thing; Joe Mauer for example is not a lock to garner a total of $10M for the remainder of his career after his current contract expires.

Maybe you do not understand the economic concept of the current value of a future amount. With the extra $10M a year for four years invested modestly, the total contact would be worth about $150M which would leave Darvish at age 36 with the same total dollars, a chance at another contract, and the Twins would have zero obligation on the books.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Maybe you do not understand the economic concept of the current value of a future amount. With the extra $10M a year for four years invested modestly, the total contact would be worth about $150M which would leave Darvish at age 36 with the same total dollars, a chance at another contract, and the Twins would have zero obligation on the books.

If that was true, wouldn't the inverse apply to the Twins?

If the Twins "invested modestly" in the meantime, wouldn't a fifth year for Darvish be essentially free?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If that was true, wouldn't the inverse apply to the Twins?
If the Twins "invested modestly" in the meantime, wouldn't a fifth year for Darvish be essentially free?

Yep, the knife cuts both ways, though the Twins have reason to want to avoid late-contract expense (competitive reasons) while the player does not.

 

I get why front-loaded contracts don't happen but I still think it's stupid and short-sighted. An additional 1-2 seasons of competitiveness and the ensuing windfall of postseason/attendance money offsets the money "lost" via inflation or investment.

[ashbury]

Maybe you do not understand the economic concept of the current value of a future amount. With the extra $10M a year for four years invested modestly, the total contact would be worth about $150M which would leave Darvish at age 36 with the same total dollars, a chance at another contract, and the Twins would have zero obligation on the books.

You're right. I have to confess that I must have still had in mind a proposal more like 3 years for $100M (apparently from some other thread) and lumped your idea in with that. I was keeping the numbers simple, but you're right that factors like you mention would affect everyone's calculations. Still, it's a second-order effect, and doesn't lead to a player accepting a short deal for a lot less money; we're poking around at the margins. Also, team ownership could likewise find ways to invest the money if it's not paid out as quickly, so maybe Jim Pohlad would be the one to turn thumbs down.^* Since the team is privately owned, getting contracts off the books may be only as much of an issue as they choose to make it. Finally, I doubt that taxes affect player and team equally, so maybe there is a tax lawyer reading this who could give a few rules of thumb as guidance as to when dollar totals aren't what they seem.

 

* _{I got interrupted while writing this, and in the meantime I acknowledge the others who raised this point as well.}

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yep, the knife cuts both ways, though the Twins have reason to want to avoid late-contract expense (competitive reasons) while the player does not.

Unless you think the Twins would be up against the luxury tax threshold in year 5, any "competitive reason" would be entirely self-imposed.

[GP830]

I'm sure the joke has been made-- but there's a certain song by the Kinks that is starting to come to mind every time I hear his name...

[mazeville]

 

Anyone else just ready for the whole thing to be wrapped up? Whether it's the Twins, Dodgers, Cubs or someone else, I just want it done.

 

This. 100 times this.

 

This is getting ridiculous. Actually, it's been ridiculous for weeks now. 

[Vanimal46]

Yep, the knife cuts both ways, though the Twins have reason to want to avoid late-contract expense (competitive reasons) while the player does not.

 

I get why front-loaded contracts don't happen but I still think it's stupid and short-sighted. An additional 1-2 seasons of competitiveness and the ensuing windfall of postseason/attendance money offsets the money "lost" via inflation or investment.

I also agree that not utilizing front loaded contracts are stupid and short sighted. It could be a temporary solution to solve the larger issue within baseball....

 

I think eventually baseball needs to rethink FA as a whole, because the way it is right now doesn't benefit a vast majority of veteran FAs. The current model works out really well for younger stars who are able to hit the market at 26-27 years old. Teams pay for their prime years, and ideally they're out before the player is 36-37 years old.

 

Most FAs are early to mid 30s, and teams are unwilling to pay past performance prices for their age 36+ seasons.... Eventually something needs to change to balance the scales between owners vs. players getting their share of MLB revenue. IFA, the draft, and a player's first 6-7 MLB seasons are under a capped or arbitrary prices. What other avenues can ownership spend money?

[bcs4]

I don't understand the fascination with Darvish.  His stats don't really separate him from from the next 3 candidates.  Darvish isn't an ace.  I think if we're back in 7 years we'll see that he will likely average out as a 4-5 starter instead of a 2-3.  If the Twins want to give Darvish a big and long contract, why not add a bit to it and get an ace?  It may not be this year, it may not be next year, but why Darvish other than that we want to see a name on the staff. It's just not worth it.

 

I think the Twins would be better served to take some of that money and give it to Dozier.  

 

The biggest problem is that the Twins plug their pipeline with subpar starting pitchers that cost more than they're worth and then keep them because they don't want to take a hit to buy them out.  The Twins sign "innings eaters".  I'm allergic to that term.  Why does it matter if one bum pitches 200 innings at a 5 ERA when the same result comes from 2 or 3 bums that throw 200 innings at a 5+ ERA?  I'd rather have 3 bums do it because one of them might end up becoming a decent pitcher.

 

They would do much more with half the money they'd pay Darvish if they'd simply pay off the the starters that turn out to be duds.  No one knows what pitchers they'd have right now if they brought up minor league pitchers when they should have.  If minor leaguers don't get a chance, they'll begin to doubt their future, and that affects the way they pitch. Guys that will turn out to be decent starters won't ever get the chance.

 

I'd much rather have Lynn if he saves us money and years.  Same thing with any of the other top 5 free agents.  There is absolutely no way to predict which 31 year old with a career 3.8 will be the better investment.

 

 

 

 

[Jham]

I'm sure the joke has been made-- but there's a certain song by the Kinks that is starting to come to mind every time I hear his name...

"L O L A: Darvish"? Actually, that does sound a lot like "Hello, LA..." Sadface.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't understand the fascination with Darvish. His stats don't really separate him from from the next 3 candidates. Darvish isn't an ace. I think if we're back in 7 years we'll see that he will likely average out as a 4-5 starter instead of a 2-3. If the Twins want to give Darvish a big and long contract, why not add a bit to it and get an ace? It may not be this year, it may not be next year, but why Darvish other than that we want to see a name on the staff. It's just not worth it.

 

I think the Twins would be better served to take some of that money and give it to Dozier.

 

The biggest problem is that the Twins plug their pipeline with subpar starting pitchers that cost more than they're worth and then keep them because they don't want to take a hit to buy them out. The Twins sign "innings eaters". I'm allergic to that term. Why does it matter if one bum pitches 200 innings at a 5 ERA when the same result comes from 2 or 3 bums that throw 200 innings at a 5+ ERA? I'd rather have 3 bums do it because one of them might end up becoming a decent pitcher.

 

They would do much more with half the money they'd pay Darvish if they'd simply pay off the the starters that turn out to be duds. No one knows what pitchers they'd have right now if they brought up minor league pitchers when they should have. If minor leaguers don't get a chance, they'll begin to doubt their future, and that affects the way they pitch. Guys that will turn out to be decent starters won't ever get the chance.

 

I'd much rather have Lynn if he saves us money and years. Same thing with any of the other top 5 free agents. There is absolutely no way to predict which 31 year old with a career 3.8 will be the better investment.

Go get which other Ace? And if there is no way to predict, we could just role some dice and choose. They could fire the GM and save a ton of money. I don't agree there is no way to predict. Your prediction can be wrong, doesn't mean your prices is bad, or that odds are you would be right more than you would be wrong.

[brightside]

I feel like front loading a Darvish contract would give us a few things:

• Give us more flexibility to sign the young core to longer deals
• Provide insurance against regression toward the back of the contract
• Bring his trade value up if we decide that 1 or 2 years from now we want to move him for any number of reasons- but consider this 2 years from now he may have 3 years left on the contract at 15 million a year and lets say we are in a trade deadline and we are out of the playoff race due to injuries on the team or fill in the blank. If you are a contender and need a #2 like (verlander last year) you could have 3 years of controllable for 45 million. We could get an entire farm system while still getting the first two years of control at a higher ACV. 

Delving into this further, we may be paying an extra 10 million each of the first two years of the contract, but we could get an entire farm system for essentially 20 million... does anyone follow me?

[bcs4]

Mike, What I'm saying is that these guys are pretty much interchangeable, and in fact I think you COULD roll dice to make a pick.  Take a look at the stats on Darvish, Cobb, Lynn and Arrieta.  I don't really see any outstanding trends, and each of them seem as if they're aging about the same.  I think there are times where there are players that are better choices than others, just not here.  As far as aces are concerned, like I said, there aren't any.  That's why I think it's better not to commit to huge dollars this year, because we might be able to get a real ace next year for an extra $3 or 4 million a year.  Am I saying I wouldn't like to have a 3.8 arm this year?  No.  What I am saying is that that kind of money over that many years will hamstring a team like the Twins.  The Mauer contract has hurt the Twins a lot.  It would be a real fluke if any of these guys average a 3.8 over the next 6 years, and if they average 4.2 over the 6 years, it means 3 of the years will average 4.6.  What happens then?  You know the Twins will keep them in the rotation, and they'll likely be out of the FA market for anything but has beens that "eat innings" again.  If Darvish is above $23 million for more than 4 years it's too much.  He's gonna go for more than that.  Let him go.

[USAFChief]

 

Mike, What I'm saying is that these guys are pretty much interchangeable, and in fact I think you COULD roll dice to make a pick.  Take a look at the stats on Darvish, Cobb, Lynn and Arrieta.  I don't really see any outstanding trends, and each of them seem as if they're aging about the same.  I think there are times where there are players that are better choices than others, just not here.  As far as aces are concerned, like I said, there aren't any.  That's why I think it's better not to commit to huge dollars this year, because we might be able to get a real ace next year for an extra $3 or 4 million a year.  Am I saying I wouldn't like to have a 3.8 arm this year?  No.  What I am saying is that that kind of money over that many years will hamstring a team like the Twins.  The Mauer contract has hurt the Twins a lot.  It would be a real fluke if any of these guys average a 3.8 over the next 6 years, and if they average 4.2 over the 6 years, it means 3 of the years will average 4.6.  What happens then?  You know the Twins will keep them in the rotation, and they'll likely be out of the FA market for anything but has beens that "eat innings" again.  If Darvish is above $23 million for more than 4 years it's too much.  He's gonna go for more than that.  Let him go.

Who?

 

[Twodogs]

"Oh baby Yuuuuuuuuu, Yu got what I need, but you say he's just a friend, you say he's just a friend.  Oh baby Yuuuuuuuuu, Yu got what I need, but you say he's just a friend, you say he's just a friend."

 

 

[bcs4]

Beats me, no one knows who will be available. If there aren't any, don't sign one.  Sometimes the best move is to do nothing.  Unless we can get one of these guys for $20ish million for 4 years we shouldn't do anything.  If we want a real pitcher, we'll likely need to make a trade.  Locking up a 32 year old for 6 years isn't a good move for a team like the Twins.

 

One more thing though, the Pohlads will personally have a ton more money after their tax cuts. Hopefully that will mean deeper pockets.

[USAFChief]

 

Beats me, no one knows who will be available. If there aren't any, don't sign one.  Sometimes the best move is to do nothing.  Unless we can get one of these guys for $20ish million for 4 years we shouldn't do anything.  If we want a real pitcher, we'll likely need to make a trade.  Locking up a 32 year old for 6 years isn't a good move for a team like the Twins.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/2018-19-mlb-free-agents.html

 

the potential list:

 

Madison Bumgarner (29)  — $12MM club option
Carlos Carrasco (32) — $9MM club option with a $663K buyout
Patrick Corbin (29)
Nathan Eovaldi (29)
Doug Fister (35) — $4.5MM club option with a $500K buyout
Gio Gonzalez (33)
Miguel Gonzalez (35)
Cole Hamels (35) — $20MM club/vesting option with a $6MM buyout
Jason Hammel (36) — $12MM mutual option with a $2MM buyout
J.A. Happ (36)
Matt Harvey (30)
Hisashi Iwakuma (35)
Scott Kazmir (35)
Clayton Kershaw (31) — can opt out of remaining two years, $65MM
Dallas Keuchel (31)
Jordan Lyles (28) — Club option TBD with a $250K buyout
Brandon McCarthy (35)
Matt Moore (30)  — $10MM club option with a $750K buyout
Charlie Morton (35)
Wily Peralta (30) — $3MM club option with a $25K buyout
Martin Perez (28) — $7.5MM club option with a $750K buyout
Drew Pomeranz (30)
David Price (33) — can opt out of remaining four years and $127MM
Garrett Richards (31)
Hyun-Jin Ryu (32)
CC Sabathia (38)
Chris Sale (30) — $15MM club option with a $1MM buyout
Ervin Santana (36) — $14MM club/vesting option
James Shields (37) — $16MM club option with a $2MM buyout
Josh Tomlin (34)
Adam Wainwright (37)

 

 

[Vanimal46]

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/2018-19-mlb-free-agents.html

 

the potential list:

 

Madison Bumgarner (29)  — $12MM club option
Carlos Carrasco (32) — $9MM club option with a $663K buyout
Patrick Corbin (29)
Nathan Eovaldi (29)
Doug Fister (35) — $4.5MM club option with a $500K buyout
Gio Gonzalez (33)
Miguel Gonzalez (35)
Cole Hamels (35) — $20MM club/vesting option with a $6MM buyout
Jason Hammel (36) — $12MM mutual option with a $2MM buyout
J.A. Happ (36)
Matt Harvey (30)
Hisashi Iwakuma (35)
Scott Kazmir (35)
Clayton Kershaw (31) — can opt out of remaining two years, $65MM
Dallas Keuchel (31)
Jordan Lyles (28) — Club option TBD with a $250K buyout
Brandon McCarthy (35)
Matt Moore (30)  — $10MM club option with a $750K buyout
Charlie Morton (35)
Wily Peralta (30) — $3MM club option with a $25K buyout
Martin Perez (28) — $7.5MM club option with a $750K buyout
Drew Pomeranz (30)
David Price (33) — can opt out of remaining four years and $127MM
Garrett Richards (31)
Hyun-Jin Ryu (32)
CC Sabathia (38)
Chris Sale (30) — $15MM club option with a $1MM buyout
Ervin Santana (36) — $14MM club/vesting option
James Shields (37) — $16MM club option with a $2MM buyout
Josh Tomlin (34)
Adam Wainwright (37)

 

Ha! I posted the same list right after you. We can go ahead and cross Kershaw, Sale, Bumgarner, and Carrasco off the list. Kershaw's going to make $40 million and the rest have no brainer club options. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike, What I'm saying is that these guys are pretty much interchangeable, and in fact I think you COULD roll dice to make a pick.  Take a look at the stats on Darvish, Cobb, Lynn and Arrieta.  I don't really see any outstanding trends, and each of them seem as if they're aging about the same.  I think there are times where there are players that are better choices than others, just not here.  As far as aces are concerned, like I said, there aren't any.  That's why I think it's better not to commit to huge dollars this year, because we might be able to get a real ace next year for an extra $3 or 4 million a year.  Am I saying I wouldn't like to have a 3.8 arm this year?  No.  What I am saying is that that kind of money over that many years will hamstring a team like the Twins.  The Mauer contract has hurt the Twins a lot.  It would be a real fluke if any of these guys average a 3.8 over the next 6 years, and if they average 4.2 over the 6 years, it means 3 of the years will average 4.6.  What happens then?  You know the Twins will keep them in the rotation, and they'll likely be out of the FA market for anything but has beens that "eat innings" again.  If Darvish is above $23 million for more than 4 years it's too much.  He's gonna go for more than that.  Let him go.

 

What happens if Darvish is awesome for three years? why do people only assume the worst when throwing this stuff out?

 

If not now, when? Next year every team will have re-set their penalties, and the Twins will be bidding against all of them......

 

that list next year looks no better than Darvish, and some of them will get hurt....so, who? 

[Mr. Brooks]

Which stats are you using to determine that Darvish is not better than the other 3 options? I don't think it's even a debate in the industry that Darvish is s tier above those other 3.

[amjgt]

Darvish isn’t 32.

 

There’s no need to inflate your argument by calling him the wrong age

[Squirrel]

 

Ha! I posted the same list right after you. We can go ahead and cross Kershaw, Sale, Bumgarner, and Carrasco off the list. Kershaw's going to make $40 million and the rest have no brainer club options. 

What? We won't get Kershaw? What are you talking about? Surely we'll be able to make an offer for him to play for us! You never know!!

[amjgt]

I’m a “sign Darvish and trade for Archer” guy. I think that puts us squarely in WS contention for the next 4 years. What more could us, as a fan base, ask for. It seems like a move the Brewers would make and I have a secret crush on them.

 

In the real world these two signings aren’t necessarily tied together, but in AMJGT’s world let’s pretend for a second that they are. You can get Darvish for 5/140 but he’ll only do that if you get Archer.

 

Tampa Bay isn’t playing ball.

 

We’ve offered Gordon, Gonsalves/Romero (their choice), Graterol, and Baddoo, which they acknowledge is nice offer but they really want a premiere piece that they aren’t seeing in that list (no they don’t want Sano).

 

They want Royce Lewis (gulp).

 

He’s squarely on my “don’t even think about it” list, BUT if the only way to get Darvish AND Archer in town is to part with Royce, so help me god, I think I do it.

 

Who’s with me?

 

Disclaimer:

he’s not a tack on to that deal. The new deal looks something like Lewis, Gonsalves, and Baddoo

Also, Tampa doesn’t know the quid pro quo with Darvish

[bcs4]

What happens if Darvish is awesome for three years? why do people only assume the worst when throwing this stuff out?

 

If not now, when? Next year every team will have re-set their penalties, and the Twins will be bidding against all of them......

 

that list next year looks no better than Darvish, and some of them will get hurt....so, who?

 

 

Almost all pitchers get worse from 31 to 37.  He had really good years in 13 and 14 but the rest have been pretty much a 3.8.  What's the basis for throwing out the 3 awesome year stuff?  Maybe because you can come up with a few pitchers that have had excellent careers after 31?  For every one that you name, I can come up with 10 that didn't.

 

They should pick someone up when it makes sense.  From what I've heard and seen Darvish wants 6 years and he has a 5 year offer in hand. I heard that he's had an offer of $26 mil, though I can't believe it's 5@26.  So, I'm thinking maybe 5@23?  That's insane.

 

I don't know who, but they shouldn't spend that kind of money for that long for Darvish.  Their best chance will likely be around trade time with a team that's out of contention and make a new contract with the new pitcher at trade time.  The Twins have people to trade for an ace.  And they'll also have that $26 million if they don't buy Darvish.

 

Santana, Berrios and Gibson together had a sub 3.8 after the all star game.  It's not even a sure thing that Darvish would be our 3.

 

 

[bcs4]

 

Which stats are you using to determine that Darvish is not better than the other 3 options? I don't think it's even a debate in the industry that Darvish is s tier above those other 3.

I'm looking pretty much at everything, but mostly ERA.  What are you looking at?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Almost all pitchers get worse from 31 to 37.

Sure. But we don't need him to improve from 31 to 37 to get value out of the contract. If he can stay a 4 WAR pitcher for just a few more years, and tack on some 1-2 WAR seasons at the end, that will work just fine.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't know who, but they shouldn't spend that kind of money for that long for Darvish. Their best chance will likely be around trade time with a team that's out of contention and make a new contract with the new pitcher at trade time. The Twins have people to trade for an ace. And they'll also have that $26 million if they don't buy Darvish.

The universe of baseball players who are that good is quite small. There may only be one player who meets your "best chance later" criteria, and you may be competing with more teams for his services. Heck, there may be zero such players.