The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[Mr. Brooks]

Same here. I want Darvish here, and I think they have a rare chance to get it done. But I'm not going 7 years.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree, as long as he doesn't have anything greater than a 5 year offer, there shouldn't be any need to go beyond 6.

 

I guess I was thinking, what if the Cubs finally relented with a final offer of 6/160, and we were given one last chance to top it.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Darvish apparently turned down 7/160 from the Yankees early in the offseason. Now Darvish is asking 7/175. Translation: "hey that old Yankees offer is looking pretty good right about now."

 

Also it was said the Twins were prepared to make Darvish the highest paid Twin. Mauer makes $23 million so that would make a Darvish contract worth about $25 million a season, or 6/150.

 

I have no idea what Darvish is worth but it seems like the Twins are prepared to spend 6/160, or so I assume. Gerrit Cole is looking cheaper by the day. I also like Cobb, as do the Cubs and the other AL East teams. The lack of action this offseason is pretty ominous and I think the Twins are caught in a game of chicken they cannot win. Spring training games start in three weeks already. I think they should be proactive and get a pitcher while they can.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Darvish apparently turned down 7/160 from the Yankees early in the offseason. Now Darvish is asking 7/175. Translation: "hey that old Yankees offer is looking pretty good right about now."

 

Also it was said the Twins were prepared to make Darvish the highest paid Twin. Mauer makes $23 million so that would make a Darvish contract worth about $25 million a season, or 6/150.

 

I have no idea what Darvish is worth but it seems like the Twins are prepared to spend 6/160, or so I assume. Gerrit Cole is looking cheaper by the day. I also like Cobb, as do the Cubs and the other AL East teams. The lack of action this offseason is pretty ominous and I think the Twins are caught in a game of chicken they cannot win. Spring training games start in three weeks already. I think they should be proactive and get a pitcher while they can.

There is no report that Darvish is "asking" for 7/175, just that he wants something "closer" to that than to the 5 year offer on the table. So he is likely still just asking for that 6th year, as has been suggested all along.

 

If the Twins were really prepared to spend 6/160, this could be over by now.

 

And I doubt the rumored 7/160 Yankee offer was true, that would have put them over the luxury tax threshold. If it was contingent on another team taking Ellsbury's contract, then it was effectively not a real offer.

[lukeduke1980]

 

And while the price could be lower if we wait this out, a lower price would also probably attract more suitors and give Darvish more options to choose over us. (I could see the Angels being a factor at some point.) If the "best deal" isn't in the cards for us, could it be worth it to settle for a lesser deal but actually land the best player?

I've thought the same thing regarding the Angels - Yu is waiting for the Dodgers to figure something out, but the Angels are also near LA.  I'm not sure if he has any relationship with Ohtani, but that could be a benefit to have a fellow countryman.  And Angels need pitching like everyone.  Trout in CF would be nice too, Simmons at SS.  

[Riverbrian]

 

Back to the title of this post: how high would folks go for Darvish?

The OP mentioned 5 years, $150 mil. How about that?

MLBTR predicted, and ZiPS projected, at the start of the offseason that Darvish would get 6 years for about $160 mil. Would you do that?

Nick linked a Heyman piece that referenced the Strasburg deal, 7 years, $175 mil. Would anyone do that?

Would it change things if you knew it wasn't merely a bid that the Cubs could match, but rather he was ready to sign immediately with the Twins at these terms? Say, 6/160 or even 7/175 for a done deal, today?

I am curious. At the start of the offseason, I was hoping we'd make a competitive pursuit of Darvish, but the more I have read, the more I really like him. And I wonder, if the Twins are really serious about him, maybe he is worth a premium just to get it done.

And while the price could be lower if we wait this out, a lower price would also probably attract more suitors and give Darvish more options to choose over us. (I could see the Angels being a factor at some point.) If the "best deal" isn't in the cards for us, could it be worth it to settle for a lesser deal but actually land the best player?

 

If you put all your eggs in one basket... you better be prepared to pay whatever it takes to get the basket. 

 

 

 

[Platoon]

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!!

That's why first move is to trade for Duensing. We will need him next off season as a trade chip. Probaly can get Kershaw even up. At the most throw in Zach Granite.

[Riverbrian]

 

I've thought the same thing regarding the Angels - Yu is waiting for the Dodgers to figure something out, but the Angels are also near LA.  I'm not sure if he has any relationship with Ohtani, but that could be a benefit to have a fellow countryman.  And Angels need pitching like everyone.  Trout in CF would be nice too, Simmons at SS.  

 

That would depend on Arte Moreno just saying screw it... let's go for it... like I did before and it didn't work it. 

 

I'm guessing the Angels are around 20M to 23M below the 197M competitive balance tax threshold.

 

Any team that fancies themselves competitive will want some cushion for trade deadline possibles. How much cushion? IDK... Guessing 10M? and that is only a guess... maybe even a weak guess. 

 

Angels would have to willfully go over the cap (Moreno has taken out the checkbook before) or trade assets like Calhoun or Valbuena to clear the space. 

 

It's just looking like everyone is trying to stay under the cap this year. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

That would depend on Arte Moreno just saying screw it... let's go for it... like I did before and it didn't work it.

 

I'm guessing the Angels are around 20M to 23M below the 197M competitive balance tax threshold.

 

Any team that fancies themselves competitive will want some cushion for trade deadline possibles. How much cushion? IDK... Guessing 10M? and that is only a guess... maybe even a weak guess.

 

Angels would have to willfully go over the cap (Moreno has taken out the checkbook before) or trade assets like Calhoun or Valbuena to clear the space.

 

It's just looking like everyone is trying to stay under the cap this year.

I'm not sure anyone needs a $10 million cushion for deadline moves.

You pay prorated, so basically 1/3 of their annual salary. How often do teams trade for guys making a combined $30 million+ at the deadline?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Spotrac has the Angels 2018 payroll at $171.5 mil.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim/payroll/

 

But, luxury tax is actually based on the AAV of each player's entire contract, which according to this link might drop that figure by $14 mil, to around $158 mil:

 

https://www.halosheaven.com/2017/10/9/16380104/angels-2018-payroll-outlook

 

So they should have plenty of room for Darvish, if they want him.

 

(Additionally, the Angels have never exceeded the tax threshold before, so they don't even need to reset escalating penalties like the Yankees and Dodgers do. They could go over this winter without triggering the steepest penalties, as long as they could get back under in a year or two.)

[Riverbrian]

 

I'm not sure anyone needs a $10 million cushion for deadline moves.
You pay prorated, so basically 1/3 of their annual salary. How often do teams trade for guys making a combined $30 million+ at the deadline?

 

I was throwing out a number... with no idea of its correctness. 

 

But... Donaldson and Machado are potential trade deadline chips. Greinke could be a trade deadline chip like Verlander was last year.  

 

Perhaps, most importantly... I also believe that the Competitive Balance Tax is based on the AAV of the contract not the year to year number. This way teams can't front or back load to work around it. 

 

Potential trades for players with time left remaining on the contract would be averaged out. Verlander for example would be a bigger 2017 cap hit to the Astros then what is left to be paid in 2017 because of the 68M remaining on his contract.  

 

Basically... If you sign a player to a 5 year contract and it pays like this. 

 

2018: 5M

2019:10M

2020:15M

2021: 20M

2022: 25M

 

That's a 5 year 75M deal with an AAV of 15M.

 

Each year 15M will be what counts toward the cap. 

 

Teams don't get extra cap room in 2018 with 5M and they are not squeezed harder in 2022 when 25M is due the player.  

 

 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

There is no report that Darvish is "asking" for 7/175, just that he wants something "closer" to that than to the 5 year offer on the table. So he is likely still just asking for that 6th year, as has been suggested all along.

If the Twins were really prepared to spend 6/160, this could be over by now.

And I doubt the rumored 7/160 Yankee offer was true, that would have put them over the luxury tax threshold. If it was contingent on another team taking Ellsbury's contract, then it was effectively not a real offer.

I am assuming the Yankees 7/160 offer was made prior to their acquiring Stanton, which would change the luxury tax implication. So to me it's not really that rumor-ish at all. Sitting here in February, it looks more like a sincere first offer the Yankees knew Darvish would not accept.

 

The MLBTR estimate for Darvish was 6/160, and this whole offseason the Twins have told their fan base they were serious about making a competitive offer to Darvish, so of course they are prepared to pay Darvish 6/160 and of course this could be over by now. There is a nice convergence of events working in the Twins favor here. If they get cold feet or wait too long for his price to drop, like you said, they will lose their chance.

[Riverbrian]

 

Spotrac has the Angels 2018 payroll at $171.5 mil.

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim/payroll/

But, luxury tax is actually based on the AAV of each player's entire contract, which according to this link might drop that figure by $14 mil, to around $158 mil:

https://www.halosheaven.com/2017/10/9/16380104/angels-2018-payroll-outlook

So they should have plenty of room for Darvish, if they want him.

(Additionally, the Angels have never exceeded the tax threshold before, so they don't even need to reset escalating penalties like the Yankees and Dodgers do. They could go over this winter without triggering the steepest penalties, as long as they could get back under in a year or two.)

 

Kinsler and Cozart are missing from the halosheaven link. That's about 23.67 AAV. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Spotrac has the Angels 2018 payroll at $171.5 mil.

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim/payroll/

But, luxury tax is actually based on the AAV of each player's entire contract, which according to this link might drop that figure by $14 mil, to around $158 mil:

https://www.halosheaven.com/2017/10/9/16380104/angels-2018-payroll-outlook

So they should have plenty of room for Darvish, if they want him.

(Additionally, the Angels have never exceeded the tax threshold before, so they don't even need to reset escalating penalties like the Yankees and Dodgers do. They could go over this winter without triggering the steepest penalties, as long as they could get back under in a year or two.)

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-los-angeles-angels-info/

 

Pujols AAV  -3M

Upton AAV +5

Simmons AAV +3

 

Tack on 5M to the estimated 169M and we might be in the ball park.  

 

I'm also not sure if that 169M on Roster Resource contains the 7.3M in retained money. I'm also not sure if Sportrac contains the 5.9M in Non Guarentee Contracts. 

 

Which is just to say I'm estimating the best I can.  

[ewen21]

Reading the last couple of pages, it seems more and more about pretending that projections are reality and talking about merits of various metrics than it is the player himself.  That to me makes little sense unless the player is a very proven and consistent player who is durable.  Darvish is not any of that.  His innings pitched the last four seasons are as follows:

144.1

  -0-

100.1

186.2

And he is entering his 32 year old season.  Does this matter at all to anyone?  Take a look at the league and study the pitchers who are 32 and above.  Go look at guys who were ELITE and CY YOUNG winners or CY YOUNG caliber.  Look at CC Sabathia, Adam Wainright, Zach Grienke, Justin Verlander, etc....ALL OF THEM had precipitous declines at age 32.  ALL OF THEM.  Darvish has nowhere near the record of success, the pedigree or any other indicator you want to compare next to what those guys did from age 26 to 30.  What the heck is it about Darvish that makes anyone believe he is going to be the rare exception?  

 

I see people want to sign this guy for 5 or 6 years in the neighborhood of 150/160.  I see people saying, "why should anyone care about how they spend money".  Well, I could not disagree more, with this particular player.  Signing free agent starting pitching to long term deals when the player is already into their 30s rarely works out these days.

 

To put it bluntly, I don't like Darvish.  He stated very clearly during the WBC in '09 that he had no intention of playing in the majors.  Then, a few years later, he is a major leaguer.  Fair or not, I also don't like what went down in the post season.  That right there spoke volumes to me.  I don't want him on this team.  My bias aside (I will admit I do not like him) he will not make us THAT much better and there is a good chance he ends up on the shelf or simply going into a decline.  To project a major league a major league pitcher with only just over 800 innings major league experience four and five years forward starting at his age 32 season makes so sense to me.  None at all.

 

I understand statistics and how most of these metrics are derived, but in the case of Darvish and starting pitching in general, when we are talking about guys entering their age 32 season, those projections are shaky at best.  I would say it's 50/50 Darvish is in Japan by age 35.

 

As I speak to fellow Twins fans on this matter, it seems to be more about making a splash in the market than it is making sense.  No way on God's green earth do the Twins sign Darvish.  At least if they are smart.  I don't want a "show me you care" move just to do it.  It has to make sense and to me this does not.

 

Sorry.

[Mike Sixel]

Reading the last couple of pages, it seems more and more about pretending that projections are reality and talking about merits of various metrics than it is the player himself. That to me makes little sense unless the player is a very proven and consistent player who is durable. Darvish is not any of that. His innings pitched the last four seasons are as follows:

144.1

-0-

100.1

186.2

And he is entering his 32 year old season. Does this matter at all to anyone? Take a look at the league and study the pitchers who are 32 and above. Go look at guys who were ELITE and CY YOUNG winners or CY YOUNG caliber. Look at CC Sabathia, Adam Wainright, Zach Grienke, Justin Verlander, etc....ALL OF THEM had precipitous declines at age 32. ALL OF THEM. Darvish has nowhere near the record of success, the pedigree or any other indicator you want to compare next to what those guys did from age 26 to 30. What the heck is it about Darvish that makes anyone believe he is going to be the rare exception?

 

I see people want to sign this guy for 5 or 6 years in the neighborhood of 150/160. I see people saying, "why should anyone care about how they spend money". Well, I could not disagree more, with this particular player. Signing free agent starting pitching to long term deals when the player is already into their 30s rarely works out these days.

 

To put it bluntly, I don't like Darvish. He stated very clearly during the WBC in '09 that he had no intention of playing in the majors. Then, a few years later, he is a major leaguer. Fair or not, I also don't like what went down in the post season. That right there spoke volumes to me. I don't want him on this team. My bias aside (I will admit I do not like him) he will not make us THAT much better and there is a good chance he ends up on the shelf or simply going into a decline. To project a major league a major league pitcher with only just over 800 innings major league experience four and five years forward starting at his age 32 season makes so sense to me. None at all.

 

I understand statistics and how most of these metrics are derived, but in the case of Darvish and starting pitching in general, when we are talking about guys entering their age 32 season, those projections are shaky at best. I would say it's 50/50 Darvish is in Japan by age 35.

 

As I speak to fellow Twins fans on this matter, it seems to be more about making a splash in the market than it is making sense. No way on God's green earth do the Twins sign Darvish. At least if they are smart. I don't want a "show me you care" move just to do it. It has to make sense and to me this does not.

 

Sorry.

Can you point to anyone saying do it just to make a splash? If not Darvish, now when they have money, who? Almost all free agents are over thirty, and the good ones get long deals. Those arguing against it largely are saying, basically, never sign a good free agent. The twins need to decide if the first three or four years are worth the cost of the last two or three.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am assuming the Yankees 7/160 offer was made prior to their acquiring Stanton, which would change the luxury tax implication. So to me it's not really that rumor-ish at all.

The Yankees acquired Stanton on Dec. 9. The Darvish offer wasn't reported anywhere until Jan. 11. Unless it was really old news, I think it was incorrect or incomplete (maybe contingent on an Ellsbury trade).

[ewen21]

 

Can you point to anyone saying do it just to make a splash? If not Darvish, now when they have money, who? Almost all free agents are over thirty, and the good ones get long deals. Those arguing against it largely are saying, basically, never sign a good free agent. The twins need to decide if the first three or four years are worth the cost of the last two or three.

Why do I need to do that?  The title of the thread says "sign him regardless of price" and the majority of the posters here seem to support that mindset.  If we are to stop caring about how much we sign players for then count me out of that.  I am not interested in moving heaven and earth to get this pitcher.

 

I think it is kind of hard to dispute the logic in my last post.  We can talk about the picayune if you want, but pitchers get worse at age 32.   YOu know this.  Everyone knows this.  And to assume Darvish is going to be a special pitcher the next four years isn't sound, in my opinion.  He would need to actually be better AFTER the age of the 32 for a deal of five or six years to make any sense at all.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The Yankees acquired Stanton on Dec. 9. The Darvish offer wasn't reported anywhere until Jan. 11. Unless it was really old news, I think it was incorrect or incomplete (maybe contingent on an Ellsbury trade).

yes, old news - I don't see why it couldn't be.

[Otto von Ballpark]

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-los-angeles-angels-info/

 

Pujols AAV -3M

Upton AAV +5

Simmons AAV +3

 

Tack on 5M to the estimated 169M and we might be in the ball park.

 

I'm also not sure if that 169M on Roster Resource contains the 7.3M in retained money. I'm also not sure if Sportrac contains the 5.9M in Non Guarentee Contracts.

 

Which is just to say I'm estimating the best I can.

Trout's AAV should be -10 too.

 

My earlier link was pre-Upton as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

yes, old news - I don't see why it couldn't be.

Just seems weird, why would the team leak that over a month later when they couldn't actually sign him? Darvish didn't leak it, he actually denied the report.

 

I'm guessing the Yankee broadcaster who reported it had the same source as Dave last winter.

[ewen21]

 

No, you have not read the entire thread.

Also, the Twins front office says it is serious about signing Darvish. So chew on that, too...

I read enough of the thread.  I posted some stuff that is pretty much REALITY when it comes to starting pitchers and age.  We will be making a big mistake if we sign him, in my opinion.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Why do I need to do that? The title of the thread says "sign him regardless of price" and the majority of the posters here seem to support that mindset. If we are to stop caring about how much we sign players for then count me out of that. I am not interested in moving heaven and earth to get this pitcher.

 

I think it is kind of hard to dispute the logic in my last post. We can talk about the picayune if you want, but pitchers get worse at age 32. YOu know this. Everyone knows this. And to assume Darvish is going to be a special pitcher the next four years isn't sound, in my opinion. He would need to actually be better AFTER the age of the 32 for a deal of five or six years to make any sense at all.

We don't agree on what makes sense..... Of course he is likely to get worse. But the alternative is even worse, not spending money and not having a good team. But hey, at least the owners will have more money! If you refuse to use one of the avenues to get better, you needed to be ridicoulosly awesome at the other avenues. Otherwise it is all about money, and not winning. I don't get fans who care about money for owners more than winning.

[ewen21]

I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind how anyone knows Darvish will be as good as he was the last five years (good, not great) rather becoming than steadily worse like every other pitcher since the history of time from age 32-36.

 

Are we actually assuming Darvish will pitch more innings in the next five years than he has the last five years?  If so, someone needs to explain that to me.  Forget the reality of talent erosion,  What about that?

[ewen21]

 

We don't agree on what makes sense..... Of course he is likely to get worse. But the alternative is even worse, not spending money and not having a good team. But hey, at least the owners will have more money! If you refuse to use one of the avenues to get better, you needed to be ridicoulosly awesome at the other avenues. Otherwise it is all about money, and not winning. I don't get fans who care about money for owners more than winning.

 

He isn't likely to get worse.  He will get worse.

 

As far as spending money goes, I am willing to let Darvish watch from the sidelines during spring training and delve into the free agent market next year.  Possibly make a move during the season.  Darvish just makes no sense to me.  None at all.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Just seems weird, why would the team leak that over a month later when they couldn't actually sign him? Darvish didn't leak it, he actually denied the report.

I'm guessing the Yankee broadcaster who reported it had the same source as Dave last winter.

Yankees make initial 7/160 offer to Darvish in November but keep it quiet. Darvish does not respond. Yankees then land Stanton in December and abandon Darvish negotiations. Skip forward to January. Darvish starts getting diva-ish or anxious, says no one is making him offers (or words to that effect). Reporters get curious. Reporter asks Yankees source "have you made Darvish an offer?" Yankees source replies "yes we offered him 7/160 and gave him 48 hours." News site runs report.

 

What's so hard to believe about that?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind how anyone knows Darvish will be as good as he was the last five years (good, not great) rather becoming than steadily worse like every other pitcher since the history of time from age 32-36.

 

Are we actually assuming Darvish will pitch more innings in the next five years than he has the last five years?  If so, someone needs to explain that to me.  Forget the reality of talent erosion,  What about that?

He had a poorly timed TJ

 

it was discussed upthread

[PseudoSABR]

Where's the report on this initial Yankee offer of 7/160?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Where's the report on this initial Yankee offer of 7/160?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/yu-darvish-refutes-report-yankees-offered-long-term-deal-article-1.3753563

[Otto von Ballpark]

Reading the last couple of pages, it seems more and more about pretending that projections are reality and talking about merits of various metrics than it is the player himself. That to me makes little sense unless the player is a very proven and consistent player who is durable. Darvish is not any of that. His innings pitched the last four seasons are as follows:

144.1

-0-

100.1

186.2

And he is entering his 32 year old season. Does this matter at all to anyone? Take a look at the league and study the pitchers who are 32 and above. Go look at guys who were ELITE and CY YOUNG winners or CY YOUNG caliber. Look at CC Sabathia, Adam Wainright, Zach Grienke, Justin Verlander, etc....ALL OF THEM had precipitous declines at age 32. ALL OF THEM. Darvish has nowhere near the record of success, the pedigree or any other indicator you want to compare next to what those guys did from age 26 to 30. What the heck is it about Darvish that makes anyone believe he is going to be the rare exception?

 

I see people want to sign this guy for 5 or 6 years in the neighborhood of 150/160. I see people saying, "why should anyone care about how they spend money". Well, I could not disagree more, with this particular player. Signing free agent starting pitching to long term deals when the player is already into their 30s rarely works out these days.

 

To put it bluntly, I don't like Darvish. He stated very clearly during the WBC in '09 that he had no intention of playing in the majors. Then, a few years later, he is a major leaguer. Fair or not, I also don't like what went down in the post season. That right there spoke volumes to me. I don't want him on this team. My bias aside (I will admit I do not like him) he will not make us THAT much better and there is a good chance he ends up on the shelf or simply going into a decline. To project a major league a major league pitcher with only just over 800 innings major league experience four and five years forward starting at his age 32 season makes so sense to me. None at all.

 

I understand statistics and how most of these metrics are derived, but in the case of Darvish and starting pitching in general, when we are talking about guys entering their age 32 season, those projections are shaky at best. I would say it's 50/50 Darvish is in Japan by age 35.

 

As I speak to fellow Twins fans on this matter, it seems to be more about making a splash in the market than it is making sense. No way on God's green earth do the Twins sign Darvish. At least if they are smart. I don't want a "show me you care" move just to do it. It has to make sense and to me this does not.

 

Sorry.

A lot to unpack here.

 

First, Darvish is entering his "age 31" season as commonly define (his birthday is after July 1st). Now, if you want to parse the 6 month difference between Darvish's and Verlander's birth dates, go ahead, but you'd be assuming a lot of precision on those 6 months for someone who doesn't even accept common projection systems as meaningful.

 

Even so, Greinke posted a 9.3 WAR in his age-31 season, and 6.0 in his age-33 season. Verlander posted 6.6 WAR at age 33 and 6.3 at 34. And you are citing them as examples why NOT to sign Darvish?

 

Also, you "don't like" Darvish because he changed his mind about a career decision between age 22 and 25? And his 2017 postseason, which featured 2 outstanding starts in the DS and CS before 2 poor ones in the WS? The Twins should be so lucky as to have the opportunity to see Darvish's poor starts in the WS.