The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

Yes, the AAV are averaged. But, you're still only on the hook for the prorated portion of that seasons adjusted AAV.

In your example, the original team would be on the hook for roughly 10m, and the new team 5m, for that season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Spycake is killing it in these Darvish threads.

[Squirrel]

 

Spycake is killing it in these Darvish threads.

Concur

[Otto von Ballpark]

Spycake is killing it in these Darvish threads.

I hope he never signs!

[PseudoSABR]

 

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

Thanks.  But doesn't that report that the 7/160 terms were not "correct"? So we don't know what they offered, unless I'm missing something.

 

Darvish took to Twitter again later Friday to clarify that they had — just not at the reported contract terms: seven years and $160 million, as Michael Kay said on his ESPN radio show Thursday.

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

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?

 

If anyone has rationale behind "knowing" Darvish will be as good... you wouldn't be able to take it seriously. 

 

If anyone has rationale behind "knowing" that Darvish will not be as good... you wouldn't be able to take it seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewen21]

 

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.

He turns 32 during the season.  You want to say I didn't get it right according to "commonly accepted protocols" then you got me.  But what difference does that really make?  You got to correct a detail but you lose the forest for the trees.  I parsed nothing.  Everything I said still stands.  Darvish on his best day isn't Zach Grienke or Verlander by any standard.  VErlander and Grienke are still effective pitchers, but nothing like they declined as all other pitchers do when you extend out the timeline far enough.  

 

And YES.  I do not like Darvish.  Don't like his "makeup" and I trust him.

It could be for reasons that appear completely arbitrary to you, but I will not get into attacking him right now.  Not fan.  SImple as that

 

If you want to go WAR on me then Darvish has not had a WAR over 4.0 since 2013.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Thanks. But doesn't that report that the 7/160 terms were not "correct"? So we don't know what they offered, unless I'm missing something.

True, according to Darvish the terms weren't "correct." No we don't know exactly what the offer was--if a strict offer even existed. The existence of a 7/160 "offer" from the Yankees at one point just seems very believable to me.

[ewen21]

 

If anyone has rationale behind "knowing" Darvish will be as good... you wouldn't be able to take it seriously. 

 

If anyone has rationale behind "knowing" that Darvish will not be as good... you wouldn't be able to take it seriously. 

 

Very compelling stuff.

[Otto von Ballpark]

He turns 32 during the season. You want to say I didn't get it right according to "commonly accepted protocols" then you got me. But what difference does that really make? You got to correct a detail but you lose the forest for the trees. I parsed nothing. Everything I said still stands. Darvish on his best day isn't Zach Grienke or Verlander by any standard. VErlander and Grienke are still effective pitchers, but nothing like they declined as all other pitchers do when you extend out the timeline far enough.

If you want to get that picky about "age 32", shouldn't you assume that Darvish will be good until August?

[Riverbrian]

 

Very compelling stuff.

 

Thank You 

 

I try 

 

Actually... I will expand this post. You are trying to get someone to take the bait that someone will produce some kind of proof that they "Know" Darvish will be better and when they do that... they will be immediately marginalized because how could anybody know. You don't know either. 

 

Darvish could get hurt on the 1st pitch of the 1st spring training and be done for the rest of his career. Darvish could below average for the entire length of contract. It is a legit concern for any contract offer. 

 

You are clearly in the don't sign him camp and that is a respectable opinion. There are some of us who are in the sign him camp and there are some of us in the sign him camp that realize that it could all go terribly wrong and still willing to roll the dice. 

 

My response was my way saying... I'm hoping nobody takes the bait that you just flung out there.   

 

 

 

 

[ewen21]

 

If you want to get that picky about "age 32", shouldn't you assume that Darvish will be good until August?

 

Actually, I wasn't the one getting all technical with the "age 31" stuff.  I guess you needed to be right about something and you were there.  I did not assign the proper nomenclature to my thoughts.  Never the less, my take cannot be disputed.  Darvish will be signed at a time in his career where his skills are almost guaranteed to diminish by his second contract year.  Even worse, the guy is not that great to begin with for all the attention he is getting.

 

You want Darvish.  I get it.

I don't and you get that.

 

This is OK. 

[ewen21]

 

Thank You 

 

I try 

 

Actually... I will expand this post. You are trying to get someone to take the bait that someone will produce some kind of proof that they "Know" Darvish will be better and when they do that... they will be immediately marginalized because how could anybody know. You don't know either. 

 

 

I am presenting my case.  If it looks like I presented it in some way where no one can dispute something that is a fact and not actually a claim I have made then maybe I am making some sense coming in on the other side of this issue.  Also, for you to say I don't know that he won't get better is simplistic at best.  This is like me saying, "Well, it is September 25th.  Looks like the end of the hot weather" and then you telling me "how do you know that?"

 

Seems like almost everyone is in agreement here.  The title says the "Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price" and I don't agree for many reason, but the MAIN REASON, the REAL REASON is the ridiculous terms he is looking for AND the FACT that no one remains effective when you move the timeline out far enough.  He is almost at that point on the timeline where the decline is going to start.  It is inevitable and impossible to avoid.  Please don't ask me how I know that.

[prouster]

 

I parsed nothing. 

 

Well, you said it yourself.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you want to go WAR on me then Darvish has not had a WAR over 4.0 since 2013.

Is it your position that TJ surgery is a chronic condition? Because that's the only reason Darvish didn't exceed 4.0 WAR from 2014-2016 (he pitched to about a 4.5 WAR full season pace in both 2014 and 2016). And his first full season back was 3.9 in 2017, with no loss in velocity. (I'd also caution against reading into the 3.9 as a meaningful drop from 4.5, because players are not robots and some variation in performance is to be expected.)

 

Past TJ surgery is obviously a consideration, but it isn't right to simply treat the time lost to the surgery as equivalent to, say, Hughes' shoulder, or Shannon Stewart's plantar fasciitis, etc.

 

No one has a crystal ball, but with the TJ surgery in the rear view mirror, Darvish seems like a decent bet to post around 4.0 WAR in 2018 -- that's where ZiPS and Streamer both have him -- which would be about the 20th best SP performance in MLB. That seems like it would be pretty valuable to a Twins team whose current depth chart at MLB.com features Gibson, Mejia, AND Hughes ALL in the top 5.

 

From there, the standard pitcher aging curve is estimated to be -0.8 WAR per season, so our best-guess projection today still suggests Darvish being pretty good in 2019 and useful in 2020 too (when hopefully some of our SP prospects are ready to shine).

 

And that's without any terribly favorable assumptions -- that's just a median projection. The Twins wouldn't be ponying up $160 mil or whatever to lock in that performance, but rather to get X% chance of that, plus Y% chance of him being better than that, and yes, Z% chance of him being worse. There's always risk involved, but given we have the cash resources available and no better alternatives where to invest it, I prefer to take that risk on Darvish, rather than save a few bucks with no place to spend them and face a greater risk of our suspect SP corps sinking our 2018-2019 seasons.

[mazeville]

 

The sixth year is more than questionable. It's a bad idea.

 

But it's a bad idea I'd float out there if it meant Darvish was a Twin for the first 3-4 years of that contract.

 

Sometimes, you bite the bullet and offer more than you want but my personal pain threshold stops at six years.

 

I agree. I just think the Twins should take the risk, even if six years (seven is too much IMO ... six years also too much but not enough of a too much for me to say no). 

 

The Twins should just do it. Offer him 6/$160 and see if that gets it done and if it doesn't, quietly reveal that information to a reporter so people know that some big offers are being made. If Yu Darvish turns down a six-year deal then he's the problem.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Actually, I wasn't the one getting all technical with the "age 31" stuff.

Actually, your original claim about age 32 felt overly "technical", to me. There is nothing special about age 32, or age 31, or age 33. In the aggregate, they are just points on a gradually declining aging curve. A pitcher is more likely to decline than improve in those seasons, but anecdotal evidence of individual pitchers having precipitous declines at a particular age overstates it. The aggregate decline, our best guess projection at this point, is about -0.8 WAR per year for pitchers in their early 30's.

 

Of course, the fact that 2 of your "age 32 decline" examples had fantastic seasons at age 33-34 highlights just how much this can vary on an individual basis. There is a non-trivial chance that Darvish doesn't decline every year, a chance which should be reflected in any contract offer. Such a result wouldn't contradict history, or break aging curves, or anything like that -- he is just one data point out of many.

 

Bottom line, the best we can generally do, as fans, is project the median decline and ask ourselves, "are we comfortable with that, with a chance to be better, plus a risk of being worse?" Given the position of the 2018 Twins and the alternatives, my answer is yes. Yours is no, which is fine, but I'd be curious if you have an alternate plan to improve the 2018-2019 Twins staff (and if you've considered the risks associated with it).

[Riverbrian]

 

I am presenting my case.  If it looks like I presented it in some way where no one can dispute something that is a fact and not actually a claim I have made then maybe I am making some sense coming in on the other side of this issue.  Also, for you to say I don't know that he won't get better is simplistic at best.  This is like me saying, "Well, it is September 25th.  Looks like the end of the hot weather" and then you telling me "how do you know that?"

 

Seems like almost everyone is in agreement here.  The title says the "Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price" and I don't agree for many reason, but the MAIN REASON, the REAL REASON is the ridiculous terms he is looking for AND the FACT that no one remains effective when you move the timeline out far enough.  He is almost at that point on the timeline where the decline is going to start.  It is inevitable and impossible to avoid.  Please don't ask me how I know that.

 

Well Good... We are in agreement that it is indeed "Complicated". 

 

1. Do you want Darvish at all? Are you saying that you wouldn't want Darvish no matter if the price was 1 year at 1M? 

 

2. If the answer to "1." is "I wouldn't want Darvish at all" that becomes a different discussion and people are going to crawl out of the woodwork ready for that simple discussion.

 

3. If the answer to "1." is I would take him at 1 year/1M... we have now established wiggle room and the discussion gets much more complicated. 

 

Once we know that you are either "2." or "3." it will help us get to the crux of your issue and a whole new complicated discussion will avail itself.  

 

If you are willing to pay 1 year at 1 million and knowing that he is sure to get a larger offer. The complication becomes how much would you pay? Once you have a price set in your mind that you would be comfortable with. The market conditions are going to either surpass that number or they don't. If the market surpasses the number you are willing to pay... you will have to decide if you want the player. You seem to have decided that you don't want the player but is there a number where Darvish makes sense?  

 

Once the market conditions reveal themselves. You are back to the question... Do you want him at all or is there a more sensible choice out there. If you believe that Cobb makes more sense... then you are back to putting together a term of contract you are comfortable with for Cobb instead of Darvish but if the market surpasses what you are comfortable paying... are you willing to go higher to get the guy that you want?

 

What if the Cobb Market is close to the Darvish Market? Are you now out completely? 

 

There is a ton of complication to navigate. You haven't made your case. 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There is a non-trivial chance that Darvish doesn't decline every year, a chance which should be reflected in any contract offer. Such a result wouldn't contradict history, or break aging curves, or anything like that -- he is just one data point out of many.

I wouldn't even say it's a non-trivial chance, I'd say it's likely.

 

Torii Hunter posted a career high in WAR during his age 36 season. Betcha we all would have lost a bet had we been asked about Hunter's best season without BR or FG handy.

 

As you mentioned, Verlander had a career revival in his age 33 season.

 

Good players, if they stick in the league, often don't gradually decline, they jerk up and down season-over-season, but only after several seasons can you spot the overall trend of their decline.

 

But there's a good chance that mixed into that decline, you'll get a couple of well above average seasons, if not a career-best if you're really lucky.

[Squirrel]

 

I agree. I just think the Twins should take the risk, even if six years (seven is too much IMO ... six years also too much but not enough of a too much for me to say no). 

 

The Twins should just do it. Offer him 6/$160 and see if that gets it done and if it doesn't, quietly reveal that information to a reporter so people know that some big offers are being made. If Yu Darvish turns down a six-year deal then he's the problem.

I already think he is the problem. I think he wants the Yankees or Dodgers to pony up and is disappointed that the market isn't bearing that out for him. He's seen some of the contracts of the recent past and wants his, too. While I believe he will be the front-end starter we need, and that he is very good, better than most, I wouldn't put him in the same elite upper echelons category of Kershaw. He seems to want a Kershaw (or closer to it) contract and he's not going to get it. There aren't many teams who can afford to give out those kinds of contracts and he's stuck in an off-season where he's getting the best of what's left. I have no real idea anymore what's fair or not with these salaries, but I do think the Twins offered what they could and what was smart and what was fair, but I think Darvish is disappointed and is still hoping something 'better' comes through. Will he sit out part of the season waiting? What will happen to all those quality players still unsigned? I think something has to fall. I think it's still a possibility Darvish will sign with the Twins ... but at what cost to us, and I'm not thinking monetary cost. I'm thinking attitude. I'm not sure I want him at this point.

 

This off-season has made me crabby.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Will he sit out part of the season waiting?

He'd have to be a damned fool to let that happen. If he sits out, he gets partial money for a partial season AFTER most teams have committed their budgets to other players (meaning a one year deal for Darvish would easily net him $25m+ right now and maybe a prorated $15-17m in two months, which would net Darvish maybe $10-12m for the 2018 season). Under that scenario, he literally gives away $10-15m.

 

To add to that, it means Darvish has to re-enter next offseason with a partial season under his belt at one year older age.

 

Outside of Clemens' weird retirement-not-retirement, has holding out EVER worked for a player, either in free agency or the draft?

[Squirrel]

He'd have to be a damned fool to let that happen. If he sits out, he gets partial money for a partial season AFTER most teams have committed their budgets to other players (meaning a one year deal for Darvish would easily net him $25m+ right now and maybe a prorated $15-17m in two months, which would net Darvish maybe $10-12m for the 2018 season). Under that scenario, he literally gives away $10-15m.

 

To add to that, it means Darvish has to re-enter next offseason with a partial season under his belt at one year older age.

 

Outside of Clemens' weird retirement-not-retirement, has holding out EVER worked for a player, either in free agency or the draft?

Yeah, I wasn’t really asking a serious question. More trying to suggest ... he doesn’t really have the options he wants and he’s going to have to choose between the rock and the hard place.

 

And I’m still not sure I want that person on my team, the one making a sort of disgruntled choice. But we’ll see.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, I wasn’t really asking a serious question. More trying to suggest ... he doesn’t really have the options he wants and he’s going to have to choose between the rock and the hard place.

And I’m still not sure I want that person on my team, the one making a sort of disgruntled choice. But we’ll see.

Eh, I don't know if it's a disgruntled choice as much as it's a preference to get the best situation possible.

 

Wouldn't we all do the same? I doubt he's going to have a real attitude problem about being paid $150m+ to play baseball.

 

From what I've seen of the guy - and it's not much - he doesn't seem to be that type of character. He just wants to get the best deal for himself in the area he most desires, just as most of us would do in the same situation. He has a ton of bargaining power and he may as well use it.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Question for spycake, who I agree is killing it on these threads:

 

Why are you using 0.8 decline per year? I thought that the typical figure to use when calculating decline was 0.5 per year?

 

For ewen21, you argue that the Twins shouldn’t sign Darvish because he will decline in years 32-36 (which is really 31-35, but whatever). That decline is always factored in to free agent contracts.

 

If Darvish is a 4WAR pitcher now, he is assumed to produce 4+3.5+3+2.5+2 over the next five years, or 15 WAR. I guess the current value per WAR is 10/per, meaning 5/150 would be the going rate for a contract for a player of Darvish’ caliber.

 

It’s fine to say you don’t think the Twins should sign a top free agent, but it’s widely acknowledged and accepted that they will decline during their contract.

 

He’s be an upgrade for the Twins rotation, though, during their window of competitiveness, so I’m in favor of them signing him. I’m still sticking with 5/125.

 

Oh, and by the way, Ervin Santana’s posted an ERA+ of 127 in his years 32-34 with the Twins, while his career average is 103. In the last three years, the Twins have had three Sp seasons over 2WAR; Gibson in 2015 and Ervin the last two years. If Yu even posts 3WAR for next 2-3 years, which he clearly has the potential to top, he represents a significant upgrade to the rotation.

[Mr. Brooks]

Question for spycake, who I agree is killing it on these threads:

 

Why are you using 0.8 decline per year? I thought that the typical figure to use when calculating decline was 0.5 per year?

 

For ewen21, you argue that the Twins shouldn’t sign Darvish because he will decline in years 32-36 (which is really 31-35, but whatever). That decline is always factored in to free agent contracts.

 

If Darvish is a 4WAR pitcher now, he is assumed to produce 4+3.5+3+2.5+2 over the next five years, or 15 WAR. I guess the current value per WAR is 10/per, meaning 5/150 would be the going rate for a contract for a player of Darvish’ caliber.

 

It’s fine to say you don’t think the Twins should sign a top free agent, but it’s widely acknowledged and accepted that they will decline during their contract.

 

He’s be an upgrade for the Twins rotation, though, during their window of competitiveness, so I’m in favor of them signing him. I’m still sticking with 5/125.

 

Oh, and by the way, Ervin Santana’s posted an ERA+ of 127 in his years 32-34 with the Twins, while his career average is 103.

Spycake previously posted that he adjusted it to 0.8, because pitchers tend to decline more severely than position players.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Question for spycake, who I agree is killing it on these threads:

 

Why are you using 0.8 decline per year? I thought that the typical figure to use when calculating decline was 0.5 per year?

I read another analyst who used 0.8 for pitchers:

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2015/01/08/whats-he-really-worth-max-scherzer

 

Although the same analyst now uses WARcel, based on Marcel, which only assumes 0.4:

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/11/yu-darvish-free-agency-value

[ewen21]

 

Question for spycake, who I agree is killing it on these threads:

Why are you using 0.8 decline per year? I thought that the typical figure to use when calculating decline was 0.5 per year?

For ewen21, you argue that the Twins shouldn’t sign Darvish because he will decline in years 32-36 (which is really 31-35, but whatever). That decline is always factored in to free agent contracts.

If Darvish is a 4WAR pitcher now, he is assumed to produce 4+3.5+3+2.5+2 over the next five years, or 15 WAR. I guess the current value per WAR is 10/per, meaning 5/150 would be the going rate for a contract for a player of Darvish’ caliber.

It’s fine to say you don’t think the Twins should sign a top free agent, but it’s widely acknowledged and accepted that they will decline during their contract.

He’s be an upgrade for the Twins rotation, though, during their window of competitiveness, so I’m in favor of them signing him. I’m still sticking with 5/125.

Oh, and by the way, Ervin Santana’s posted an ERA+ of 127 in his years 32-34 with the Twins, while his career average is 103. In the last three years, the Twins have had three Sp seasons over 2WAR; Gibson in 2015 and Ervin the last two years. If Yu even posts 3WAR for next 2-3 years, which he clearly has the potential to top, he represents a significant upgrade to the rotation.

Thanks for your response and question.

 

Let me first say that I do not like the practice of signing free agent starting pitching in almost every single case.  Seems to me you pay for what the guy has done and not for what he is going to do.  Very counter-intuitive mindset, but not the right mindset.  One of the only times I can justify the outrageous terms pitchers have gotten is if it is to obtain someone that is a final piece to the puzzle on a team in serious contention.  Also, if we are going to consider Darvish as being a guy who will get us over the hump we must consider his post-season meltdown.  A "get us over the hump" guy is the kind of guy with some post-season/big game pedigree.  Tell me it is a small sample size, but can we not glean ANYTHING from that?  Was he not uncomfortable to watch?  Given the extra motivation of putting it to the Astros and Guerriel the guy really retreated horribly.  He did not look like he wanted to be there.  We can talk of "tipping pitches" and that being "fixable", but under those circumstances, and on that stage, I want better than that.  Tipping pitches in that situation really isn't an acceptable excuse.  He is a veteran pitcher in a big game and that is not a valid explanation.  It shows a lack of professionalism and a lack of poise, in my opinion.  

 

As far as his age is concerned, a decline is inevitable.  That isn't a claim or an opinion.  That is a fact.  Given where he has been these last four seasons and how little he has pitched, the kind of decline is even harder to predict.  I see WAR projections being pasted up here and I shake my head.  It is not like he is a Verlander, Wainwright or a Sabathia.  All of these guys were workhorse pitchers and showed a decline from 32 to 33. Darvish is not projectable, in my opinion.  Many pitchers are way too hard to project and a guy with Darvish's track record isn't even worth projecting.  Take a look at the horses before him:  Verlander hit a deep valley and now he has come back, which is an anomaly.  Adam Wainwright had TJ like Darvish has and the timeline is very similar.  He had strong seasons at 31 and 32 and has been middle of the road since.  Sabathia cratered at 32.  John Lackey had TJ and is still going at 38, but he has not been a number one starter in almost ten years.  And finally....and sadly....Johan Santana.  Gone at 32.  I am not making stuff up and I am not trying to be a naysayer.  I am just sticking with the facts history presents. Since all this Darvish talk began I have been scanning my mind to find guys who came to a team as a free agent (at age 31) and assumed the role of ace after not pitching 200 innings for a number of years.  I can't find one.

 

In short, I cannot understand why we should take a "let's get THIS PLAYER at any cost" mentality.  What is so exceptional about him that makes him any different from other guys before him?  With that performance during the World Series and this performance during the off season he is starting to remind me more of Daisuke Matsuzaka than Verlander, Wainwright, or Grienke.  Darvish to me seems like a guy who wants to make a killing and then get out.  I don't trust him at all.  Personal biases I might have aside, as a practice, I do not throw money at FA starting pitching unless my team is a world series contender. This team is not that.

 

Not sure what is so radical about what I have said.  

[ewen21]

 

Eh, I don't know if it's a disgruntled choice as much as it's a preference to get the best situation possible.

 

Wouldn't we all do the same? I doubt he's going to have a real attitude problem about being paid $150m+ to play baseball.

 

From what I've seen of the guy - and it's not much - he doesn't seem to be that type of character. He just wants to get the best deal for himself in the area he most desires, just as most of us would do in the same situation. He has a ton of bargaining power and he may as well use it.

 

Why would we all do the same?  Not everyone has an unrealistic view of their worth.  It was reported by Yankee reporter Michael Kay that Darvish received a 7 year 160 offer after Darvish said he got no offer.  Then Darvish took to Twitter to say he got an offer, but those terms were not right.

 

There is a lot of weirdness around this guy.  Tough to reach, tough to communicate with effectively and I am unsure he is being truthful as far as the Yankees offer.  If the offer was anything close to what Kay reported then Darvish is delusional.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I agree. I just think the Twins should take the risk, even if six years (seven is too much IMO ... six years also too much but not enough of a too much for me to say no).

 

The Twins should just do it. Offer him 6/$160 and see if that gets it done and if it doesn't, quietly reveal that information to a reporter so people know that some big offers are being made. If Yu Darvish turns down a six-year deal then he's the problem.

Seems like the TWins might currently be high offer.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/latest-on-brewers-search-for-a-starter.html

 

Looks like Darvish is holding out for a big player like the Cubs or Yankees to clear space and start a bidding war.

 

Why would the Twins up their own ante? Just wait it out.

[ewen21]

I want to apologize for the lack of a space bar in the last two posts.  Something with this new keyboard.