Article: Why The Twins May Opt For Short-Term SP Commitment

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Sure, under normal circumstances I would agree but he's one of four pitchers still unsigned on February 2nd and it appears he's not getting much in the way of interest.

 

Taking a one year deal would probably get him snatched up immediately and he could try again next year under more favorable circumstances.

 

I'm not sure how "more favorable" is going to work though. There's also some really big FA names out there, namely guys like Kershaw, Harper, and Price. I don't see the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs et al going and signing 2+ 150M contracts to get all the big names and then ink guys like Darvish/Arietta if they were back on the market...

 

I think there's a new normal starting to take place here. Lots of 1 year deals would likely make said new normal very much a reality for anyone not elite going into their 30s. I'm not sure I'd call it collusion, as some would suggest. But team's revenues are capping and baseball's viewership is aging. More teams are being smart with their money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not sure how "more favorable" is going to work though. There's also some really big FA names out there, namely guys like Kershaw, Harper, and Price. I don't see the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs et al going and signing 2+ 150M contracts to get all the big names and then ink guys like Darvish/Arietta if they were back on the market...

 

I think there's a new normal starting to take place here. Lots of 1 year deals would likely make said new normal very much a reality for anyone not elite going into their 30s. I'm not sure I'd call it collusion, as some would suggest. But team's revenues are capping and baseball's viewership is aging. More teams are being smart with their money.

Well, Arrieta has the added problem of coming off a down year, which is why I'm suggesting he consider taking a one-year deal and nobody else.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Only the Packers in Green Bay are a social contract.

no that’s a contractual contract with the public.

[Platoon]

Sigh... I hoped this off-season would be different. Every year they wait is another year overlapping the time when Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Berrios, etc. need to get paid.

If the Twins can't compete for the best FA SP in a year where every large market org sits out for financial reasons, what makes people think they can compete next off-season when their luxury tax penalties are reset?

If this same old same old approach doesn't change we are destined to be the poster boys of: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Sadly I think we are well past twice.

[wabene]

A 7-year commitment for a 32 year-old who's only going to work 1/5 days? Oh, and he wants $175M? Anyone who still thinks signing Yu Darvish is a good idea for this team better have never said an ill-word about Joe Mauer or his contract. Darvish is a nightmare. I hope the front office realizes that and stays far away.

Here ya go. I could see signing Darvish for 4 years but that's it and that's not going to happen. The comment where there was a complaint that if we don't compete for top FA in a year when the big spenders are idle we never will misses it for me. Look at the Hughes extension, how's that working out? I would think four years is always dangerous and always the absolute max on pitcher contracts for me. We really could be seeing a change though. Some baseball contracts are absolutely ridiculous with the pitcher deals being the worst. If things do start moving in the other direction, it could maybe be called collusion but never the less it would be good for baseball. Alright alright if the 5 for 125 ish thing is available I would sign Darvish!

Edited February 3, 2018 by Original Whizzinator

[terrydactyls]

no that’s a contractual contract with the public.

But probably the closest thing to a "social" contract that exists, don't you think?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here ya go. I could see signing Darvish for 4 years but that's it and that's not going to happen. The comment where there was a complaint that if we don't compete for top FA in a year when the big spenders are idle we never will misses it for me. Look at the Hughes extension, how's that working out?

The Hughes extension is working out poorly concerning Hughes specifically -- but it has barely been a speed bump for the team as a whole. We still made the postseason last year, and we still have enough payroll space to add Darvish this winter if we want and still more space next winter. (And insurance might be covering a portion of Hughes' contract too.)

 

Keep in mind, Hughes was never a top FA. The problem with his extension was that we were so afraid of bidding on top FA that we actually tore up Hughes's remaining 2/16 contract and replaced it with 5/58 -- essentially bidding against ourselves! -- on the basis of one good (but not great) year, after a string of mediocre ones. I think the lesson from that might be, putzing around with the likes of Hughes and Nolasco and Ervin isn't necessarily any safer or better from a risk perspective than aiming high (and might be worse from a reward perspective).

[Riverbrian]

 

The Hughes extension is working out poorly concerning Hughes specifically -- but it has barely been a speed bump for the team as a whole. We still made the postseason last year, and we still have enough payroll space to add Darvish this winter if we want and still more space next winter. (And insurance might be covering a portion of Hughes' contract too.)

Keep in mind, Hughes was never a top FA. The problem with his extension was that we were so afraid of bidding on top FA that we actually tore up Hughes's remaining 2/16 contract and replaced it with 5/58 -- essentially bidding against ourselves! -- on the basis of one good (but not great) year, after a string of mediocre ones. I think the lesson from that might be, putzing around with the likes of Hughes and Nolasco and Ervin isn't necessarily any safer or better from a risk perspective than aiming high (and might be worse from a reward perspective).

 

(High Five)

[Mike Sixel]

We'll see. The thing about make-good deals is that sometimes people make good.

And then they will be a year older, and if they made good, you'll have to sign them to s long term deal. Why would the team be good doing that, but not signing someone to a long term deal this year?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Obviously it's better to develop an ace than to sign one. But that's not really the choice here -- it's sign an ace*** or go without one indefinitely. Plenty of teams choose to do the latter, but given the position we are in, with the rest of our roster, and our payroll room now and in the future, I would rather not be one of those teams.

 

*** and before anybody quibbles with calling Darvish an "ace", he was a top 20 SP in MLB last year, is apparently fully healthy, only 31 years old, and projected to be a top 20 SP in 2018 by Steamer and ZiPS. And if your definition of "ace" is so narrow as to exclude him, the odds of the Twins developing are even more remote too.

[twinssporto]

 

Initially, I was excited about Darvish but seriously doubted he'd actually end up in Minnesota, the closer we get to ST, the more I'm thinking the possibility is real. (And that possibility really should put a lot of the "Pohlad's are so cheap" stuff to bed-IMO) If you read between the lines and various opinions, as there is no definitive proof, it sure seems the Twins have the best offer on the table. Somewhere in the 5 years and $25-28M per area. Sure seems the Yankees and Dodgers are out for financial reasons now, and going forward. Darvish and his agent may not like their situation, but we are still talking 5 guaranteed years and a ton of money and security. I almost wonder if he and his team are thinking about a 1 year deal? Personally, as good as he is, I think that's a big risk.

Read about an agent, I forget who, that is being outspoken for this market and is alluding to collusion. I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. With mid range payrolls being in the $150M range, and "power clubs" climbing in to the $190+ range, I just don't buy it. I think teams are just becoming a little smarter about some of these huge and long term deals we've seen the past few season's.

I believe in Santana, even if he regressed a bit. There is a great article over at Puckettspond by Benjamin Chase that examines numbers while with the Twins, and where he has ranked in MLB during that time. It's interesting and impressive. I strongly believe Berrios is only going to get better. Mejia is young and talented. Gibson may or may not have turned a corner, but, he worked hard to change a lot of things. It seemed his approach/attitude on the mound was very different the second half of 2017. He's a bit of a wildcard, but I wouldn't get against him just yet. May IS a bit of a wildcard due to his injury, but the stuff and potential are there, he was looking really good before his injury. How quickly can he come back? And, of course there is a very reasonable chance that by the second half of 2018 we are seeing the early performances of Gonsalves, Romero, Littrell and maybe one or two more.

This team really, really needs Darvish. A lesser, but still good arm, STILL moves the needle. But the way the market is shifting, it seems no-one is going to get the contract they want. It could indeed be a year for a 1 year deal opportunity. (Nothing says the Twins couldn't re-sign said pitcher). Arrieta may be risky, but the best choice, and possibly the most likely of the top arms to do so. After him, it's kind of a crap shoot. Cahill is only 29, but his first half of 2017 was the best he's looked in some time. Vargas had good years, and a great first half, but is 35. Did he tire the second half or pitch through injury? Or is just toast?

I like the idea, I get the idea, and it could be smart and pay off. At least for the 1 year. I'm just not sure I like most of the options unless one of the "second tier" of Arrieta, Lynn or Cobb is willing to go this route.

Totally agree with this assessment.  If Darvish can't find a home with a 6 or 7 year contract sit the year out or take another deal with fewer years.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

But probably the closest thing to a "social" contract that exists, don't you think?

every sports franchise has a social contract with the public, because of the public funding they receive.

 

There is no direct monetary gain ever proven through building stadiums. The Metrodome was evidence. However sports provide some kind of desirable attributes to a community. People like to live in communities and root for their home team, so the public builds stadiums.

 

The implication is the public buys the stadium to get a good sports product, to expand the tax base.

 

Social contracts are implied contracts. The Packers are publicly owned. It’s not implied, there’s actual ownership.

[terrydactyls]

every sports franchise has a social contract with the public, because of the public funding they receive.

There is no direct monetary gain ever proven through building stadiums. The Metrodome was evidence. However sports provide some kind of desirable attributes to a community. People like to live in communities and root for their home team, so the public builds stadiums.

The implication is the public buys the stadium to get a good sports product, to expand the tax base.

Social contracts are implied contracts. The Packers are publicly owned. It’s not implied, there’s actual ownership.

I think you could find many economists who would disageree that there is no monetary gain from having professional sports teams. Tourism brings in revenues and tax dollars, provides jobs (not just at stadiums), and a qualtity of life that induces people to move to the area. When I litved in Austin Texas, the city (and state) gave major tax breaks to companies in an effort to get them to move to Austin. I never heard that there was an implied social contract with them in return for the millions of dollars given to them (and there was no interest in them from the public as there is with sports teams). If there is any(and playing sofrt of implied social contract, I think it s mostly on the public side and not the sports entity. It is the responsibility of the sports entity to remain financially viable in order to continue existing (and playing in the partially public-financed stadiums) rather than spend money wildly to satisfy a group of fans.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I think you could find many economists who would disageree that there is no monetary gain from having professional sports teams. Tourism brings in revenues and tax dollars, provides jobs (not just at stadiums), and a qualtity of life that induces people to move to the area. When I litved in Austin Texas, the city (and state) gave major tax breaks to companies in an effort to get them to move to Austin. I never heard that there was an implied social contract with them in return for the millions of dollars given to them (and there was no interest in them from the public as there is with sports teams). If there is any(and playing sofrt of implied social contract, I think it s mostly on the public side and not the sports entity. It is the responsibility of the sports entity to remain financially viable in order to continue existing (and playing in the partially public-financed stadiums) rather than spend money wildly to satisfy a group of fans.

This is way off subject, but i’ll try to circle back around to the topic...

 

theres indirect monetary gain. People like sports and choose to live where there’s pro sports. The gains are real, just not directly related to the building.

 

Direct public monetary gain is minimal. Sports franchises pay very little taxes compared to the gain they get from the publicly funded stadiums. Sports complexes create very few high paying jobs for non athletes, sports complexes create very few new small businesses. New bars and restaurants don’t open around ballparks, existing ones relocate, if at all.

 

All of this to say the public expects a return on investment. The team gets a huge direct windfall from the public, and in return the public gets very little in directly returned tax revenue. The public expects a more competitive team to make the area more desirable to make the indirect return more impactful. Hence the social contract. It’s all implied.

 

My implication is, so far the Twins have not lived up to their side of the bargain. It’s time to change that.

 

Go get Darvish!

[nicksaviking]

I don't mean to stick a pin in your balloon but here is what Gibson looked like for a pretty large portion of 2015:

 

8 GS, 47.0 IP, 3.64 ERA, 14 BB, 44 SO

 

That's the time I thought Gibson had turned the corner because it's hard to "fake" strikeouts over a ten game stretch of starts.

 

Maybe not so much.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=502043&time=&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=02/04/2018&s_type=2

 

Sure, but he never changed his approach. If you look at the last two months of 2017 you'll see a large increase in his four seamer and a large decrease in the sinker. He'd never done anything close to that before. If he goes back to being a sinkerball pitcher after finally having success after he stopped, I'm done with him.

 

But he'd have to be foolish to go back to what wasn't working.

[nicksaviking]

But probably the closest thing to a "social" contract that exists, don't you think?

The social contract GB has with thier community is that all fans will constantly be drunk and bragadicious about the team and the team will pretend Green Bay isn't a dump.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=502043&time=&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=02/04/2018&s_type=2

Sure, but he never changed his approach. If you look at the last two months of 2017 you'll see a large increase in his four seamer and a large decrease in the sinker. He'd never done anything close to that before. If he goes back to being a sinkerball pitcher after finally having success after he stopped, I'm done with him.

But he'd have to be foolish to go back to what wasn't working.

I agree, I'm just pointing out that he has done this before.

 

I have modest expectations for Gibson and definitely wanted him back on the team in 2018.