Article: Don't Panic Over Bad Breaks For Twins Rotation

[Nick Nelson]

 

Now was the time.  If ever there was a time to make a big splash to address your yearly GLARING need, it was now, right?  Weak division, young players who could take the next step, they made the playoffs last year.  This is the kind of situation that has been talked about over and over as THE time to do this.  And we continue to dive for scraps.

Again, this is ONE free agent off the board. Failing to sign him does not constitute "diving for scraps." The extent to which Darvish is being overblown on this board (and elsewhere) as some sort of be-all, end-all is almost comical. C'mon. We all like Darvish's strikeouts and flashes of brilliance but the man is 31 and has averaged less than 18 starts over the past 4 years. 

 

 

Knowingly offering lesser contracts and throwing trade offers around as items to credit a front office with seems really patronizing.

We have set the bar for credit far too low.

Let me know when the last time the Twins publicly offered a $100 million contract or made a trade attempt for a legit ace. I'll hang up and listen.

 

Results matter, but so does effort and intent. It shows they are serious. If they haven't made any kinds of inspiring moves for the rotation by Opening Day I'll join you in your discontent but right now all the outrage is beyond silly. 

 

Do people realize how many teams across MLB still haven't made significant moves this offseason, and are sitting on mounds of unused payroll space? 

 

 

i don't really care about setting the bar, or who offered what, or who didn't, or "giving credit" for trying.

 

Get it done, or it's meaningless.

So, what you're really saying here is "Do whatever it takes to get the guy I want. Abandon all reason -- every risk model and valuation you've computed while undoubtedly analyzing this opportunity from many angles -- and outbid everyone else. Oh, and if the guy is unwilling to sign in MN, force him at gunpoint."

[USAFChief]

 

Again, this is ONE free agent off the board. Failing to sign him does not constitute "diving for scraps." The extent to which Darvish is being overblown on this board (and elsewhere) as some sort of be-all, end-all is almost comical. C'mon. We all like Darvish's strikeouts and flashes of brilliance but the man is 31 and has averaged less than 18 starts over the past 4 years. 

 

 

Let me know when the last time the Twins publicly offered a $100 million contract or made a trade attempt for a legit ace. I'll hang up and listen.

 

Results matter, but so does effort and intent. It shows they are serious. If they haven't made any kinds of inspiring moves for the rotation by Opening Day I'll join you in your discontent but right now all the outrage is beyond silly. 

 

Do people realize how many teams across MLB still haven't made significant moves this offseason, and are sitting on mounds of unused payroll space? 

 

 

So, what you're really saying here is "Do whatever it takes to get the guy I want. Abandon all reason -- every risk model and valuation you've computed while undoubtedly analyzing this opportunity from many angles -- and outbid everyone else. Oh, and if the guy is unwilling to sign in MN, force him at gunpoint."

What I'm saying is, I've heard this song and dance before.  "We tried" has never won a MLB game, and never will.

 

It didn't have to be Darvish.  But "they made an offer" is ... meaningless.  It has zero value.  It's words.

 

[jimmer]

Again, this is ONE free agent off the board. Failing to sign him does not constitute "diving for scraps." The extent to which Darvish is being overblown on this board (and elsewhere) as some sort of be-all, end-all is almost comical. C'mon. We all like Darvish's strikeouts and flashes of brilliance but the man is 31 and has averaged less than 18 starts over the past 4 years.

 

so, they shouldnt have gone after him at all. Based on what you are saying about Darvish now, we shouldnt have gone after him at all.

 

Look, I am on record saying it was fantasy to believe the Twins would sign Darvish,but offering and letting people know it was the largest offer we ever made is a meaningless if they know its nowhere near enough to sign the guy. A few years ago, Willingham was our biggest FA signing ever. We dont have a history of large FA contracts. Our bar is low.

 

And yes, many teams havent made big splashes in FA. Many havent needed to. Many arent in position talent wise to where it makes sense to do so (i.e. no hope to contend). Teams like Milwaukee and the Twins both need to and are possible contender. Milwaukee has done some good stuff this offseason. They are going for it.

Edited February 13, 2018 by jimmer

[howieramone2]

 

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see any way to view any part of Santana’s injury as a positive. None. Including the 2019 option vesting.

Also, I completely don’t understand any consternation over the opt out. Any.

Who here would’ve been opposed to 2/$42 for Darvish? That’s what you’d have if he opts out, and he’s not doing that unless he’s pitched well enough he’s confident he’ll get more than what’s left. And I don’t see how having him for two good years, and then losing him, is worse than not having him for those two good years in the first place.

If he's great you have him for 2 years. If he sucks, you get him for 4 more. How can you not love that deal?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Again, this is ONE free agent off the board. Failing to sign him does not constitute "diving for scraps." The extent to which Darvish is being overblown on this board (and elsewhere) as some sort of be-all, end-all is almost comical. C'mon. We all like Darvish's strikeouts and flashes of brilliance but the man is 31 and has averaged less than 18 starts over the past 4 years.

 

C'mon Nick, folding his standard TJ recovery time into the average to dismiss his durability? By that criteria, Cobb averages 11 starts over the last 3 seasons, 15 over the last 4, and Lynn averages only 21 over the last 3 too.

[Mike Sixel]

C'mon Nick, folding his standard TJ recovery time into the average to dismiss his durability? By that criteria, Cobb averages 11 starts over the last 3 seasons, 15 over the last 4, and Lynn averages only 21 over the last 3 too.

can we fold Santana's suspension in to predict how many innings he'll pitch this year?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Let me know when the last time the Twins publicly offered a $100 million contract or made a trade attempt for a legit ace. I'll hang up and listen.

 

By your own admission, they had little hope of him accepting that offer. How do we even know the Archer offer was any different?

 

A football team can't just point to a Hail Mary play as evidence their game plan properly leverages throwing deep downfield.

[Nick Nelson]

 

C'mon Nick, folding his standard TJ recovery time into the average to dismiss his durability? By that criteria, Cobb averages 11 starts over the last 3 seasons, 15 over the last 4, and Lynn averages only 21 over the last 3 too.

Ok, fine. 23 starts/season averaged outside of the year lost entirely to TJ. Still not good. I'm sorry if that was disingenuous but is it really necessary to nitpick when the point still clearly stands? Darvish does NOT have proven record of durability. 200 innings once in 6 MLB seasons. 

[Mike Sixel]

Ok, fine. 23 starts/season averaged outside of the year lost entirely to TJ. Still not good. I'm sorry if that was disingenuous but is it really necessary to nitpick when the point still clearly stands? Darvish does NOT have proven record of durability. 200 innings once in 6 MLB seasons.

Almost no one throws 200 innings anymore. The game has changed. Why do people keep throwing that number out?

 

He threw the 24th most innings in the game last year.

[Nick Nelson]

 

By your own admission, they had little hope of him accepting that offer. How do we even know the Archer offer was any different?

A football team can't just point to a Hail Mary play as evidence their game plan properly leverages throwing deep downfield.

We don't know anything. "My own admission" is pretty irrelevant since I'm speculating just like everyone else. Maybe they offered 5/125, thinking/hoping he'd accept, and Darvish simply much preferred going to the Cubs on less AAV, knowing he'd be able to still make more long-term with the opt-out. All these hardwired "Twins are cheap" narratives seemingly prevent everyone from looking at very plausible scenarios such as this.

 

I'm gonna check out on this convo but thanks for all the discussion, even if some of it has driven me crazy. Let's see what else happens. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Ok, fine. 23 starts/season averaged outside of the year lost entirely to TJ. Still not good. I'm sorry if that was disingenuous but is it really necessary to nitpick when the point still clearly stands? Darvish does NOT have proven record of durability. 200 innings once in 6 MLB seasons.

His two partial seasons are related to the TJ surgery too.

 

If a player goes down with an elbow problem in August, has surgery the following March following unsuccessful rest/rehab, then returns 15-16 months later as is customary, you don't count that as 3 separate durability concerns, do you?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's Darvish's MLB IP ranks, outside of his single TJ injury/surgery:

 

2012: 42nd (1st MLB season, they skipped him 3 times)

2013: 20th

2014 1st half: 51st (they skipped him 2 times)

2016 2nd half: 36th

2017: 24th

 

And his durability in Japan has also been referenced as evidence that he might have too much "mileage" on his arm already.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We don't know anything. "My own admission" is pretty irrelevant since I'm speculating just like everyone else. Maybe they offered 5/125, thinking/hoping he'd accept, and Darvish simply much preferred going to the Cubs on less AAV, knowing he'd be able to still make more long-term with the opt-out. All these hardwired "Twins are cheap" narratives seemingly prevent everyone from looking at very plausible scenarios such as this.

Your own admission at least has plugged-in sources, so it's probably "whole assed" speculation rather than the "half assed" speculation common at TD.

 

The Twins offering the same guarantee as the Cubs but with a larger AAV is pretty implausible. Especially given the collusion accusation climate, it's virtually impossible that wouldn't have leaked.

 

The Twins are welcome to correct the record on this front, of course. I don't think there is any official restriction on disclosing a rejected offer once a player signs elsewhere (or if there is, it could be done unofficially quite easily too). But until they do so, I'm not going to give them credit as if their offer was secretly 25% larger than any reported number. (I've actually been giving them credit for +10% but frankly maybe even that is too much -- +5% would be the same AAV as the Cubs deal and might be the more likely figure.)

Edited February 13, 2018 by spycake

[bird]

 

What I'm saying is, I've heard this song and dance before.  "We tried" has never won a MLB game, and never will.

 

It didn't have to be Darvish.  But "they made an offer" is ... meaningless.  It has zero value.  It's words.

 

 

It's perfectly fine for people to base their judgment strictly on results. The organization is no more entitled to our goodwill as a result of their efforts than we are entitled to never having our hopes lifted and then dashed.

 

Others don't have to, but I'm going to trust that the efforts to sign Darvish were genuine and the Falvey "priority" statement was sincere. (It was however an ill-advised comment in light of the false sense of entitlement and the pent up frustration permeating the fan base). Do I know that it wasn't a fake offer and an attempt to sell me a bill of goods about what was intended? No, but there's a lot more evidence supporting a real pursuit of Darvish, one that wasn't half-hearted.

 

Lots of us believe the Twins could and should have offered him 6/150 or whatever was necessary to land him. That's fine too. We don't know the details, but we have evidence that Falvine had a risk/reward line drawn. We as fans are no more entitled to the Twins going over that line than the Twins are entitled to hearing no criticism about it.

 

I would only view the whole effort, including the Darvish bid, as having been in vain if in the end no front end starter is acquired. You are not one to do this, but I'd like to read complaints that avoided suggestions that a bad result was due to a lack of effort, fan loyalty, honesty, charity, character, brainpower....

 

Again, it's perfectly acceptable to place no value on actions and words absent results, and it's perfectly fine to find some value there. But I'd love it if those members of the board, like you, who are highly regarded by the majority of us, would push back a little when people devalue those efforts and words by trying to cast them in a false light.

 

[bird]

 

By your own admission, they had little hope of him accepting that offer. How do we even know the Archer offer was any different?

A football team can't just point to a Hail Mary play as evidence their game plan properly leverages throwing deep downfield.

 

 

So spy, do you really believe that they pursued Darvish with little hope of signing him? Are you really equating their attempt to a Hail Mary? If so, on what do you base this opinion?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Others don't have to, but I'm going to trust that the efforts to sign Darvish were genuine and the Falvey "priority" statement was sincere. (It was however an ill-advised comment in light of the false sense of entitlement and the pent up frustration permeating the fan base).

In what ways was the "priority" statement sincere? Making a late (and presumably final) offer of fewer years and ~30% less guaranteed money than every common public forecast is clearly a prioritization of a bargain, not a player. I think it was an ill-advised word choice it and of itself.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So spy, do you really believe that they pursued Darvish with little hope of signing him? Are you really equating their attempt to a Hail Mary? If so, on what do you base this opinion?

I've posted some elaborate explanations in other threads, but basically, even with rather favorable market conditions, the Twins best/final offer only had about a 5-10% chance of success.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Let me know when the last time the Twins publicly offered a $100 million contract or made a trade attempt for a legit ace. I'll hang up and listen.

 

Results matter, but so does effort and intent. It shows they are serious. If they haven't made any kinds of inspiring moves for the rotation by Opening Day I'll join you in your discontent but right now all the outrage is beyond silly. 

 

Do people realize how many teams across MLB still haven't made significant moves this offseason, and are sitting on mounds of unused payroll space? 

 

Many other fan bases should also be upset at what is happening.  

 

I don't win brownie points with my wife when I tell her it's a priority to get her wine for V-Day at the store and all I muster up the ability to do is park in the parking lot.

 

I'm not even really all that outraged at missing out on Darvish.  What outrages me is the excuse parade after the fact.  The bizarre, nonsensical arguments to spin the disappointment.  To defend opt out clauses.  To make a month of our best pitcher being down a "good thing".  How we just couldn't compete in the most depressed contract market of our lifetime.  On and on.

 

That's what has me outraged.  Not getting Darvish is just disappointing, but I had low expectations.  But for the posters and bloggers here I'd expect more than this onslaught of nonsense.

Edited February 13, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[bird]

 

In what ways was the "priority" statement sincere? Making a late (and presumably final) offer of fewer years and ~30% less guaranteed money than every common public forecast is clearly a prioritization of a bargain, not a player. I think it was an ill-advised word choice it and of itself.

 

In every way. Nothing you're saying even remotely suggests otherwise.

 

Criticize the offer if you want. You think the offer was "late", even though you don't possess the facts, not one, to support this. Fine. You apparently think the offer was "late" (by your personal standards since you don't know if anyone privy to the process thinks that). And they made this "late" offer because they were disingenuous? You choose to believe the Twins opted to set their price on some factor other than a rational assessment of reward, value, and risk? Nonsense.

 

Why do you insist on questioning their motives, about which you know zippo, instead of sticking with a criticism of their choice about how much to offer, which at least has a modicum of evidential support?

[bird]

 

I've posted some elaborate explanations in other threads, but basically, even with rather favorable market conditions, the Twins best/final offer only had about a 5-10% chance of success.

 

I don't trust your explanation or your calculation, sorry.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In every way. Nothing you're saying even remotely suggests otherwise.

 

Criticize the offer if you want. You think the offer was "late", even though you don't possess the facts, not one, to support this. Fine. You apparently think the offer was "late" (by your personal standards since you don't know if anyone privy to the process thinks that). And they made this "late" offer because they were disingenuous? You choose to believe the Twins opted to set their price on some factor other than a rational assessment of reward, value, and risk? Nonsense.

 

Why do you insist on questioning their motives, about which you know zippo, instead of sticking with a criticism of their choice about how much to offer, which at least has a modicum of evidential support?

Whoa!

 

By late, I meant presumably final. It was almost spring training. If they had offered 5/100 back in December with the intention of negotiating upward, that's one thing. But as a last best offer, it definitely feels like a Hail Mary.

 

I am not sure if I have impugned their motives at all. I agree that they had a value line and stuck to it. I just think it was never really compatible with calling the player a priority. Getting a bargain along their value line was the priority, and the player was more of a hope/prayer kind of thing.

 

Looking back, it seems Levine meant priority in a "we'll look at him first" way, but it is disappointing because that should really go without saying, and the opportunity to play at the top of the market seemed ripe.

Edited February 13, 2018 by spycake

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't trust your explanation or your calculation, sorry.

Did you find it and read it? Because we seem to be on very different wavelengths in this thread, so I wouldn't judge my overall argument based on whatever it is you think I am saying here.

 

I don't think Levine is a lying liar, or their offer was purely for show, or anything else like that, if that is what you think. I just don't think their offer was nearly as effective as it could have been, even within reasonable parameters of a midmarket team (although obviously the Twins are applying more restrictive parameters).

 

That's not unreasonable, is it?

[DaveW]

Sean Connery as Frank Mason put it Best:

 

Losers always whine about their best, winners go.....

 

Epstein is a winner and once again won the offseason, while the Twins are basically the scrappy little underdog they seem to always love to be and never want to progress on from.

 

The Wild Card game should be a fun one again

Edited February 13, 2018 by DaveW

[USAFChief]

 

It's perfectly fine for people to base their judgment strictly on results. The organization is no more entitled to our goodwill as a result of their efforts than we are entitled to never having our hopes lifted and then dashed.

 

Others don't have to, but I'm going to trust that the efforts to sign Darvish were genuine and the Falvey "priority" statement was sincere. (It was however an ill-advised comment in light of the false sense of entitlement and the pent up frustration permeating the fan base). Do I know that it wasn't a fake offer and an attempt to sell me a bill of goods about what was intended? No, but there's a lot more evidence supporting a real pursuit of Darvish, one that wasn't half-hearted.

 

Lots of us believe the Twins could and should have offered him 6/150 or whatever was necessary to land him. That's fine too. We don't know the details, but we have evidence that Falvine had a risk/reward line drawn. We as fans are no more entitled to the Twins going over that line than the Twins are entitled to hearing no criticism about it.

 

I would only view the whole effort, including the Darvish bid, as having been in vain if in the end no front end starter is acquired. You are not one to do this, but I'd like to read complaints that avoided suggestions that a bad result was due to a lack of effort, fan loyalty, honesty, charity, character, brainpower....

 

Again, it's perfectly acceptable to place no value on actions and words absent results, and it's perfectly fine to find some value there. But I'd love it if those members of the board, like you, who are highly regarded by the majority of us, would push back a little when people devalue those efforts and words by trying to cast them in a false light.

First, Bird, thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. As you know, the respect is mutual.

 

But my point is...IMO it doesn't matter whether I give them "credit." I'm not doing that, by the way, but even if I do...how many MLB wins does that mean? Or if you, or Nick, give them the benefit of the doubt here? What does that amount to?

 

At the end of the day, they need to add players, and Darvish, IMO, represented a real opportunity...one they themselves seemed pretty intent on not that long ago.

 

I've never said "Darvish or bust." And if by opening day, my honest assessment is "they've really addressed the rotation well," then I'll be the first to say so.

 

Until then...they get no credit from me. Whether they tried or not.  In the immortal words of my age-compatriot Yoda, "There is no try.  There is only do or not do.

 

 

[jctwins]

This thread feels like the time Nick tried to defend calling Orlando Hudson a "Gold Glove Calibur" second baseman.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

This thread feels like the time Nick tried to defend calling Orlando Hudson a "Gold Glove Calibur" second baseman.

 

He had way more solid ground to stand on in that argument though.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I'm not even really all that outraged at missing out on Darvish.  What outrages me is the excuse parade after the fact.  The bizarre, nonsensical arguments to spin the disappointment.  To defend opt out clauses.  To make a month of our best pitcher being down a "good thing".  How we just couldn't compete in the most depressed contract market of our lifetime.  On and on.

I would suggest that your outrage is completely self-manufactured. Probably intentionally so.

 

The article very explicitly described the Santana injury and Darvish non-signing as "bad breaks," in which I was seeking silver linings. I've reiterated that intent multiple times in this comment thread, including to you directly. And yet you're still out here on page 9 quoting me as saying Santana going out is a "good thing," a quote that has not appeared anywhere. 

 

Suggesting that there may be some positive outcomes to take forward from a generally negative situation is not the same thing as making excuses. And you know that. So I can only conclude you're deliberately misinterpreting -- and hanging on to that misinterpretation -- for the sake of being Mad on the Internet™

 

 

This thread feels like the time Nick tried to defend calling Orlando Hudson a "Gold Glove Calibur" second baseman.

You mean the same Orlando Hudson that won four gold gloves? 

 

You're right, it does feel like that. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Suggesting that there may be some positive outcomes to take forward from a generally negative situation is not the same thing as making excuses. And you know that. So I can only conclude you're deliberately misinterpreting -- and hanging on to that misinterpretation -- for the sake of being Mad on the Internet™

 

Less crappy outcomes do not equal "positives".

 

You construed our best pitcher being out for April to help with September as "That's Good".

 

Myself, and others, are responding to your arguments.  We're responding to the blatant contradictions in your own blog posts on Darvish.  We're responding to your manufactured, poor arguments as some desperate attempt at a silver lining. 

 

Sorry Nick, the landscaping doesn't look nice with the house on fire.  The house is still on fire.  That is not "good", no matter how many ways you want to spin it.

Edited February 13, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Mr. Brooks]

Nick- (I think) We all love your writing here. I know, personally, you're my favorite.

But writing about how much of a difference maker Darvish would be, when it seemed like the Twins might get him- to suddenly arguing he's really not THAT great once the Twins come up short, just feels really weird.

I'm not questioning your credibility, but I just can't shake that bizzare feeling when I see you in this thread knocking Darvish now, when you thought he instantly turned them into title contenders prior to them missing out.

[Guest]

Nick,

 

You may have missed the mood.