Manny Machado

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't think your caveat is reasonable--"with a better farm system"; there's too many unknowns, both in terms of the health of your system (sure you can put in a scouting/development process that produces good results, but that process needs to adapt, which is just really hard to do) and the health of the player you are signing.

 

Sure, if we could sign an Machado and get everything else right, we'd be golden. But my sense is you try to plan in the error rate of things going wrong when you make a signing of this sort, which I'm not sure the Twins can sustain. Prospects and stars sustain career injuries, the game changes in a way your front office didn't anticipate, your FO hit on some but not at all of your first round picks, on and on.

It's not a caveat -- the poor farm hurt the Twins many times more than the "flexibility" lost in Mauer's deal. That, and unwise FA spending.

 

It seems like you are trying to say the Twins fared poorly under Mauer's deal, which is a strike against any Machado deal, even though Mauer's deal wasn't really a primary factor for thr Twins performance those years. Smith and TR didn't lose their jobs because of Mauer, not even close.

[jud6312]

This whole discussion seems like an issue in futility.

 

It takes two to make a deal work, and it seems the only teams that have been mentioned this whole offseason are the Dodgers, Yankees, Sox, and Phils ... the four largest media markets in the country.

 

Maybe 8/$320 gets it done. Do you want to do that?

 

Unless something changes with MLB (salary cap, maybe), the majority of big name superstars are not going to choose a smaller city over a larger one unless they're offered a whole lot more money. The best shot those teams have is to develop within and/or get lucky in trades.

[Mr. Brooks]

They play baseball mostly at night. I do not think the nightlife thing matters to him as much being married for the last 4 years. Eating out during the baseball season would not be a big thing, see nightlife.. Even then there are more than enough great eating establishments in this area you could go to a different one every day the 3 1/2 months you are actually here and not hit a bad one.

Nightlife for some of these young rich kids means am hours, baseball games are over well before midnight.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's not a caveat -- the poor farm hurt the Twins many times more than the "flexibility" lost in Mauer's deal. That, and unwise FA spending.

It seems like you are trying to say the Twins fared poorly under Mauer's deal, which is a strike against any Machado deal, even though Mauer's deal wasn't really a primary factor for thr Twins performance those years. Smith and TR didn't lose their jobs because of Mauer, not even close.

It's a caveat going forward--that the Twins will maintain a farmsystem well-enough going forward to push-off the need to augment through FA.  I was unclear.  

 

The Mauer deal is just an example, demonstrating the downside of the risk.  The downside is really, really big, and should not be poo-pooed.  Contracts of this size rarely live up to their price.  Even with Arod, didn't Texas have to eat cash to send him to NY?  

[Major League Ready]

 

Revenues and team values are rising faster than payroll. I doubt we will agree on this.

And, if we think about dollars and not percentages.... It's even worse. If revenue is up, let's say two billion, and percentages were the same, around fifty percent to payroll, that means one billion more is in owner's pockets, give or take. I doubt outside expenses are rising all that fast.....

 

It also means there is an additional billion dollars in players pockets.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The poor drafts and trades preceded the contract. We were pretty aware of them when the contract was signed, hence why we dumped our GM during the first season of Mauer's extension. That's not an issue right now,we have a solid system.

Cot's says payroll dipped to $82 mil under Mauer, and only bounced back over $100 mil after the shaky investments in Nolasco and the Hughes extension.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

Thanks for the correction, but my general point stands.  That it is difficult for mid-markets to sustain a 200 million contract not working out.

[old nurse]

 

No matter how much we like it, Minneapolis is not Chicago in the eyes of the rest of the world - not in terms of size, prestige, media, or really anything else that's offered up. We need to drop the pipe dream that it's not flyover country.

There are people who rave about all things Texas.. Minnesota nor Chicago is Texas. Areas are what they are. They are going to be different. The point you seemed to miss is that a ball player is in town for about 3 1/2 months out of the year. On the road with the team or wherever the off season home is makes the home city of a team less significant

[old nurse]

 

Nightlife for some of these young rich kids means am hours, baseball games are over well before midnight.

Do you really want a player on your team that is into the party scene?

[USAFChief]

 

Has your salary gone up by that percentage in that time frame. Mine sure hasn't.

Perhaps you're in the wrong industry.

 

Average US salary, 2000: $32,154

 

Average US salary, 2017 (last yr available): $50,321

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

 

[old nurse]

 

You are correct. I was referring to the aggregate in my posted comment.  The point I was trying articulate but failed in doing so was this.  After you've seen 10 or more 30 year old 1B/DH types get big FA contracts and underperform or 10 CF type players aged 29 get big FA contracts and either under perform or get injured, etc. it causes some baseball people to hesitate before going the big FA route.  

 

Certainly Machado is an outlier to my above example.  The way the FA market has dropped off a cliff for two years in a row makes me wonder if someone in the private equity, financial risk industry or some actuary type came up with a risk/reward model for the FA market and went around and sold it individually to the various teams...

As most teams dissect the game with analytics  it should not be considered the same analytical approach be applied to free agents.

[old nurse]

 

Perhaps you're in the wrong industry.

 

Average US salary, 2000: $32,154

 

Average US salary, 2017 (last yr available): $50,321

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

you missed the disclaimer on the table

 

 Note that an average wage is an average per worker, not an average per job.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's a caveat going forward--that the Twins will maintain a farmsystem well-enough going forward to push-off the need to augment through FA. I was unclear.

 

The Mauer deal is just an example, demonstrating the downside of the risk. The downside is really, really big, and should not be poo-pooed. Contracts of this size rarely live up to their price. Even with Arod, didn't Texas have to eat cash to send him to NY?

Look, if you want to imagine a worst case scenario, that's great. But that's not the job of the front office. They should be looking at where they stand today and projecting forward. We have a good farm system, right now. I don't know about stars, but it's a farm that should produce a few MLB contributors over the next 5 years. If we had a farm system like Detroit a few years ago, completely barren, or even the 2010-2011 Twins, and we knew we would need to sign multiple quality FA annually to stay afloat, that would be a different situation in assessing Machado's fit for the organization.

 

Of course, even our good farm today could get hit by bad luck or flop -- but in that case, we are probably doomed as an org for a few years anyway like the early 2010s Twins were, regardless of signing Machado. At least Machado might give us a chance to cover some of that with potential upside performance, or perhaps even an asset to trade to accelerate a rebuild or reload. If both fail you're not that much worse off than if just the farmed failed -- having $30 mil a year to invest in Lance Lynns isn't a meaningful remedy for a farm system that goes bust.

 

I am not poo-pooing the downside risk -- it's just that the downside risk is significantly lower with mid-20s infielders than with most of the examples being tossed around here. Especially one on a 8/250 contract, the suggestion of which precipitated this thread -- 8/250 today isn't all that much different than Mauer's 8/184 considering baseball inflation, and contrary to what you or others might imply, Mauer's contract was not the primary limiting factor in the performance of the Twins the past 8 years. If we are talking MLBTR's prediction for Machado -- 13/390 -- that would change things considerably too.

[gunnarthor]

Turns out, Chicago's offer might not even be as good as reported. Instead of 8/250 it sounds like it's 7 years and something in the 175-210 range. 

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/01/market-notes-machado-white-sox-mystery-team-kipnis-marwin.html

 

But we can't afford him b/c our owners suck.

[bird]

 

The Twins offer needs to be 5% higher to match the White Sox, just to compensate about the difference in State Income Tax.  So if the WSox offered $285M, a $300M offer would just match that WSox offer, which means that the Twins would have to go at the $315M range or $39.3M per year, to get him which is just nuts.  There is no way that a. they will be getting close to $40M a year value from him or b. they could afford to build a winning team around him if they paid him that much.

 

The calculation probably isn't quite so crisp, but you make a good point, it is a factor when it comes to the will to compete for a FA. However, I'd suggest the larger consideration has to do with the value side of the equation. How many extra seats get sold, jerseys, beers, brats, etc. Some teams are simply going to derive a much more substantial benefit and can justify a more aggressive offer. Machado is worth more to Chicago than he is to the Twins using a straight-line calculation, pure and simple, right?

 

Personally, I have no idea if making a winning offer for Machado would be a good thing or not, nor do I have an opinion about his likelihood of eliminating the Twins as a choice. And I'm very disinterested in seeing him in a Sox uniform. I've been saying for two years that Chicago has a chance of being better-MUCH better- than they have been, and fast, given the premier talent bubbling up from the high minors.

[bird]

 

Yes. At least the athletes have to compete and develop to get $300 million one day. Ol' Jimmy had to keep on breathing to get his fortune.

 

 

Vanimal, I respectfully ask you to be careful here. He goes by Jim. He is the father of three wonderful children. He goes to work every day. like a lot of us, and he has been doing that since he was 23. He cares about a lot of things besides himself and he cares about a lot of people. He's involved in many businesses that employ many hundreds of people. Most recent example? All the new hires in development for your Twins. It's entirely unfair to portray him as if he's just some brat with a constant frown on his face sitting around being useless. He puts in more personal time on charitable activities than I bet most of the rest of us do.

 

Yes, he's had incredible privileges and was gifted obscene wealth, but let's not demonize him for that. Argue the merits of an organizational financial decision based on how good of a business decision it would be, please?

[Squirrel]

 

If Machado (or Harper, or Trout for that matter) by themselves can make a team win a World Series, their teams would have won, no?

 

The Twins are better distributing that $ and taking example by teams like the Astros and the Cardinals.  Even the Yankees won only one World Series with Arod and the Giants only one with Bonds (but 2 after he left...)

 

A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.

No one player wins a WS, and that wasn't my point of Machado being a difference maker. We need talent to get past Boston, Houston and New York. We are going nowhere without enough of it. I don't believe the Dodgers make it to the WS without Machado. Winning it, though, that is a team effort ... and having a difference maker does increase your odds, but it won't be won on one person's back completely. You sign Machado because of where your team is right now. I believe the Twins are on the verge ... having Machado makes us a team to be reckoned with, especially if Sano and Bux come through. Yeah, if we don't win it all and sink, we have this long contract. If we aren't winning, do you think Machado wants to stick around? He will be tradable to someone, provided he's still playing as he is and I think he will be. Look, this is all my opinion. But I think Machado or Harper (but especially Machado) on this team, right now, would be a difference maker. I think it's what pushes us past the competition in the AL ... or at least makes us competitive to them. Is making it to the WC and losing enough for you? I didn't think it was. Signing two players for the cost of Machado is not the same as signing Machado. That's like all these trade ideas people come up with where they think quantity is going to get the quality. No, it's not.

[bird]

 

Distributing money across four mediocre players is better how?

And no one is saying one player can carry a team. No one made that argument.

 

 

But why frame the options as one superstar versus four league average/mediocre players? No one has claimed that would be better.

[Squirrel]

 

But why frame the options as one superstar versus four league average/mediocre players? No one has claimed that would be better.

There was a point made earlier about who we could sign instead, signing two players vs one Machado, which would serve us better, (which I don't think it would) which brings in the thought of quantity over quality. And it was mentioned about one player wasn't going to win it all for us, which wasn't the point I made, which I addressed above.

[Loosey]

 

$25.2 million in 2000 is the equivalent to $36.765 million in 2019 dollars with inflation.

Are you using real world inflation for MLB Inflation?  

 

Look at real life salary inflation and then professional baseball players salary inflation.

[Vanimal46]

Vanimal, I respectfully ask you to be careful here. He goes by Jim. He is the father of three wonderful children. He goes to work every day. like a lot of us, and he has been doing that since he was 23. He cares about a lot of things besides himself and he cares about a lot of people. He's involved in many businesses that employ many hundreds of people. Most recent example? All the new hires in development for your Twins. It's entirely unfair to portray him as if he's just some brat with a constant frown on his face sitting around being useless. He puts in more personal time on charitable activities than I bet most of the rest of us do.

 

Yes, he's had incredible privileges and was gifted obscene wealth, but let's not demonize him for that. Argue the merits of an organizational financial decision based on how good of a business decision it would be, please?

I would also ask that people don't demonize free agent baseball players for requesting their market rate on a contract too. Players like Machado and Harper also worked very hard to get to the place they are today and probably do charity work too. Yet some here are really quick to side with owners and claim they'll be regrettable investments before the ink dries on their contract.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

No one player wins a WS, and that wasn't my point of Machado being a difference maker. We need talent to get past Boston, Houston and New York. We are going nowhere without enough of it. I don't believe the Dodgers make it to the WS without Machado. Winning it, though, that is a team effort ... and having a difference maker does increase your odds, but it won't be won on one person's back completely. You sign Machado because of where your team is right now. I believe the Twins are on the verge ... having Machado makes us a team to be reckoned with, especially if Sano and Bux come through. Yeah, if we don't win it all and sink, we have this long contract. If we aren't winning, do you think Machado wants to stick around? He will be tradable to someone, provided he's still playing as he is and I think he will be. Look, this is all my opinion. But I think Machado or Harper (but especially Machado) on this team, right now, would be a difference maker. I think it's what pushes us past the competition in the AL ... or at least makes us competitive to them. Is making it to the WC and losing enough for you? I didn't think it was. Signing two players for the cost of Machado is not the same as signing Machado. That's like all these trade ideas people come up with where they think quantity is going to get the quality. No, it's not.

Exactly. There is a good chance that Machado/Harper can be traded after a couple of seasons if things for the team aren't working out. Stanton had a huge contract. Miami was still able to trade him, even if the return was less than great.

 

The risk is if Machado totally tanks. Could happen. But this team has such an aversion to risk that I don't see them breaking that mold anytime soon.

[bird]

 

I would also ask that people don't demonize free agent baseball players for requesting their market rate on a contract too. Players like Machado and Harper also worked very hard to get to the place they are today and probably do charity work too. Yet some here are really quick to side with owners and claim they'll be regrettable investments before the ink dries on their contract.

 

 

Agreed my friend. No need for vitriol at all.

[Squirrel]

 

Agreed my friend. No need for vitriol at all.

Thank you. I think you both had good points to make here and good points to be heard/seen by all.

[Squirrel]

 

 

Exactly. There is a good chance that Machado/Harper can be traded after a couple of seasons if things for the team aren't working out. Stanton had a huge contract. Miami was still able to trade him, even if the return was less than great.

 

The risk is if Machado totally tanks. Could happen. But this team has such an aversion to risk that I don't see them breaking that mold anytime soon.

It's all risk and hope. We hope for Buxton and Sano to become great. Signing someone like Machado to a long-term deal is risky because, well, what if?

 

But at some point these things are all aversions to, well, winning, imo. At some point I think we just need to march forward. It's no secret whatsoever on this site my feelings on signing Machado ... I've been singing this song for months now, long before the 2018 season ended. We have the space to do it. Sigh. Yeah, and for as long as I've been singing the song, though, I didn't think we would. But ... if he goes to the White Sox ... that is NOT something I want to see, at all, especially if he signs for less than what we think. I don't buy this 'Chicago is more attractive than Minneapolis' stuff. It's not. It's really not. Having spent extensive time in both places, it's just not. New York might be a different story. But then, who knows ... maybe to him it is ... maybe it's not. I think Minnesota has the ability to make it worth his while, though, and I think it's a HUUUUUUUUUGE opportunity lost to not go out and get him.

[Mr. Brooks]

I would also ask that people don't demonize free agent baseball players for requesting their market rate on a contract too. Players like Machado and Harper also worked very hard to get to the place they are today and probably do charity work too. Yet some here are really quick to side with owners and claim they'll be regrettable investments before the ink dries on their contract.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone demonize or take personal shots at the players for wanting to get paid, though maybe I missed it.

 

Is it any more lucky to be born into wealth than it is to be born with freak athletic abilities?

I'm not saying pro athletes don't work hard, but let's be honest, 99% of the population has no shot, no matter how hard they work. If you're lucky enough to be in that 1%, then you likely still have to bust your ass to rise to the top, I'm not suggesting otherwise.

But, just the same, you can be born into wealth, while still busting your ass at the things you do.

[bird]

 

There was a point made earlier about who we could sign instead, signing two players vs one Machado, which would serve us better, (which I don't think it would) which brings in the thought of quantity over quality. And it was mentioned about one player wasn't going to win it all for us, which wasn't the point I made, which I addressed above.

 

 

I get your point and tend to agree with it for the most part, Carole. I was trying to reconcile Mr. Sixel's comparison of four mediocre players versus Machado.

 

If one can indulge the notion that financial value has a reason to be factored into a decision, I found myself wondering, theoretically, about this. 

 

The Twins picked up four players, Cruz, Cron, Schoop, and Parker. Those four will cost the same as Machado's projected AAV in 2019. Based on their 2018 numbers, they'll produce a tad more WAR than Machado did in his best season so far. I think an argument can very easily be made that filling those gaping holes will result in more wins, in part because we filled holes that might've produced zero or negate WAR, and in part because Machado probably "only" adds 4-5 WAR over, say, Polanco.

 

I know it's not an either/or proposition, but I like the thought of making another incremental improvement, such as Cody Allen. 

 

I just think it might be more important to avoid having really awful players on a roster than having a stud who's 4 WAR better than a good but less pricey alternative.

 

Royce Lewis. Royce Lewis. Royce Lewis. 

[TFRazor]

 

From what I'm reading that's probably the case. He wants to be a NYY but they're not interested in him. I'm still surprised there are no other teams in contact with him besides Philly and Chicago.

What I find interesting is that the Dodgers really haven't made a push to keep him. They seem more willing to go after Harper instead of a guy they had in the building for a couple of months. Maybe I'm just seeing more than what's actually there, but that could be an interesting statement on how teams view him.

[Minfidel]

Yeah, so fans can start complaining that he's overpaid. 

I’ve been saying this in the off-season news thread. We will never win as we have not and will not do enough. Sox are up and coming, and Machado will anchor them for seasons to come, primed to take over when Cleveland does decline, and the Twins will continue to be also-rans without any top of the line star power.

And the bright lights of Chicago? Pffft ... hugely overrated. Minneapolis might be smaller, but there is plenty that is as good and some that is better than Chicago.

Pay him the money. Get him.

 

[Jim Hahn]

All of this is speculation and my opinion does not matter. But I do have certain concerns about Machado.

 

Character matters. I wonder about a player who can't be bothered to run out ground balls in the playoffs or seemed to be trying to injure other players. I am not so sure I want my team to tie themselves to a player like that for ten years.

 

Machado is certainly a very good player and plays premium positions. I do wonder if his production was boosted a bit by his home park. Camden Yards is definitely a hitters park. If it costs him 10% of his production if he calls Target Field home, is he still worth the money?

 

Machado can't win anything by himself. For him to be useful to the Twins, the young core has to step up. Buying Martinez and trading for Sale, certainly made Boston better in 2018. Still the biggest difference from 2017 to 2018 for Boston was that their young core stayed healthy and stepped up their games.

 

Personally, I believe that upgrading the pitching would have greater positive effect on the Twins than adding Machado would. While the kind of upgrade I am suggesting could cost as much per year, it may not be for as many years as Machado would reqire.

[Don Walcott]

 

What I find interesting is that the Dodgers really haven't made a push to keep him. They seem more willing to go after Harper instead of a guy they had in the building for a couple of months. Maybe I'm just seeing more than what's actually there, but that could be an interesting statement on how teams view him.

The Dodgers have Justin Turner at 3B and Kyle Seager coming back at SS. I don't think there's much of a statement about Machado that the Dodgers will continue with these two on the left side of their infield.