Manny Machado

[ashbury]

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

This kind of analysis might hold water, if roster sizes were much larger. If you could sign 100 players at 0.5 WAR each, perhaps you'd win a pennant, and perhaps without spending more than $60M on payroll.

 

But the capability to condense all those wins (of the players you named) into one roster spot (Machado's), permitting you to acquire some additional wins with the roster spots that remain open, is huge when your aim is to build a championship team and you're limited to 25 players, several of which play essentially back-up minutes only.

 

Someone like Machado doesn't have extra value over his nominal "wins added", to a team treading water. But to a team in contention, his dollar value is greater than what the WAR^* value would suggest, because of the extra roster flexibility he brings you compared to all four of the guys you mentioned.

 

^{* _{As always, I'm not wedded to a particular metric such as WAR, but to the concept that players contribute greater or lesser amounts toward winning and that this can be roughly measured or forecast.}}

[Squirrel]

 

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. 

See, from my point of view, you can have those four PLUS Machado ... I think we have that much flexibility, although if we would hire Machado, it makes the Schoop signing a bit redundant. My response was to the person who suggested we hire two others rather than Machado. However, I get your point ... my bottom line is, yeah, I just want Machado. That's my song, and it will go unrequited.

[bird]

 

This kind of analysis might hold water, if roster sizes were much larger. If you could sign 100 players at 0.5 WAR each, perhaps you'd win a pennant, and perhaps without spending more than $60M on payroll.

 

But the capability to condense all those wins into one roster spot, permitting you to acquire some additional wins with the roster spots that remain open, is huge when your aim is to build a championship team and you're limited to 25 players (several of which play essentially back-up minutes only).

 

Someone like Machado doesn't have extra value over his nominal "wins added", to a team treading water. But to a team in contention, his dollar value is greater than what the WAR^* value would suggest, because of the extra roster flexibility he brings you compared to all four of the guys you mentioned.

 

^{* _{As always, I'm not wedded to a particular metric such as WAR, but to the concept that players contribute greater or lesser amounts toward winning and that this can be roughly measured or forecast.}}

 

 

Yeah, this makes sense, but without either knowing for sure (my constant plight) or the will to research it (my constant plight) I think I recall that the average team has like 4 position players who generate 2 WAR or more? So while hoarding WAR in a single player, even with the inherent non-diversification risks, might be a good way go go, maybe another alternative is to just avoid having Robbie Grossman around instead of Jake Cave and Nelson Cruz? Maybe this FO thinks that Kepler, Buxton, Rosario, Sano, Polanco, Schoop, Cron, and Cruz all have a fairly high potential to deliver 2 to 4 WAR apiece? Isn't a lineup filled with nine  2 WAR guys a contender? I don't know. But I guess the roster flexibility concept is eluding me a bit.

 

I like the way Houston is going about it, Draft and develop with the best, take the best advantage of getting superstar results from players handcuffed by the CBA, take the long view, win your trades more often than you lose them, built asset value throughout the system, and don't be afraid to trade prospects, but when you do, TRADE FROM SURPLUS!

 

I just see it all much more as a quantity AND numbers battle with every roster spot pretty much needing to generate some WAR for you, or at least avoiding being a minus. 

 

That said, I agree with others, that we have reason to feel slighted a bit, not because they don't spend $130M on payroll, but because they have spent $100M in the past and left gaping holes when they could have written a couple more checks and spared us the agony of Oliver Drake.  Forcing me to go bird watching instead of Belisle watching.

[markos]

 

Yeah, this makes sense, but without either knowing for sure (my constant plight) or the will to research it (my constant plight) I think I recall that the average team has like 4 position players who generate 2 WAR or more? So while hoarding WAR in a single player, even with the inherent non-diversification risks, might be a good way go go, maybe another alternative is to just avoid having Robbie Grossman around instead of Jake Cave and Nelson Cruz? Maybe this FO thinks that Kepler, Buxton, Rosario, Sano, Polanco, Schoop, Cron, and Cruz all have a fairly high potential to deliver 2 to 4 WAR apiece? Isn't a lineup filled with nine  2 WAR guys a contender? I don't know. But I guess the roster flexibility concept is eluding me a bit.

 

I like the way Houston is going about it, Draft and develop with the best, take the best advantage of getting superstar results from players handcuffed by the CBA, take the long view, win your trades more often than you lose them, built asset value throughout the system, and don't be afraid to trade prospects, but when you do, TRADE FROM SURPLUS!

 

I just see it all much more as a quantity AND numbers battle with every roster spot pretty much needing to generate some WAR for you, or at least avoiding being a minus. 

 

That said, I agree with others, that we have reason to feel slighted a bit, not because they don't spend $130M on payroll, but because they have spent $100M in the past and left gaping holes when they could have written a couple more checks and spared us the agony of Oliver Drake.  Forcing me to go bird watching instead of Belisle watching.

My (admittedly quite back-of-the-envelope) framework for team-building is something like this:

Team WAR + 48 ~~ Wins for the season

To be considered a solid contender, 90 wins is a good target.

Therefore, a team needs to have ~42 WAR.

Divvying that up across 25 roster spots is hard, so I use the following simplification.

A 5 WAR bullpen is definitely top-10. So as a first approximation, just dedicate 5 WAR to bullpen.

37 WAR is remaining. Rather than worrying about starters/bench/playing time, just look focus on the actual positions. 9 spots in the lineup. 5 slots in the rotation. 14 total positions.

37 WAR / 14 positions= 2.6 WAR per positions.

So, on average, a team needs to have 2.6 WAR per position in order to be a contender.

 

Looking at the Steamer projections for the Twins, they are projecting 24.1 WAR on the position player side. That is a contender-worthy lineup: for reference it basically as good as the Astros/Rays/Nationals were last year, and better than the Braves/Indians/Mets/Brewers/Rays current projections. But it isn't enough to make up for weakness in the rotation. And given the broad depth on the position player side, the only way to improve things is by adding legitimate 3+ WAR players. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

 

A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.

 

In general, I agree with this statement. I'd argue though, that when you have a lot of cheap rookie deals, said superstar makes a ton of sense. 

 

Are we at that point right now? I don't know. Obviously, our issues hinge on Buxton, Kepler, and Sano being productive, and they are the wildcards (and probably the true risk) in this scneario.

 

The flip side is that signing Machado makes Adrianza expendable. Polanco can be Brian's coveted flex guy and this team just got a ton better. 

[Squirrel]

 

 and this team just got a ton better. 

This is what matters most to me. Getting better. I realize there are lots of question marks, but in my way of thinking, it is sink or swim time. So you bet on all three of Kep, Bux and Sano making huge strides, sign Machado, and you have a formidable team, one that can get past the Bostons and Yankees of the world. If you need to add a pitcher somewhere, you do it at the deadline, but this is a good place to start.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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.

 

a couple things:  I think you're speaking to reality when talking about Chicago and Minneapolis. Perception, however, may be different. Someone like Machado might also be more interested in a cities that have exclusive clubs for the rich and beautiful that you and I will never get into... who knows.

 

That said, I also think that marching forward will also pose a nice benefit to the other guys in the lineup. When you have Machado and Cruz batting 3rd and 4th, the guys hitting 1st and 2nd and maybe even the guys below will see better pitches... which for our young guys is even more valuable. 

[Vanimal46]

 

What a steal for the White Sox if this is the offer he signs.

[gunnarthor]

 

What a steal for the White Sox if this is the offer he signs.

God, if the Twins don't get involved at that price the fans should just revolt and not show up at all.

[TheLeviathan]

White Sox land him at a discount, save the prospects they tried to deal for him a few years back = win for them.  A big win.  

[Vanimal46]

God, if the Twins don't get involved at that price the fans should just revolt and not show up at all.

I'm pretty much there already. The White Sox fans get to talk about adding a 26 year old star player. We get to talk about losing a AAAA reliever.

[cmoss84]

For the love of God! If these numbers are accurate, please counter with 5/175!

[Winston Smith]

 

White Sox land him at a discount, save the prospects they tried to deal for him a few years back = win for them.  A big win.  

Twins aren't trying very hard if they can't beat that offer.

[Danchat]

If this deal was offered by the Twins, we’d all be complaining that they’re lowballing him.

 

I highly doubt Machado takes the deal. I’m sure somebody out there will give him at least $200M.

[AceWrigley]

Looks like the current offer to Machado by the White Sox is 7 years $175M = $25M/yr. Isn't this what Mauer was making? And Machado is only 26, making the back end of the deal less likely to be a burden. I wish I didn't dislike his poor on-field antics so much.

[Vanimal46]

If this deal was offered by the Twins, we’d all be complaining that they’re lowballing him.

 

I highly doubt Machado takes the deal. I’m sure somebody out there will give him at least $200M.

The only team left in the negotiation is Philly, who from recent reports are locking in on Harper.

[Blake]

Looks like we have a lively discussion going on here.

 

If the Twins sign Machado to a ridiculous contract, where do they get the money to retain Buxton, Kepler, Sano and Rosario? Along with paying for pitching?

 

I think it's safe to say at least two of those players are going to need significant jumps in salary if not all 4. 

 

And, how much money is Berrios going to command in order to retain his services? How about Odorizzi? And what if Gibson is truly hitting his stride and still has two or three good years left in him?

[Blake]

 

Looks like the current offer to Machado by the White Sox is 7 years $175M = $25M/yr. Isn't this what Mauer was making? And Machado is only 26, making the back end of the deal less likely to be a burden. I wish I didn't dislike his poor on-field antics so much.

Yeah, count me as someone else who dislikes his on field antics.

[Vanimal46]

Looks like we have a lively discussion going on here.

 

If the Twins sign Machado to a ridiculous contract, where do they get the money to retain Buxton, Kepler, Sano and Rosario? Along with paying for pitching?

 

I think it's safe to say at least two of those players are going to need significant jumps in salary if not all 4.

 

And, how much money is Berrios going to command in order to retain his services? How about Odorizzi? And what if Gibson is truly hitting his stride and still has two or three good years left in him?

That's putting the cart before the horse in regards to Sano, Buxton, Rosario, and Kepler, no? We kind of have to see if they're still worth investing in.

 

The Twins have never, and will never pay for the top pitching free agents so we can put that to rest too.

[Blake]

 

God, if the Twins don't get involved at that price the fans should just revolt and not show up at all.

What if the Twins are passing on Machado not because of money, but because of his on-field antics?

 

I think the Twins have enough to deal with in regards to Sano and I think the last thing they need is someone else who has issues.

 

Again, just tossing it out there.

[Blake]

 

That's putting the cart before the horse in regards to Sano, Buxton, Rosario, and Kepler, no? We kind of have to see if they're still worth investing in.

The Twins have never, and will never pay for the top pitching free agents so we can put that to rest too.

Uh, sorry, no, it isn't. The Twins, nor us, cannot look at a contract in isolation it also has to be looked at in the larger picture, which is the Twins have some young and possibly marquee players that very well will need big contracts.

[tvagle]

 

Looks like we have a lively discussion going on here.

 

If the Twins sign Machado to a ridiculous contract, where do they get the money to retain Buxton, Kepler, Sano and Rosario? Along with paying for pitching?

 

I think it's safe to say at least two of those players are going to need significant jumps in salary if not all 4. 

 

And, how much money is Berrios going to command in order to retain his services? How about Odorizzi? And what if Gibson is truly hitting his stride and still has two or three good years left in him?

 

Think I did an example of this on the position player side of things...

 

 

Explanations are here

 

 

 

[Blake]

 

 

Think I did an example of this on the position player side of things...

 

 

 

Explanations are here

 

Great post. Thanks.

 

And you know the FO is looking at these types of things.

[Seth Stohs]

Ken Rosenthal tweets that the current offers to Machado are unknown, but his agent says that the 7/$175 offer is not true. Others have also pointed out that the first number is certainly a 2. So, who knows?

 

 

[Badsmerf]

Uh, sorry, no, it isn't. The Twins, nor us, cannot look at a contract in isolation it also has to be looked at in the larger picture, which is the Twins have some young and possibly marquee players that very well will need big contracts.

How much is Sano worth per year right now? How about Kepler? Buxton? It is one thing to talk about Rosario, who has at least performed to expectations. The others haven't, and might never put it together.

 

Basing decisions on the possibility you'll have to pay other players more money on the future is a recipe for disaster. That is the garbage Terry Ryan spewed.

 

Also, I'd rather have Machado than any other Twins player. That isn't really debatable right?

[Mr. Brooks]

How much is Sano worth per year right now? How about Kepler? Buxton? It is one thing to talk about Rosario, who has at least performed to expectations. The others haven't, and might never put it together.

 

Basing decisions on the possibility you'll have to pay other players more money on the future is a recipe for disaster. That is the garbage Terry Ryan spewed.

 

Also, I'd rather have Machado than any other Twins player. That isn't really debatable right?

It's literally the job of the FO to have a short, medium, and long term financial blueprint.

Every signing they make has to consider those blueprints. It would be gross negligence for any FO to just wing it.

That's the whole reason franchises in all sports have gone away from one guy running the whole operation. The method you suggest is how the manager/ head coach would assemble a team- win now, worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The FO has to worry about today, and tomorrow, today.

[BenB]

I'm lazy today so I'm not going to find the article to support this, but haven't teams that have one player accounting for 20% or more of the payroll struggled to make the playoffs, and never won a World Series? Manny at 8/250 would mean the payroll would have to jump to over $150m before he would be less than that threshold.

 

You can't buy a good team in the long run, and giving that high of a percent of your payroll to one player is asking for trouble. Injuries happen, he has ben called out for not giving it everything, why risk it? We had a catcher that was on a HOF path and people could deal with it when it didn't turn out, I really don't want to deal with all the bitching again in 4-5 years.

[gunnarthor]

 

What if the Twins are passing on Machado not because of money, but because of his on-field antics?

 

I think the Twins have enough to deal with in regards to Sano and I think the last thing they need is someone else who has issues.

 

Again, just tossing it out there.

Then they are morons. I love Machado's on-field antics and wish more of our players had his fire. Don't like the pitch, see if their third baseman can catch a bat. Love it.

 

But there's no reason to think the Twins are worried about his character when they've never shown the ability to go after a top free agent despite the freaking stars aligning perfectly for them here. They'll never ever ever get this kind of opportunity and they aren't taking it.

[Blake]

 

How much is Sano worth per year right now? How about Kepler? Buxton? It is one thing to talk about Rosario, who has at least performed to expectations. The others haven't, and might never put it together.

Basing decisions on the possibility you'll have to pay other players more money on the future is a recipe for disaster. That is the garbage Terry Ryan spewed.

Also, I'd rather have Machado than any other Twins player. That isn't really debatable right?

I don't like Machado and think he's a punk that would be detrimental to the team. I was all for trying to sign Machado until I watched him the Series. After that performance, no thanks.

 

Anyway, you'd mortgage the future for one player when the Twins have so many other glaring needs?

 

You think it isn't possible to find two players for the money that Machado will command that will fill two holes rather than just one?

 

Of course, in looking at big free agent contracts over the years, I think such contracts tend to be long term albatrosses for teams.

 

I will admit I have a personal animus against these big contracts because I think teams tend to get stuck with a salary and a player that isn't producing yet still pulling down a significant chunk of money.

 

And don't get me wrong, it's not the money. I just take a dim view of paying for a player that who's best days are long past.

 

Granted, the contract length problem very well wouldn't be an issue with Machado because of his age, but the personality side really bothers me.

[Vanimal46]

I'm lazy today so I'm not going to find the article to support this, but haven't teams that have one player accounting for 20% or more of the payroll struggled to make the playoffs, and never won a World Series? Manny at 8/250 would mean the payroll would have to jump to over $150m before he would be less than that threshold.

 

You can't buy a good team in the long run, and giving that high of a percent of your payroll to one player is asking for trouble. Injuries happen, he has ben called out for not giving it everything, why risk it? We had a catcher that was on a HOF path and people could deal with it when it didn't turn out, I really don't want to deal with all the bitching again in 4-5 years.

How many examples are out there? Teams with high contracts usually have more than one of them on roster. The White Sox or Phillies will end up doing the same if they land Machado. It'd be silly to sign one player to a large contract and say all done! Now we can surround him with a bunch of dudes on pre-arb contracts.