Article: Making a Machado Bid

[RatherBeGolfing]

 

I heard a guy on the radio ask the question if not now then when to signing a big time free agent.

His answer was Never and I agree if the Twins aren't willing to pay Manny or Harper (not that either would take it), which free agent would they ever give the money to?

 

The 2020 version of Ricky Nolasco

[Number3]

Anyone who thinks that signing a Manny Machado into the Twins' roster with the huge, out of proportion contract that he would receive, would be a plus for the team is just looking for a simple solution to a long term history of mediocrity. Acquiring a Machado (or a Harper) would set the Twins back; not move them forward. They both think they are the team; not part of a team. All you have to do is look at the teams they have played for and how they have performed when it really counted. Also look at whether these teams have gotten better or worse during their tenure. They are both a representation of a popular baseball fan food served in a long narrow bun usually with mustard.

[ashbury]

They are both a representation of a popular baseball fan food served in a long narrow bun usually with mustard.

I prefer sauerkraut on my brats.

 

Oh, and don't call players names.

[Mr. Brooks]

Also look at whether these teams have gotten better or worse during their tenure.

Nationals;

7 years with Harper: 637-497

7 years prior to Harper: 492-642

21 more wins per year with Harper.

 

Orioles;

7 years with Machado: 566-568

7 years before Machado: 480-654

12 more wins per year with Machado.

[BK432]

 

Anyone who thinks that signing a Manny Machado into the Twins' roster with the huge, out of proportion contract that he would receive, would be a plus for the team is just looking for a simple solution to a long term history of mediocrity. Acquiring a Machado (or a Harper) would set the Twins back; not move them forward. They both think they are the team; not part of a team. All you have to do is look at the teams they have played for and how they have performed when it really counted. Also look at whether these teams have gotten better or worse during their tenure. They are both a representation of a popular baseball fan food served in a long narrow bun usually with mustard.

 

 

Nationals;
7 years with Harper: 637-497
7 years prior to Harper: 492-642
21 more wins per year with Harper.

Orioles;
7 years with Machado: 566-568
7 years before Machado: 480-654
12 more wins per year with Machado.

 

Thanks for doing the work, Mr. Brooks. I greatly prefer data to old, tired narratives.

 

Let's say this clearly. Adding one of the best players in baseball to a team that is $30M below last year's payroll number and with nearly unlimited payroll flexibility in 2020 and beyond should be a no brainer. If there were an offer, Machado can still choose to sign it or not. There are two sides to the deal. But not even making an offer? Not believing he could help the team? Inexcusable for an MLB executive. I really, really hope they're seeing if they can make an end run at this.

Edited January 21, 2019 by BK432

[nicksaviking]

 

I live in LA. Machado was great for the Dodgers, helped them get to the World Series, and was well liked in the clubhouse. They didn't re-sign him because he's too expensive for a team that already has a $200 million payroll. He is far form toxic.   

 

I'm not sure how much insight you have into the situation, but it's nice to hear a contrary opinion from someone who has more ties to the situation. People are easy to judge as good or bad when they're in 2D, but I find that most people that I know have more redeeming qualities than not, even if they've done something to upset or disappoint me recently.

[Jim Hahn]

Nationals;

7 years with Harper: 637-497

7 years prior to Harper: 492-642

21 more wins per year with Harper.

Orioles;

7 years with Machado: 566-568

7 years before Machado: 480-654

12 more wins per year with Machado.

This answer has nothing to do with what the poster said. Both teams were good during the early years when therespective players were there. The teams were less good at the end of their tenure.

 

Personally, I think the real point is that one player no matter how good, can't make a team good by himself. Largely, neither Machado or Harper will make the Twins good unless the current players get better. It is possible also that different players(pitchers) would more likely make the Twins better than Machado or Harper. That would be my opinion anyway.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Jim Hahn

[Squirrel]

 

This answer has nothing to do with what the poster said. Both teams were good during the early years when therespective players were there. The teams were less good at the end of their tenure.

Personally, I think the real point is that one player no matter how good, can't make a team good by himself. Largely, neither Machado or Harper will make the Twins good unless the current players get better. It is possible also that different players(pitchers) would more likely make the Twins better than Machado or Harper. That would be my opinion anyway.

I agree that one player doesn't make the team by themselves. And agreed, one  player can't make a bad team good. So ... does this mean you think we have a bad team, or a team not good enough to sign someone like Machado or Harper? The way I see it, I'm betting on this team to be good, that the core is primed and ready, or at least competitive in the central. Adding a Machado or a Harper, in my opinion, makes us competitive with Boston, New York and Houston. That's why I think one of these players should be added ... to get us to the next level, and hopefully beyond. And having him the next few years, while this young group keeps getting better, you've become a force to be reckoned with. That's what I want this team to be. And I don't see it happening standing pat or waiting and seeing ... because the opportunity is now. We have the flexibility in payroll, and we have two superstar players ripe for the picking. That's how I view it, anyway.

[Mike Sixel]

Whether you think they are good or not, Machado is 26 (I think), and should be very good to great for 5-10 more years. If they aren't competitive in that timeframe, it won't be because they have a great player in Machado (or Harper)......

 

This isn't some 30 year old we are talking about here. 

[gil4]

 

I would much rather be sitting in Target Field in April for a game than either of Wrigley or Guaranteed Rate. But I’d rather be sitting in either Chicago Stadiums in late October than Target Field. I say that based on experience of the weather and climate of both areas.

I'd much rather be sitting in Target Field in late October than in either of the Chicago stadiums.

 

Nothing to do with the climate, and completely off topic.

[Jim Hahn]

I agree that one player doesn't make the team by themselves. And agreed, one  player can't make a bad team good. So ... does this mean you think we have a bad team, or a team not good enough to sign someone like Machado or Harper? The way I see it, I'm betting on this team to be good, that the core is primed and ready, or at least competitive in the central. Adding a Machado or a Harper, in my opinion, makes us competitive with Boston, New York and Houston. That's why I think one of these players should be added ... to get us to the next level, and hopefully beyond. And having him the next few years, while this young group keeps getting better, you've become a force to be reckoned with. That's what I want this team to be. And I don't see it happening standing pat or waiting and seeing ... because the opportunity is now. We have the flexibility in payroll, and we have two superstar players ripe for the picking. That's how I view it, anyway.

Oh, I agree that Machado or Harper would make a difference if/when the core guys improve. That just isn't where I would spend my money. I think Lewis and Kiriloff have a very good chance of being able to provide at least close to what those two guys will. It should be soon and cheaper for awhile. If I am going to spend big bucks it would on pitching. Preferably starting pitching. That is unless you are sure the farm can provide that soon.

[bighat]

Why not sign him - what's the worst that could happen? The team tanks? Then trade the guy in a couple of years at the deadline if things don't work out. The Dodgers/RedSox/Yankees would give their farm system for the guy in 2021 with 5 years of team control remaining -- as long as Machado's crushing it, which I see no reason to doubt he will be. I really don't see too much for the Twins to lose by at least putting in an offer.

[Squirrel]

Oh, I agree that Machado or Harper would make a difference if/when the core guys improve. That just isn't where I would spend my money. I think Lewis and Kiriloff have a very good chance of being able to provide at least close to what those two guys will. It should be soon and cheaper for awhile. If I am going to spend big bucks it would on pitching. Preferably starting pitching. That is unless you are sure the farm can provide that soon.

I can’t fault you for wanting starting pitching. We all do. But I think the wait and see game only leaves us with a missed opportunity. I’m betting on this core, now, and wanting to add to it now. Harper and Machado aren’t available next year. I think adding one of them now puts us over for this season, because I think our core will be ready and will perform this season. I don’t think it’s wise to wait for some time tbd. If we signed Machado now, he moves to 3rd when Lewis is ready, and he’s here to anchor the next core. If you sign Harper, our OF depth can be used in a trade for better pitching. And you have either one into the future. We can wait and see, but if the core responds as I think they will this year, we will still be missing a piece and we’ll be out of the playoffs in the first round. But, you never know. That’s baseball. I’d be very happy to be wrong on that count.

[Jim Hahn]

I am not saying I am right about this. But signing Machado or Harper may not prevent keeping our own core as that becomes necessary, but it may very well prevent filling other unanticipated holes.

 

The thing is Machado going to be so much better at short than Lewis or Javier that it is advisable to move them to another position ? Machado won't come here unless he gets serious guarantees that he gets to play shortstop. Whatever the truth about these observations, I'd rather have pitching. Getting as much top flight pitching as possible would be my choice over either Machado or Harper.

 

I think there is enough talent here and coming shortly to give the Twins good and possibly considerably better than that, offense. Right now, I doubt if that is true about starting pitching.

[Mr. Brooks]

Why not sign him - what's the worst that could happen? The team tanks? Then trade the guy in a couple of years at the deadline if things don't work out. The Dodgers/RedSox/Yankees would give their farm system for the guy in 2021 with 5 years of team control remaining -- as long as Machado's crushing it, which I see no reason to doubt he will be. I really don't see too much for the Twins to lose by at least putting in an offer.

Why would those teams give up money and their farm system in 2021, when they can just sign him for money now?

Not to mention, any deal with Machado or Harper is probably going to have to include a no trade clause, which severely limits the return you can get by trading them.

 

BTW: This isn't me saying don't sign them. I think they should try to.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Mr. Brooks

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not to mention, any deal with Machado or Harper is probably going to have to include a no trade clause, which severely limits the return you can get by trading them.

 

Actually, I could see them going without a no-trade clause, or with a weaker one, especially in Minnesota -- as long as they have opt-out clauses.

 

So then, in theory, you could trade them in a few years just before their opt out, effectively as a rental.

[Mr. Brooks]

Actually, I could see them going without a no-trade clause, or with a weaker one, especially in Minnesota -- as long as they have opt-out clauses.

 

So then, in theory, you could trade them in a few years just before their opt out, effectively as a rental.

They'll get both. Darvish got a full NTC and an opt out, and Machado and Harper are far better free agents than Darvish was.

[ashbury]

Why would those teams give up money and their farm system in 2021, when they can just sign him for money now?

Because the contract would be two years shorter and if he's still productive then that part of the contract is less risky than the entire one now.

 

But that's the flaw in the other poster's argument. what if the first two years are when something bad happens. We may believe that risk is small, due to factors such as his current age. But it's not zero.

 

If some other team can get the Twins to shoulder the risk now, and then take him off their hands when that initial risk has played out without harm, then it's a win for that other team versus just signing him to the same contract in the first place. Balancing that would be whatever benefit the Twins get from those two years. And, IF the front office believes that these next two years aren't likely to be competitive anyway, then the deal becomes Heads I Lose, Tails You Win - or maybe breakeven at best.

 

I wouldn't go into a contract with a high end talent with that kind of scenario planning as the primary motivation. Do it for the purpose of making your team better now and for several seasons to come.

[Mr. Brooks]

Because the contract would be two years shorter and if he's still productive then that part of the contract is less risky than the entire one now.

 

But that's the flaw in the other poster's argument. what if the first two years are when something bad happens. We may believe that risk is small, due to factors such as his current age. But it's not zero.

 

If some other team can get the Twins to shoulder the risk now, and then take him off their hands when that initial risk has played out without harm, then it's a win for that other team versus just signing him to the same contract in the first place. Balancing that would be whatever benefit the Twins get from those two years. And, IF the front office believes that these next two years aren't likely to be competitive anyway, then the deal becomes Heads I Lose, Tails You Win - or maybe breakeven at best.

 

I wouldn't go into a contract with a high end talent with that kind of scenario planning as the primary motivation. Do it for the purpose of making your team better now and for several seasons to come.

I think you have it backwards.

The front years of a long FA contract are the ones you want to get, not the back ones.

If I get to choose, I'm taking ages 26-28 over ages 29-31 every time.

[bighat]

I remember last year in Spring Training, the Braves basically said they were going to call up 19 year-old Robert Acuna on April 28th (to save a year of eligibility) and let the kid start raking. They followed through with that, the Braves made the playoffs and Acuna succeeded. Washington called up 19 year-old Juan Soto and he mashed.

 

Wish the Twins would be more aggressive with their top prospects, especially a guy like Lewis who seems like he's got the maturity to handle a promotion.