Twins should be taking advantage of this market

[ahart10]

Harper/Machado could prolly get that ten year deal if they took a contract paying $35 for the first 4-6 years then dropping down a peg or two every year thereafter. The years of paying for a players prime by paying them for their decline are over.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Other than Beltre and Hunter, very few longer term free agent signings have worked. Scherzer and Cano are in the middle of their deals, they are working out so far. Many have one or two good years then are unproductive.

Scherzer is only in the middle of his deal, but we can safely conclude that it has worked out -- you can remove the "so far" qualifier. He's already at 29 bWAR, which is a fine return on his $210 mil deal (actually only $191 mil in "present day value" considering deferred money). From the Mariners perspective, Cano's deal has pretty much worked too -- 24 bWAR for $140-176 mil (depending on how you value the other pieces of that trade).

 

There are certainly long term deals that have gone bust, but it's not as if average or good ones are rare. From the same offseason as Scherzer, Lester was the only other $100+ mil FA deal and it has gone well. The Cano offseason also featured Tanaka (gone well) as well as the less impressive Ellsbury and Choo deals (although Ellsbury did manage 10 WAR in his first 4 seasons). The 2012-2013 offseason saw Greinke (good) and Josh Hamilton (bad).

 

Clubs like the Twins can't rely on these kind of FA too much, of course, but they also shouldn't close the door on the possibility too much either.

[ashbury]

Sigh, you mean a BETTER way of saying it.

I clicked Like to be friendly, not because I agree.

[wsnydes]

 

As long as we're all aware that the changes coming to the CBA do not bode well for the bottom 20 teams in the league, then great.  Average and below average payroll teams are about to get slaughtered.  All teams will run close to $100M payrolls with just their service time controlled players (or any agreed-to equivalent)--leaving the biggest spenders to buy all the prime free agents on high-value shorter term deals.  What makes anyone think the new-CBA world to which we're headed will be so much better when the Twins have a $100M payroll for 20 pre-FAs and now have to find 5 FAs to round out their roster for $30MM?  Forget ever signing Harper or Machado.  They won't be able to swing an elite AAV contract for 4 years/$160MM?  They can't.  It's not just about long term risk, it's about how much they can spend in the first place.  They're not going to push the payroll beyond 50% revenue just because they're in their window.

 

Meanwhile the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies, etc. can have 3-4 prime FAs on their roster at any given time and recycle them every 4-5 years without being hindered by the downside of any contract.  The majority of owners are about to concede any semblance of competitive balance because they don't want to pay pre-FAs for their current performance and don't want to pay FAs for past performance.  

How is that any different than the current system? Nobody expects the Royals or Rays or Twins to make a serious bid for the likes of Harper and/or Machado. It's the large market teams that are the teams that are in the mix.

 

[FlauerPauer]

 

Great.... But if you aren't a free agent until thirty, what reality allows most players to get paid?

 

This notion that players don't get paid is mind boggling.  They are making a minimum of $500,000 a year to play a sport.  How many people here make that much a year? It would take me 9 plus years to make what league minimum is in the MLB. Not to mention as long as you are on the 40 man roster, you are making the league minimum.  I don't feel bad for players who are making that kind of money to be pouting that they want more.  Follow some league minimum guys on instagram and tell me how bad you feel that they don't get paid "until thirty". Players who make the mlb and are under "serfdom" are doing just fine. I'll trade places with them if they want.

 

I'm a teacher in an urban district making $60,000 a year with two months off during the summer and around six weeks of vacation during the school year. A common complaint among teachers is that we don't get paid to our relative worth to the community, so if complaining about $500,000+ compared to a baseball players relative worth to the community is where we are at, how can you feel bad for the Bryce Harper's of the world?

[nicksaviking]

 

As long as we're all aware that the changes coming to the CBA do not bode well for the bottom 20 teams in the league, then great.  Average and below average payroll teams are about to get slaughtered.  All teams will run close to $100M payrolls with just their service time controlled players (or any agreed-to equivalent)--leaving the biggest spenders to buy all the prime free agents on high-value shorter term deals.  What makes anyone think the new-CBA world to which we're headed will be so much better when the Twins have a $100M payroll for 20 pre-FAs and now have to find 5 FAs to round out their roster for $30MM?  Forget ever signing Harper or Machado.  

 

I think the new CBA will do quite the opposite. The players aren't going to be content with only 5-6 teams spending big while watching the Pirates, Marlins and Rays continue to do absolutely nothing with payroll. As Ash said, the players need to redefine the payouts as "the players get x amount of revenue". 

 

The only way to achieve that is with a more equitable revenue sharing system that will force teams to spend within a certain salary window. And before someone says the Yankees and Dodgers won't agree to that, well it's not going to be entirely their call. Every other professional league does it that way and those other leagues don't have a competitive imbalance due to salary. The Cowboys the Lakers and the Red Wings surely didn't want it that way, but they had to go along with it anyway. The Yankees will just have to get in line. 

 

And based on current spending levels, I think they already know this is coming. I think these intentionally low payrolls league-wide is the owners trying to set a low bar for the players share during negotiations. And yes, that sounds exactly like collusion.

[killertwinfan]

 

We are going to score mucho more runs this year. A far better over/under is 84.

Yeah, I didn't spend enough time thinking through what really wanted to say.  I think the Pecota number of 81 is close.  But, I also think that if a couple of things go against us, injuries, a little less run production and a shakier bullpen we could see a steep drop in wins and then the low 70's become more probable.  I think we did a poor job of replacing Dozier, Mauer, Rodney and Escobar.  

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

How is that any different than the current system? Nobody expects the Royals or Rays or Twins to make a serious bid for the likes of Harper and/or Machado. It's the large market teams that are the teams that are in the mix.

 

Because the Twins have the option of signing someone like Harper or Machado.  I mean, they signed Mauer to an 8/184 deal.  With inflation, that's not far off from a 10/300 contract. 

 

If they increase the pre-FAs share of the pot--which is the only logical response to the owner's unwillingness to spend for past production--the Twins signing ANY player to a large contract becomes close to an impossibility.     

 

Being unwilling and being unable to spend are two different things.  

[wsnydes]

 

Because the Twins have the option of signing someone like Harper or Machado.  I mean, they signed Mauer to an 8/184 deal.  With inflation, that's not far off from a 10/300 contract. 

 

If they increase the pre-FAs share of the pot--which is the only logical response to the owner's unwillingness to spend for past production--the Twins signing ANY player to a large contract becomes close to an impossibility.     

 

Being unwilling and being unable to spend are two different things.  

Mauer didn't hit the open market though. He never saw what other teams were willing to pay for his services. He most certainly would have made more elsewhere. While a team like the Twins might be willing to put an offer out there in that range, the large market teams are simply going to outbid them. There's a reason why mid and small market teams don't sign big name free agents under the current system. When smaller market teams spend money on a player, it's almost always one of their own.

 

You are correct that being unwilling and unable are two different things, but in practice under the current system they are essentially the same. Large market teams simply push the salary number high enough that smaller market teams simply can't match. Under your scenario, the Twins would still have the option to put an offer out there but the larger market teams would simply outbid them. So really, what's the difference?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't believe there is a huge difference being on the market at 26 and 29.

Even if you don't think there's a big difference between 26 and 29 (and I think 3 prime years is pretty big), there's simply a huge difference between being on the market now, and being on the market 3 from now, for any player. Just from the uncertainty about what can happen in the intervening 3 years.

 

Right now, Machado and Harper are both healthy. No guarantee they are still this healthy in 3 years. Machado in particular seems unlikely to be coming off a better performance than his 2018 season (~6 WAR). And defensively, 3 years can mean a lot -- Machado and Harper may be barely acceptable for SS and CF duty already at 26, and they almost certainly won't be by age 29 (Harper in particular may be getting moved to 1B by then, if he repeats his 2018 defensive metrics).

 

I could see a one-year deal making some sense for Harper, if large offers aren't forthcoming right now -- it would give him a chance to correct those defensive metrics, maybe even have another of his high BABIP seasons to improve his batting line. But a 3 year deal would probably be an unwise decision for him -- not only because it's essentially trading his age 26-28 seasons for 3 seasons in his mid-30's, but also because he could easily see his defense and hitting improve but then regress over a 3 year period. 3 year deals are generally pretty bad, from a player's perspective, about maximizing value.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Mauer didn't hit the open market though. He never saw what other teams were willing to pay for his services. He most certainly would have made more elsewhere.

Mauer could have made more elsewhere coming off his 2009 season, when he got that extension -- but he wasn't a FA after 2009.

 

I doubt that Mauer would have gotten more than 8/184 elsewhere if hit FA as scheduled after the 2010 season (which was still very good -- but not quite in the stratosphere of 2009).

 

Not that it was a bad deal for the Twins or anything -- the Twins paid a little extra for the new potential of 2009, but saved a little bit by guaranteeing it a year before he hit FA -- with the two factors basically canceling each other out. I think Mauer could have just as easily re-signed here as a FA after 2010 for 8/184 and we wouldn't notice any kind of "butterfly effect" in the universe.

[wsnydes]

 

Mauer could have made more elsewhere coming off his 2009 season, when he got that extension -- but he wasn't a FA after 2009.

 

I doubt that Mauer would have gotten more than 8/184 elsewhere if hit FA as scheduled after the 2010 season (which was still very good -- but not quite in the stratosphere of 2009).

 

Not that it was a bad deal for the Twins or anything -- the Twins paid a little extra for the new potential of 2009, but saved a little bit by guaranteeing it a year before he hit FA -- with the two factors basically canceling each other out. I think Mauer could have just as easily re-signed here as a FA after 2010 for 8/184 and we wouldn't notice any kind of "butterfly effect" in the universe.

My point was simply that Mauer never hit the open market. I wasn't trying to imply that he was a FA at the time. Using him as a comp doesn't make sense to me because of that fact. It did make for a nice segue into my point of smaller market teams tend to spend money on their own players, not free agents though.

 

I do tend to agree with you in that Mauer gets that deal either way. I do think there's a decent chance he still gets more on the open market after 2010, but we obviously don't know that. Either way, he wasn't going to do worse.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

My point was simply that Mauer never hit the open market. I wasn't trying to imply that he was a FA at the time. Using him as a comp doesn't make sense to me because of that fact. It did make for a nice segue into my point of smaller market teams tend to spend money on their own players, not free agents though.

 

I do tend to agree with you in that Mauer gets that deal either way. I do think there's a decent chance he still gets more on the open market after 2010, but we obviously don't know that. Either way, he wasn't going to do worse.

 

Although if we agree that Mauer probably gets a comparable amount after 2010 anyway, then it's probably fair to use it a comp for current FA contracts.

 

I think the larger issue is that, had Mauer been coming from another organization, the Twins probably wouldn't have offered him anywhere close to 8/184 after 2010. I think that's just the organizational mindset that's still in play today -- not going to take that risk without the "hometown/homegrown star" safety net.

 

I don't like it, but if we want to see the Twins make a comparable outlay again, we probably have to wait and hope that Berrios or Lewis or Kirilloff earns it (although that's darn hard to do!).

[Jim Hahn]

The thing that nobody talks about is how arbitration is pushing up salaries. Cleveland for example, had to rearrange their secondary players because arbitration had pushed up the salaries of most of the core players. Cron and Schoop were largely available to the Twins because their previous teams didn't want to pay their likely arbitration awards.

 

The main reason the Twins haven't gone after big ticket free agents is because most of what we regard as their current core, will have their salaries pushed up dramatically thru arbitration IF they start performing close to what most us consider to be their ceilings. So, if you want to keep these guys around, and this year will go a long ways to deetermining which guys you want to keep, it becomes increasing difficult to commit long term money to free agents.

 

The Twins are a long ways from being in Cleveland's position, but many mid market teams are finding themselves there. They are trying to choose between overpaying for free agents, holding onto core pieces as long as they can, and trying to keep some flexibility for dealing with injuries and under performance. It is really only the first 3 years of a career where good to great players are cheap. Teams really don't want to pay replaceable players arbitration rates.

[wsnydes]

 

Although if we agree that Mauer probably gets a comparable amount after 2010 anyway, then it's probably fair to use it a comp for current FA contracts.

 

I think the larger issue is that, had Mauer been coming from another organization, the Twins probably wouldn't have offered him anywhere close to 8/184 after 2010. I think that's just the organizational mindset that's still in play today -- not going to take that risk without the "hometown/homegrown star" safety net.

 

I don't like it, but if we want to see the Twins make a comparable outlay again, we probably have to wait and hope that Berrios or Lewis or Kirilloff earns it (although that's darn hard to do!).

That's probably fair. I can't really argue against that logic. My only hang up would be that he didn't actually see the open market so we don't know, but you do make a good point.

 

Your second paragraph parallels the other point I was trying to make. It's not that smaller market teams don't spend on players, they tend to spend on their own. The Twins aren't alone in that thinking (Longoria immediately comes to mind). I don't really like it either, but I do understand the logic to a degree. Part of it is that they often come a bit cheaper plus there is comfort in the known commodity. There are flaws to that logic, but I do get it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Your second paragraph parallels the other point I was trying to make. It's not that smaller market teams don't spend on players, they tend to spend on their own. The Twins aren't alone in that thinking (Longoria immediately comes to mind). I don't really like it either, but I do understand the logic to a degree. Part of it is that they often come a bit cheaper plus there is comfort in the known commodity. There are flaws to that logic, but I do get it.

Yeah, and it probably works for a really small market team like Tampa.

 

But players that are talented enough to earn these big contracts are scarce enough that, for most clubs (including the Twins), you shouldn't really close off any avenue to acquire them.

[Riverbrian]

 

Yes and yes.  Free agency as we know it only exists because players aren't paid their true value for the first 6-7 years.  If analytics departments are now averse to spending money on free agents, and want to pay for productivity, then the natural result is that the players will demand to be paid more in years 1-7.   

 

Analytics has no regard for the aftermath of gaming the system to unlock value (the result of which is apparently increased revenue retention by owners) in a world where the rules of the system have to be collectively bargained at periodic intervals.  It's short-sighted and stupid--pennywise and pound foolish.  We should all fear what is to come in 2022.        

 

Perfectly stated. I believe you are exactly right. 

 

If I was advising the owners (I'm not). 

 

I would advise them that a little self inflicted damage would keep the advantage they hold in the next CBA and keep the peace. 

 

The current collective bargaining agreement (in my opinion) is already in the owner's favor. I believe this because the owners basically control players past the age of 30 in most cases. The players association seems to be OK with this... as long as they get paid when they gain free agency. As long as Ricky Nolasco gets 48 million... they keep signing a similar document each negotiation session. 

 

Once the Nolasco types are forced to settle for a 1 year 3 million deal instead... they have basically taken the entire pie now. It's like a smack upside the head to the players union...with a strong message that they didn't do a good job negotiating the last CBA... with a strong message that ownership will take advantage of their mistakes... with a strong message that they wrongly trusted things to remain the same. 

 

The sleeping bear was poked. Offense makes people play defense. The players are now witnessing in real time with actual events that they have given their prime years away during a time when the front offices are weighting their pay scale based upon what they are underpaid during their prime years.

 

Like I said earlier... A little self inflicted damage (willingness to compensate the players who make it to free agency and compensate them above what their metrics suggest) would help keep the peace. 

 

I've used this analogy before. If England would have allowed Representation while levying taxes... Does the revolutionary war happen? England took it all, therefore forcing the colonists to fight back (AND WE WON). 

 

Taking advantage of the players union mistake will only lead them to try and correct the mistake. It's going to be ugly and it will end up being the owners fault in my opinion. The players won't stand for minimum compensation with no control over the outcome during their prime years if the free agent reward for giving up that control has been taken away. 

 

 

[wsnydes]

 

Yeah, and it probably works for a really small market team like Tampa.

 

But players that are talented enough to earn these big contracts are scarce enough that, for most clubs (including the Twins), you shouldn't really close off any avenue to acquire them.

Agreed. Certain talents don't just come around that often. I understand the logic and there are going to be circumstances where it will make the most sense, but as a general rule it's short sighted.

[darin617]

 

Brett Anderson for $1.5 million. I like that deal way more than Perez. Sergio Romo? I believe he would be an upgrade for pen. I really have no idea how Falvine’s player Evaluation works. The free agent failure of the Twins isn’t about Harper or Machado. It’s about the plethora of affordable free agents they passed on that could have reshaped this team regardless of Sano or Buxton. The idea that we have to wait on these two before we make solid improvements to the team is a joke. It’s like their first year when they did nothing to improve a horrid pitching staff because they needed time to evaluate. Everyone knew their pitching sucked - no evaluation needed. I think these two have to be the smartest guys in the room which doesn’t bode well for our favorite 9. I would welcome Terry Ryan back in a heartbeat. At least he accomplished something.

 

The worst part is what the Twins paid Martin Perez the Twins could have signed Brett Anderson & Sergio Romo for basically the same money.

 

I can say I am VERY TIRED of us bringing in players from Cleveland or Texas because they are familiar with them.

[Major League Ready]

 

He was hurt.... But sure. Of the thirty teams, he was better than the best player on multiple teams. And he's 26. Are you saying he's not great? Or not worth signing? Are you suggesting he's not going to be great? Because I don't know what point you are making.

 

I should have elaborated but I was short on time.  He is a fantastic player, no doubt.  The only point is that the numbers you cited include a year where he had almost double the WAR of any other years.  He has been a 3-5 WAR player with the exception of 1 year.  That's very good but there is a reason the interest has been somewhat limited and I just thought the context you used was shining the best possible light on this subject.

[Mike Sixel]

Ending the discount in years 1-7.

That's not an option right now. In the future it might be.

[Riverbrian]

 

This notion that players don't get paid is mind boggling.  They are making a minimum of $500,000 a year to play a sport.  How many people here make that much a year? It would take me 9 plus years to make what league minimum is in the MLB. Not to mention as long as you are on the 40 man roster, you are making the league minimum.  I don't feel bad for players who are making that kind of money to be pouting that they want more.  Follow some league minimum guys on instagram and tell me how bad you feel that they don't get paid "until thirty". Players who make the mlb and are under "serfdom" are doing just fine. I'll trade places with them if they want.

 

I'm a teacher in an urban district making $60,000 a year with two months off during the summer and around six weeks of vacation during the school year. A common complaint among teachers is that we don't get paid to our relative worth to the community, so if complaining about $500,000+ compared to a baseball players relative worth to the community is where we are at, how can you feel bad for the Bryce Harper's of the world?

 

I would also like to be paid the minimum MLB salary and I can't imagine myself complaining about it. 

 

At least until someone whispered in my ear and pointed out how much revenue above that minimum salary is being brought in. 

 

At least until someone whispered in my ear and pointed out that an open market for my services during my prime years would force teams that WANT TO WIN to outbid the other team for my services. 

 

I have no complaint making the minimum salary even if I'm playing for the Chicago White Sox and I hate the White Sox...

 

But I will start complaining if the Minnesota Twins would pay me more but can't because the White Sox own my rights and they can keep me at minimum salary because they own me. 

[Major League Ready]

 

Great.... But if you aren't a free agent until thirty, what reality allows most players to get paid?

 

AAvs have grown at a very strong pace and Teams are still willing to pay those high AAVs.  The only difference is that history has proven that the team will get burned more often that not. So, the reality is Teams have learned that these contracts often hurt the team badly and they are adjusting.  They are still willing to pay as long as a player is productive but the players want to be paid regardless of contribution. 

 

So, to answer your question, they can make a ton of money for as long as they produce. Seems fair to me.

[Mike Sixel]

If they could earn what they were worth in a free market from day one, I'd agree. But, relative to their production, they are often well underpaid for at least six years. Now teams are realizing many free agents aren't that much better than rookies, so they aren't getting paid at the end of the career to make up for the beginning. It's a broken system.

[Major League Ready]

 

How is that any different than the current system? Nobody expects the Royals or Rays or Twins to make a serious bid for the likes of Harper and/or Machado. It's the large market teams that are the teams that are in the mix.

The inefficiency of LT deals limited the advantage to the teams who could afford to sign them.  Even the biggest revenue teams run out of available payroll dollars. That inefficiency will be diminished with shorter term contracts giving the large markets greater productivity from their FA expenditures.

[howieramone2]

 

For the record, I've not been able to find any cite for this claim at all. And there was quite extensive reporting about how the Twins landed Miguel Sano in 2009 (as well as Kepler and Polanco that same year) -- and none of those reports even mention Terry Ryan.

 

I don't doubt that you believe you heard or read this from LaVelle, but I think it's very likely that LaVelle was either incorrect or misinterpreted.

Since LaVelle probably saw TR at least once a week, I'm guessing he was in a much better position to know his.duties than practically anyone else. Why don't you contact LaVelle. He always leaves contact information.

 

I'm not the only one who reads the Strib sports page. 

[howieramone2]

 

He lost 2 MPH on his fastball by the end of the year. Unless he gets that back, I've got no confidence in him rebounding, and I don't have much confidence that he'll get it back.

 

If he does great, but if he's only sitting at 89-90 MPH at the end of spring training the team should have no qualms about eating the rest of the contract and walking away if better options are available., 

You don't DFA players with trade value, which he clearly has. I recall prior to last season, we had members who wanted to DFA Gibson and Pressly. Also, he had tendinitis.  

 

 

[howieramone2]

 

The worst part is what the Twins paid Martin Perez the Twins could have signed Brett Anderson & Sergio Romo for basically the same money.

 

I can say I am VERY TIRED of us bringing in players from Cleveland or Texas because they are familiar with them.

Brett Anderson is an injury waiting to happen. Romo is 35 and we were looking at him. You are more comfortable with players we are not familiar with?

[wsnydes]

 

The inefficiency of LT deals limited the advantage to the teams who could afford to sign them.  Even the biggest revenue teams run out of available payroll dollars. That inefficiency will be diminished with shorter term contracts giving the large markets greater productivity from their FA expenditures.

So instead of the large market teams gobbling up the big name free agents like they do now, they'd simply do it more efficiently? I'm still not seeing a difference. Either way, the large market teams still gobble up the big name free agents. How they go about it is largely irrelevant. The result is still the same.

[yarnivek1972]

He had his weaknesses but hubris wasn’t one of them. Plus he could evaluate talent at the highest level, particularly minor league and amateur players. Based on what I’ve seen so far Falvine don’t have that ability. Ryan proved he could do the job at one point and then didn’t the second time around. I’m willing to bet that Falvine don’t ever match any of his accomplishments despite more resources.

The Rangers apeared in consecutive World Series during Levine’s tenure.

 

The Indians appeared in the World Series in his only season as assistant general manager, which was following several seasons as director of baseball operations.

 

 

So, that’s 3 World Series’ appearances to Terry Ryan’s 0. Ryan was still scouting director in 1987 and 1991.