Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Am I wrong? I'd rather the Twins have Martin, Woods Richardson, and $20M per year to spend than Jose Berrios?


John Bonnes
 Share

21 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, priorities certainly can change. We can assume the report wasn't true, or all that accurate, Berrios and his agent could've been making crazy demands, received the trade they wanted and obtained new info on how the market valued Jose upon being traded, then finally readjusted/settled on a pretty good deal for both player and team. Alternatively, the Twins might never have been willing to approach Berrios with what he thought was fair value and Toronto was willing to meet that compensation number. I'm just siding with Occam's razor here.

The simple explanation is that each negotiation is unique and irrelevant to other negotiations. Ash said it best "There is no $20m"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have still yet to see, anywhere, whether the Berrios contract is Canadian dollars or US. 80% of the value if Canadian. 

I would rather have Berrios. The two in trade are still, and may always be, minor league players, and neither were close to awesome last year, even in the minors. My bet is Toronto got a steal.... and a future Cy Young winner.  I will miss his defense, too. We will probablay sign some fat out of shape stranger that will under perform his contract and works a tenth as hard as Berrios on his craft. I will miss seeing him skip off the mound at the end of the inning.......

Maeda was better? For all of 2 months? A little over 60 days? It was a nice 2 months.... but even Ricky Nolasco had a similar 2 months....... it just wasn't a 2 month season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sconnie said:

The simple explanation is that each negotiation is unique and irrelevant to other negotiations. Ash said it best "There is no $20m"

 

Well, to be more accurate, they saved around $10.7M in 2022 (around Berrios' last arb salary), and then $15-18M in 2023-2026 and then $24M in 2017 and 2028. 

To answer the question, I would take Berrios and his contract, but I don't hate the Twins' side of it. Unless they continue to fail to develop prospects and spend the money on mediocre FAs, of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

The simple explanation is that each negotiation is unique and irrelevant to other negotiations. Ash said it best "There is no $20m"

Eh, unique yes, irrelevant no. 

I do agree that getting attached to a specific number in regard to what we expect the Twins to save/spend doesn't make much sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shaitan said:

I like Berrios a lot. But there aren't 12 pitchers in the last 120 years I'd sign to a 7-year contract.

We’ll certainly I’d hesitate to sign deceased pitchers, but it would be pretty easy to name 12 active pitchers who I would have signed to 7-year-contracts since 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will  tell if you're wrong or not.  Not all prospects pan out.  This past season we were 3 and 4 years out from having been sellers in 2017 & 2018.  The only asset acquired in all those deals who even sniffed contributing this year was Gilberto Celestino and his contribution consisted of a negative WAR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 6:05 AM, Trov said:

I fully agree with you John.  I for one feel the Jay will be regretting their deal down the road.  They are paying as a top 10 pitcher, but he has yet to get over that hump as being a top 10 guy.  I have a feeling those last 3 years if not some in the middle will be huge overpaid years.  

I always like Berrios, but at most he helps the team win maybe 5 to 10 games they would have lost had he not been on the mound, which I think is a little more credit than he deserves.  Yes, he had some great starts, but unlike some guys I never was thinking we should win every start he makes.  

Following you post assumption is that the 20 mil will be spent on a pitcher, or pitchers I would much rather have the trade happen, get the 2 prospects, that one looks like he will be a great hitter, and look to replace Berrios with another FA.  Berrios, if in this class of FA would not be the top guy.  Berrios is replaceable, and as Cleveland, and Rays have shown for years, trade them a year or two early to restock, instead of signing long term and get hamstrung. 

Wow, any player that helps the team win 5 - 10 games is huge!!  Plus any top flight pitcher contract has the potential to hamstring the twins.  They aren't going to sign any really good proven pitcher to a 1 year deal.  Just isn't going to happen.  The only pitchers they will sign to 1 year deals will be the Happs and the shoemakers of the league.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front office is trying to get to the point where like Tampa they can have a stable of pitchers coming up ALWAYS... have them be good to great... move them for great young pieces... keep the payroll down and the talent level up... takes time but we are getting there. 

As far as the deal... I always liked JB but would do it every time if getting top end young talent that can keep the system strong is very smart. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Yes.  You're wrong.  And you became wrong as soon you started naming names like Ray, Gaussman, DeSclafini, Matz, Wood, Gray & Cobb.  The Twins have never spent the kind of money it'd take to get those guys.  The only way they'd have spent that kind of money on pitching would have been to keep Berrios.  Look at it this way:  They could have kept both Buxton and Berrios for less than the Rangers spent on Seager and likely less than somebody ends up spending on Correa.  And don't give me the old "Berrios was determined to test free agency" argument.  The only reason he never seriously considered re-signing here was because we never made a serious offer.  A hundred years of baseball history says that MAYBE one of the two guys  they got pans out.   Berrios is 27 years old, is one of the top dozen pitchers in baseball and is far more likely to remain in that echelon over  the next seven years of his contract than either of the guys we got for him are to reach it.  End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 9:42 AM, dxpavelka said:

Yes.  You're wrong.  And you became wrong as soon you started naming names like Ray, Gaussman, DeSclafini, Matz, Wood, Gray & Cobb.  The Twins have never spent the kind of money it'd take to get those guys.  The only way they'd have spent that kind of money on pitching would have been to keep Berrios.  Look at it this way:  They could have kept both Buxton and Berrios for less than the Rangers spent on Seager and likely less than somebody ends up spending on Correa.  And don't give me the old "Berrios was determined to test free agency" argument.  The only reason he never seriously considered re-signing here was because we never made a serious offer.  A hundred years of baseball history says that MAYBE one of the two guys  they got pans out.   Berrios is 27 years old, is one of the top dozen pitchers in baseball and is far more likely to remain in that echelon over  the next seven years of his contract than either of the guys we got for him are to reach it.  End of story.

If you are right that the Twins would never sign any of the other free agent pitchers you mentioned then it is inevitable they were never going to sign Berrios.  In other words, Berrios is no more an option than any of the other pitchers mentioned.  If that's the case the question becomes would it be better to have SWR and Martin in the future or Berrios for the 2nd half of last year and 2022.  Last year was lost so I guess the question is really would we prefer to have Berrios in 2022 vs Martin / SWR.  This is how Tampa and Oakland operate, right.  Would they chose to keep Berrios for a year or would they take Martin / SWR?

You are making an argument that Berrios was somehow a viable option while arguing they would never spend that kind of money on any pitcher.  Maybe they won't.  Maybe they spend some of it it to extend Polanco or sign Tim Anderson next year if Lewis does not step up.  IDK.  I do know there are always alternative uses of that money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Would chose to keep Berrios for a year or would they take Martin / SWR?

You have reframed the question from the original post by John by adopting Ash's point, "There is no $20m." This is a fair point as the Twins history has shown. Additionally, the entire discussion about budget needs to be reframed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

You have reframed the question from the original post by John by adopting Ash's point, "There is no $20m." This is a fair point as the Twins history has shown. Additionally, the entire discussion about budget needs to be reframed. 

No.  I am saying that even if there was not $20M the question is would it have been a better idea to pass on SWR and Martin in order to have Berrios for the 2nd half of 2021 and next year.  2021 was a lost year and the odds of contending in 2022 are very low.  Boston let Mookie Betts go in a similar situation and they obviously  have much more financial resource.  Tampa would never hold on to a player in this situation.  They would get the best return they could.

The "there is no 20M" is a ridiculous statement.  They obviously would have been spending roughly $20M that could be allocated elsewhere.  That argument would assume that they are going to lower there budget by $20M for the next 7 years because they did not sign Berrios.  They might not spend it ever year and they might not spend it on pitching but they have $20M they would not have if they signed Berrios.  If you don't buy a boat that was going to cost $1,000/month you can spend that $1,000 on something else.  The crap baseball fans make up in their heads is dumbfounding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If you are right that the Twins would never sign any of the other free agent pitchers you mentioned then it is inevitable they were never going to sign Berrios.  In other words, Berrios is no more an option than any of the other pitchers mentioned.  If that's the case the question becomes would it be better to have SWR and Martin in the future or Berrios for the 2nd half of last year and 2022.  Last year was lost so I guess the question is really would we prefer to have Berrios in 2022 vs Martin / SWR.  This is how Tampa and Oakland operate, right.  Would they chose to keep Berrios for a year or would they take Martin / SWR?

You are making an argument that Berrios was somehow a viable option while arguing they would never spend that kind of money on any pitcher.  Maybe they won't.  Maybe they spend some of it it to extend Polanco or sign Tim Anderson next year if Lewis does not step up.  IDK.  I do know there are always alternative uses of that money.  

That's exactly the argue I'm making.  Berrios was the ONLY viable option.  Yes, there are always alternative uses of money but resigning our own players is the only one this team ever takes advantage of. I would choose to keep Berrios for seven years.  We've seen what the price to do so was.  We must assume that that this team never offered that amount of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...