Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Don't Panic Over Bad Breaks For Twins Rotation


    Nick Nelson

    If you're freaking out about the Twins rotation right now, that's understandable.

    The past week has brought a couple of seemingly grave developments. Ervin Santana will probably miss the first month of the season, and Minnesota has officially lost out in the Yu Darvish sweepstakes. No one could deny that the present layout of the rotation looks grim.

    But there are some silver linings at play here.

    Image courtesy of Brad Rempel, USA Today

    Twins Video

    First, let's talk about Santana. Losing your top starter for a chunk of the season hurts, there's no other way to slice it.

    It's troubling to imagine where the Twins might have been at the end of May last year without Santana carrying the staff through the first two months, when he logged 77 innings with a 1.75 ERA over 11 starts.

    But here's the thing: Minnesota absolutely should NOT have been counting on the same impact in 2018. For a variety of reasons, Santana was all but certain to see regression this year. I've been banging that drum all offseason, and the recently released PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus express similar reservations, forecasting Erv for a 4.76 ERA and 1.41 WHIP.

    Even before this injury news came out, expecting the same Ervin Santana from 2017 to return in 2018 was folly. If the Twins held any such expectations (and their lack of urgency to add rotation help would seemingly suggest it), those are now out the door.

    Even if the right-hander rejoins the team after a relatively short absence, there's no assurance his surgically repaired middle finger will enable him to throw sliders with the same superior spin and command. Any diminishment for that pitch – easily the most critical in his arsenal – would be very bad news. The Twins have to recognize this risk, and it should theoretically increase their motivation to add another high-caliber starting pitcher.

    That's good.

    Also, the timing of Santana's missed time could be viewed as a hidden blessing. Some fans have expressed frustration that the issue wasn't dealt with surgically last fall, but getting it done ahead of spring training should minimize his lost regular-season time, and might even prove helpful in ways for him and the club.

    For a veteran player like Santana, spring training doesn't have much value. Obviously he needs to ramp up his pitch counts and prepare for the summer's workload, but as far as actually competing in games? He's just throwing hundreds of meaningless pitches, and taking away innings from younger players who have something to prove, and to gain.

    Now, Santana will rehab and ramp up on his own terms. The team's official statement asserts that the hurler's "expected return to Major League game activity is 10-12 weeks" from the date of the surgery. That phrasing is a little odd, but if we take it at face value, then the Twins anticipate having Santana back on the mound starting games before the first of May.

    Meanwhile, his innings in spring training can go to others, and Santana's well-traveled arm gets an extra break to open the campaign, potentially keeping him fresh later on.

    That's good.

    One final thing to note: Santana has a clause in his contract that would have guaranteed his $14 million salary in 2019 if he reached 200 innings this season. That was a possibility Twins decision-makers needed to account for in their planning, and it might've made them more hesitant to commit payroll for next year. Now, as it it will be virtually impossible for Santana to eclipse the 200 mark, Minnesota has a true team option for 2019, when he'll be 36.

    That's good.

    Of course, as mentioned above, the Twins absolutely do need to add at least one more starter to the mix. And sadly, the dream of Darvish has ended. The most coveted player on the free agent market finally found a home on Saturday, agreeing to terms with the Cubs on a six-year deal worth $125 million plus incentives.

    In terms of total money, that sure looks like a figure the Twins could have responsibly beat, leading to some familiar lamentations. But when you zoom out, and look at all that Chicago's contract for Darvish entails, you see an arrangement that is far from team-friendly.

    The Cubs are now committed to the righty through 2023. He'll be 37 when the pact expires. Although $21 million in annual salary is lower than most expected but it still becomes a hindrance quickly if he underperforms or battles injury. And those are legitimate apprehensions since Darvish is arguably a bigger long-term health risk than many of his peers.

    Darvish's huge pitch counts in Japan were a much-discussed topic when he initially came over to the States. As recently as last season, writers in Texas were noticing his workload – especially the heavy slider usage – and wondering if it was cause for concern.

    He was healthy and throwing hard last summer, quieting any serious alarm sirens, but Darvish was pretty clearly wearing down by the time the World Series rolled around. And the fact remains: he hasn't reached 190 innings since 2013.

    Darvish reportedly has an opt-out built into his deal after just two years, so if he does outperform his pay in 2018 and 2019, there's not really much upside for his team. He'd go back to the market in pursuit of more money and the Twins would be once again in search of a frontline starter to replace him, at the crux of their winning window.

    To be clear, I certainly wouldn't have been disappointed by any means if the Twins gave Darvish the same deal he got from Chicago, because in my mind the upfront benefit outweighs the overall downside. But I can't fault them for refusing to match it – and that's IF he'd have signed here on the very same terms, which... probably not.

    For all the consternation we're seeing right now, it's important to keep in mind that Minnesota still has plenty of options left on the table for addressing its rotation. They have money to spend and prospects to dangle in trade talks. They won't get a pitcher as good as Darvish, probably, but they can still find a decisive upgrade who gives them more flexibility.

    The combination of Darvish signing and finally setting a high-end market baseline, along with spring camps getting underway this week, should put things into motion quickly. These ought to be an interesting few days ahead before team workouts kick off in Ft. Myers on Wednesday.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

     

    If he pitches poorly, the end result is the exact same regardless of if there is an opt out or not. The opt out really only comes into play if he pitches well for 2 years. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Chief, but i think a big part of the issue is that we weren't even willing to offer it.

    The end result is you have Jordan Zimmerman rather than Sherrzer.  If the player does not take the opt out it means they have busted. Hence a team is worse off with a player with an opt out. You have 2 years of a great player or a bust. A situation like Cueto could also arise. One good year and then a very questionable one

     

    Suppose the FO has crunched all the numbers on a 5-year contract for an over-30 player, and feels like it barely is acceptable. It includes a risk that the player's performance is bad in year 1, another risk that he's what they hoped for in year 1 but drops off the cliff in year 2, and so on and so forth. Lots of combinations, flips of the coin so to speak, adding up to about the value they are offering.

     

    Now, add an opt-out, and suppose 2 years later when the opt-out can be exercised that the player does indeed leave. That means, as we're all agreeing, that the team has done very well for itself and should be pleased with the return on investment so far.

     

    However, what has this new information, about 2 more years of performance, done to the computation of risks going forward? Almost certainly, it means that the risk of a sudden decline to worthlessness in year 3 has become reduced greatly, ditto the succeeding years. But the team doesn't get to reap the benefits of these flips of the coin. The player has walked. Those "good" coin flips were part of the original computation.

     

    Conversely if the player doesn't walk, the universe of outcomes relating to the remaining risks for years 3-5, respectively, have gone upward from the initial estimates. Because, if he doesn't walk, something bad has happened in years 1-2. All the "bad" coin flips remain on the club's debit sheet.

     

    The risk doesn't remain static. It changes as you see the actual outcomes. That's the flaw in the argument.

     

    It is the essence of the "heads I win, tails you lose" game, to the player's advantage. I have a hard time believing it's only a small difference in dollars. He can't earn less than $126M now, but if he does well for two years and the market goes nuts in some way (or just normalizes to what he thought he'd get), he could receive a lot more. And it leaves essentially unchanged the odds of the Cubs having to work around dead money, while reducing the positive value they potentially can receive from a mutually guaranteed contract instead. It helps the player, it costs the team. It probably puts the Cubs contract as an actuarial equivalent to, say, what a normal guaranteed $140M contract would bring him - close to what was originally forecast.

    980x.gif

     

     

     

     

    In December you wrote the Twins must get creative to lure Darvish. How so? By being open minded to an opt out provision, and even sillier, suggesting that the Twins should consider signing Chris Gimenez too. (The very things the Cubs did.) You concluded the article by projecting Darvish to sign at 5 years, 135 million.

    So it really stretches the imagination that Twins Daily, or you, or whoever, is "fine" with Darvish signing elsewhere for 6 years and 126 million. That's right, more years, less money. Not a peep of protest or regret from anyone in there??

    Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

     

    Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

     

    Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

     

    Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out. 

    The end result is you have Jordan Zimmerman rather than Sherrzer. If the player does not take the opt out it means they have busted. Hence a team is worse off with a player with an opt out. You have 2 years of a great player or a bust. A situation like Cueto could also arise. One good year and then a very questionable one

    Isn't that true if there is no opt out?

     

    I will try to explain what I think chief is saying.

     

    People don't want old players

    If you give an opt out...

    If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player

    If he's bad, he stays

     

    If you don't give an opt out

    If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

     

    If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

    You know what might help alleviate some of the brooding and pessimism?  

     

    If we weren't trying to force feed optimism and understanding into this.  If we just accepted, even for a day, that this sucks.  No one pretending it's fine.  No one making excuses.  We all just accept it stinks.

     

    Then move forward with what's next. 

     

    It's like watching your house start on fire and turning to your spouse to talk about how nice the fire makes your landscaping look. 

    Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

     

    you have so many good articles keeping this site going, easy to understand how you might get them confused :)

     

    True, we don't know the details. Maybe the Twins were warming to an opt-out but were slow to the draw. Who knows. The Twins really did hype the possibility of Darvish signing here, and it's been the topic of discussion all winter, so I don't think it's a big thing to spend 24-48 hours blowing off steam now that it's over. The Twins could still make something of this offseason. We'll see.

     

    People don't want old players
    If you give an opt out...
    If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player
    If he's bad, he stays

    If you don't give an opt out
    If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

    If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

    It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

     

    The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors. 

     

    If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out. 

    It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

     

    The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors.

     

    If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out.

    All those people are saying pitchers will decline. If now they won't be bad, then why not sign them? You can't say don't sign pitchers to long term deals because they will be bad for sure at the end, then say they only don't want bad players. Are you now seeing it isn't inevitable he declines? Edited by Mike Sixel

    Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

     

    Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

     

    Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

     

    Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out.

    Falvine wanted Gimenez and couldn't get THAT done?

     

    Even I don't think they're that incompetent.

    Panic is the wrong word. Disappointing and hoodwinked are the words.

    The Pohlads told us that the new stadium would bring us into the 'big world' of contending, major free agency signings etc. 

    But nope, the city gets put on the hook for a ton of money they will never see again>

    We were told that Falvine and co would change things, it's a whole new Twins front office and a brand new day!

    Over 365 days in and I don't see any real 'move' that makes them a whole lot different then the last regime.

    Reed and Castro are ok signings, other than that it's been a pretty big bag of 'meh'

    It reduces the salary, while at the same time reducing the upside of the contract. I thought we weren't trying to win the War-per-dollar Pennant.

    I'd rather have the long term deal. Many here fear old pitchers. I'd think they would like opt out. I would have offered 6 150. And let Mauer walk next year.

     

    Plus, I was explaining chief's point, I think.

     

    Isn't that true if there is no opt out?

    I will try to explain what I think chief is saying.

    People don't want old players
    If you give an opt out...
    If he's good, he opts out, and you don't have an old player
    If he's bad, he stays

    If you don't give an opt out
    If he's good or bad, you have him when he's old.

    If you fear old players, an opt out should be viewed positively, especially if offering one reduces the salary...

    The circle is complete.

     

    Panic is the wrong word. Disappointing and hoodwinked are the words.

    The Pohlads told us that the new stadium would bring us into the 'big world' of contending, major free agency signings etc. 

    But nope, the city gets put on the hook for a ton of money they will never see again>

    We were told that Falvine and co would change things, it's a whole new Twins front office and a brand new day!

    Over 365 days in and I don't see any real 'move' that makes them a whole lot different then the last regime.

    Reed and Castro are ok signings, other than that it's been a pretty big bag of 'meh'

    Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....

    It's not that people don't want old players. They don't want old bad players. That's more or less the only one the Twins could end up with in 2020-2023 under these terms.

     

    The likelihood of Darvish becoming an old bad player is more palatable to a team like the Cubs, who won't be restricted by his salary in the same way as the Twins will – at a time where they're trying to retain their emerging core players, many of them (hopefully) established stars by then knocking on free agency's doors.

     

    If you truly believe in Darvish, then yeah you take that risk. Maybe the Twins tried it and still got reneged. Who knows. Levine saying in December that he prefers not to engage in opt-out discussions is not the same as him ruling it out.

     

    I’m fine with not getting Darvish, but I don’t understand the Twins’ position on opt-outs. Assumedly, giving an opt-out allows the team to reduce the price. Therefore, there are two possible money trees.

     

    1. A locked-in contract at price ‘X’.

    2. A contract with an opt-out at price ‘X-1’.

     

    Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, both trees have a 50% chance of the player performing well in his first two years and a 50% chance he busts. If he busts and stays for the duration of the value-negative contract, the team loses money under each tree, except that it actually pays MORE in the tree without the opt-out.

     

    Now, teams have skilled statisticians who perform much more sophisticated analysis, so there are probably nuances not covered in these scenarios. These statistics may even show that the presence of an opt-out increases the odds of busting, although it seems unlikely. However, in this simple analysis, it appears that giving an opt-out reduces the team’s financial risk from busting, instead of increasing the risk.

     

    One increased risk of an opt-out is that it could make it harder to trade the player if he is good, but the team is bad, if there is an upcoming opt-out, but I would think the Twins aren’t planning for tear-downs in the next few years. Other than that, it would be good to get an explanation as to how an opt-out increases risk.

    Edited by Deduno Abides

    Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....

    I mean yeah that’s why I called it an ‘ok’ signing. Which is fine as long as he isn’t the biggest signing.

     

    I will admit the Reed signing appears to be great.

     

    Rodney/Pineda TBD but at least we are trying to fix the pen.

     

    Rotation is a disaster though.

     

    I mean yeah that’s why I called it an ‘ok’ signing. Which is fine as long as he isn’t the biggest signing.

    I will admit the Reed signing appears to be great.

    Rodney/Pineda TBD but at least we are trying to fix the pen.

    Rotation is a disaster though.

    Including Castro in the bag was tongue in cheek. Agreed on the rotation and bullpen though. 

     

     

    He's looking for a team to take on all his risk, and now the Cubs are doing so. 

     

    The nice thing from the Cubs' point of view is that the AAV is so much lower than expected, they're essentially getting at least one year for free. Maybe even two, if they wouldn't have minded paying $126M/4yrs to get him, anyway.

     

    Unless his arm blows up in Year One, there isn't much risk for the club.

     

    I didn't really expect the Twins to get Darvish. It's just a little disappointing that they didn't make a serious offer. Everybody figured that they would need to offer 6 years to stand a chance, and they just didn't do it. Luckily, none of the fallback options are off the table, yet. Then again, there isn't really another starting pitcher on the FA market who is likely to move the needle as much as Darvish.

     

    We'll probably see the Twins give 4 years to some #3-4 starter. Is that going to push them back to the postseason? Eh.

     

    Ah, I thought you were referencing a different article. My bad.

     

    Who's to say the Twins didn't attempt to sign Gimenez or include an opt-out? We don't know what they offered, only that they did make an offer. I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals for the sake of lament and self-pity. They didn't get him. Being beat out by the Cubs is not incriminating, it happens. Time to move on.

     

    Contrary to all the grumbling on this thread, there are other upgrades still available. Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn, on the right terms, could easily be a better fit than Darvish at 6 years. Tons of trade candidates out there.

     

    Nowhere did I say anything was "fine," despite your choice to put it in quotes. These are bad things that happened, as was clearly acknowledged (in the title!), and I'm just looking for silver linings to take forward. I don't see any value in brooding over presumptions about what played out or what's going to play out. 

     

    I agree and have refuted those that said we know the Twins offer and that they lowballed Darvish, we don't know. But Lavine was quoted in Berardino's piece basically saying they would not offer the opt out and Berardino implied that the Twins would not offer 6 years.

     

    I don't care how Lynn, Cobb or Arrieta pitch in the next six years. I don't even care how they pitch this summer. Find me the pitchers who can legitimately square off against the best pitchers the AL has to offer come October. It ain't those other guys.

     

    The goalposts keep being moved.  Every time we go into an offseason, we read people who constantly defended the organization say 'well, if THIS offseason they don't do anything to truly address the rotation as it needs to be, THEN I'll complain'  Then the team's lack of doing anything meaningful to address THE major concern we've had for years once again gets defended or even lauded as the right move after all, or as no biggy. And with Santana out for awhile, our rotation is even worse.

     

    It gets old.

     

    I understand this is a new FO, and it has done some things to help the bullpen as needed, but the rotation is just as much in shambles and nothing has been done, and two days from now, pitchers and catchers report.  Maybe we sign a #3 or #4 type to add to our ever growing list of uninspired options. These kind of moves don't get it done.

     

    And it's not like I ever thought we'd get Darvish, that's not my point.  NOTHING has been done. But then, I'm sure NEXT offseason, they'll really address the rotation.  Just wait...

     

    Holding out for Kershaw.

     

    I'd like to at least have the possibility that he pitches really damn well and plays out the deal he signed. This setup basically eliminates it. 

     

    IMO when a guy pushes for a contract like this he's betting against himself, and it doesn't strike me right. We all know he could easily sign a 3/4-year deal worth ~33% more annually and have yet another shot at getting paid afterward. He's looking for a team to take on all his risk, and now the Cubs are doing so. 

    Isn't the opposite true that he's betting on himself?

     

    Again, I don't get the logic. It's not too much to plan around this, especially given the context that we have a lot of decent prospects in AA/AAA. Two years from now, it's quite possible these guys will be out of options and need to be traded or added. If they aren't that good, then the worst case with an opt out is that we are back on the FA market looking for an arm. If he doesn't opt out, then it means he hasn't outperformed his contract, but that's a risk we take anyways. I can see scenarios where an opt out isn't a smart idea, but I don't think this is one of them.

    Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Spring Training is starting soon. Hell, the regular season is starting soon! Yeah, too bad we couldn't sign Darvish, but I always thought that was very unlikely. But now the Twins DO need to find another "quality" starter --- or two --- and do it ASAP! Of all the names bandied about, Archer would be my first choice, but I'd also be very reluctant to trade away 3 or 4 good prospects for him.

    Is the glass half full or half empty??

     

    I'll side with Nick and say half full, the two points that he made about saving wear and tear on Santana's arm and letting the prospects eat up those spring training innings AND even getting a couple starts are both positives. 

    We could also save wear and tear on Buxton by sitting him until June.  Anyone down for that?

    I'd prefer forfeiting every game in April... That way ALL of our pitchers save wear and tear on their arms! Games in April are silly anyways.

     

    Falvine wanted Gimenez and couldn't get THAT done?

    Even I don't think they're that incompetent.

    Why are you oversimplifying things so much? They weren't going to sign Gimenez in the blind hope that it'd prompt Darvish to sign, creating another roadblock for Garver in the process. I wish people would stop operating under the assumptions that A) The Twins had complete control over this situation, and B ) They were unaware at all times of Darvish's mindset/leaning.

     

    By all accounts they'd moved on from Darvish weeks ago and have been working other angles. 

     

     

    Panic is the wrong word. Disappointing and hoodwinked are the words.

    Last offseason you'd convinced yourself the Twins were going to trade Dozier to the Dodgers. This offseason you apparently convinced yourself they'd sign Darvish. On both occasions, when it didn't happen, you had a little meltdown on this forum. Maybe your own unrealistic expectations are the cause of your being disappointed and hoodwinked?

     

    The Twins made earnest efforts to pull off a Dozier trade that makes sense, and to sign Darvish. There is zero evidence that either of these things aren't true. The front office drew lines in the sand (we're not giving up Dozier for any less than X, we're not going to add a sixth year for a 32-year-old non-elite pitcher), and they stood by them. These are good things. They aren't obliged to do whatever's necessary to pull off a move you want to see.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...