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

    Making a Machado Bid

    Cody Christie

    By Cody Christie

    For the second year in a row, the free agent market has been slower than molasses in January. Big name free agents like Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and Dallas Keuchel remain unsigned. Spring training is looming on the horizon and these high caliber players are going to need to sign somewhere.

    So, let’s imagine a world where the Twins could make a bid for Manny Machado.

    Image courtesy of Robert Hanashiro-USA TODAY Sports

    Twins Video

    On Tuesday, ESPN’s Buster Olney reported that the White Sox offer to Machado was for $175 million over seven years. From the rest of Olney’s tweet, it sounds like Chicago is hoping the market continues to be cold and Machado will eventually agree to their terms. This was a similar situation to the one faced by JD Martinez last year before he eventually signed with Boston.

    https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1085587294730502147

    Machado has reached free agency and he is only a year older than Byron Buxton. In the time Buxton has been trying to emerge at the big-league level, Machado has won two Gold Gloves and been selected to four All-Star Games. He’s also finished in the top 10 for MVP voting three times including two top five finishes. Also, he’s mashed 30 or more home runs for four straight seasons.

    Looking into Minnesota’s future, the club has almost no guaranteed money moving beyond the 2019 season. Younger players will continue to become more expensive through the arbitration process and the organization could look to sign some of the young core to a long-term deal.

    With Minnesota’s financial flexibility, there is room to add a player of Machado’s caliber. It seems like it would be easy for a club to top the offer on the table from the White Sox. Adding Machado to Minnesota could limit the club’s ability to sign the likes of Miguel Sano or Byron Buxton in the years to come. However, they both have a lot still to prove at the big-league level.

    How’s this for an Opening Day line-up?

    1. Jorge Polanco- 2B

    2. Manny Machado- SS

    3. Miguel Sano- 3B

    4. Nelson Cruz- DH

    5. Eddie Rosario- LF

    6. CJ Cron- 1B

    7. Max Kepler- RF

    8. Jason Castro- C

    9. Byron Buxton- CF

    Signing Machado might be a pipe dream, but he’d certainly look better in a Twins uniform than roaming the infield for the South Siders. Chicago is an emerging team in the AL Central and Minnesota is going to be contending with them for the next half a decade.

    Wouldn’t it be sweet to steal their prized free agent? Let’s dream about that.

    Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. Would signing Machado make sense for the Twins?

    Cody Christie is a Twins writer and content contributor. His writing can be found exclusively at Twins Daily and his voice can be heard on radio stations throughout the Upper Midwest. Outside of the Twins, he is a father, high school teacher, and avid runner.
    Follow Cody Christie on Twitter: nodaktwinsfan

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Community Blogs

    • Twins Win Green Glove For Earth Day
    • Minnesota Twins Re-Instate Royce Lewis from 10 Day IL and make a flurry of roster moved

    Forum Topics

    • Twins (Woods Richardson) vs Rays (Scholtens): 4/26/26, 12:40pm
    • Red Sox Purge Coaching Staff

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).
    View All Top Prospects
    The Ultimate Guide to the Minnesota Twins Minor League Team Affiliates

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Number3

    Number3 616

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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.

    Mr. Brooks

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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

    BK432 577

  • Verified Member

    • Posted (edited)

     

    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 by BK432
    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 38,019

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    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

    Jim Hahn 230

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted (edited)

    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 by Jim Hahn
    Squirrel

    Squirrel 42,956

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    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

    Mike Sixel 55,014

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    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

    gil4 2,953

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

    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

    Jim Hahn 230

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

    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

    bighat 8,620

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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

    Squirrel 42,956

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

    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

    Jim Hahn 230

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

    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

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Verified Member

    • Posted (edited)

    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 by Mr. Brooks
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,382

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    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

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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

    ashbury 60,786

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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

    Mr. Brooks 7,174

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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

    bighat 8,620

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    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.



    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...