ThejacKmp

I don't think it was negative at all. It was just a correction of something that was obviously false. At the time it was written, people couldn't watch this game if they weren't there in person or get a play by play so it does stand correcting. You appear to be the one who is the one who should lighten up. :-) P.S. I don't think it's a concept of better, not sure why you put it that way. Is striking out twice much different if you make the first two outs of a game or if everyone else is out in between you? Either way, you struck out twice. I guess you could argue that the strikeouts were rally killers but I don't think that's what the post author was getting at (and in fact, you could argue that makes it more pivotal to correct the four to a six since the four makes it seem like Buxton was killing rallies when in fact, he struck out to lead off and with two outs and just one guy on base). Just food for thought.

Erroneous. Buxton made the first out, Arcia the second, Park the 3rd. Murphy made the 4th out striking out in the second. Tovar made the 5th out right after that via ground out. Buxton made the 6th out.

I would sign Kepler to a Longoria deal. I know he hasn't proven anything but those numbers are super low ten years later and if he craps out and becomes a 4th OF, $3 million is not a disastrous amount. And the upside . . . Heck I'd do this for Berrios and Duffey too with the concept that it's a low price to pay and outside of injury, $3 million is not a lot to pay for a low-leverage reliever. The option years could be so key if either of them turns into even a solid #3 pitcher. Throw me in for Eddie on the Longoria deal too. Same thought process - he's a nice 4th OF and that's not a crazy overpay with the upside there. He's the one I'd do it with last because I think he played over his head but even there it's not totally nuts. Again, those contract numbers are 10 years old.

Yeah this makes no sense. I would sign every single one of these guys to this contract but I don't think any of them would even think about it - in fact, you might insult them by asking. Even if Duffey turns into nothing, it costs you $1 million to buy out potentially expensive arbitration years. Of course you do it. Pretty pointless post, no offense intended. More interesting to think about how much you would pay to buy out 5 years of Sano/Buxton etc.

And I think this has even been taken out of context. Molly likely means that he won't be moving Sano around, that he'll play in the OF even when Plouffe gets the day off. That's probably smart when transitioning someone to a new position. But if Plouffe were traded or hit the DL for more than a few weeks, I guarantee you Sano would become your regular 3B.

And the alternative to begin the season seems to be Oswaldo Arcia, who is not exactly a defensive dynamo. The real test comes when Kepler is ready because he would be a marked improvement over Sano and Arcia. But by that point, we'll know how Park is going to fare and if Mauer is finally rebounding etc. If Kepler makes a run at the majors, the Twins may find Plouffe more expendable at the break (and they may be able to get more for him from a team that needs a 3B in the middle of the season).

I've heard this before and it's inane. Buxton and Sano could also collide if he played 3B in a shift and went out for a popup. Unless you want to move Sano to catcher, you can't avoid this. It would be ludicrous to make decisions based on worst-case scenarios.

Especially with Sano in right. The Twins are going to want someone experienced in center.

I do think we would be remiss if we didn't say that the Pirates success with Kang last year probably drove the market on Park at least as much as Park's performance. That's a legitimate worry about Park - if MLB teams are suddenly interested in Korea because of one player turning out well, they run the risk of mistaking a phenomenon for a trend (of course they also have the potential of getting in on a new trend early when its more profitable). But in the end, the size of the commitment makes this a very healthy risk for the Twins. They don't have so much committed to him that it will drastically effect their future spending or make them feel forced to play him if he doesn't warrant it. I don't think he'll have a short leash but with Arcia/Vargas/Kepler in the wings, I don't think he will have a super long leash either. He'll start with a leg up for the DH job but he will have to earn it and continue to earn playing time. Very excited about this move, it really has very little risk and tons of reward (unlike Nishioka, which had tons of risk along with the reward).

The relative inexpensiveness of the contract does not reflect the risk - it reflects that this is a monopsony, with only the Twins able to bid on Park. Park's decisions were to take the Twins lowball offer or go back to Korea and wait for next year. That's why his contract was so low - he wanted to play in MLB and the Twins knew it. It was bad negotiating by his agent and good negotiating by the Twins. Unless you're saying that the posting amount is low. I'm looking back to articles at the time and I'm not seeing much that says it was a low posting amount. Jung-Ho Kang had a $5 million post and the estimates I saw thought that Park would command a $10 million posting fee (and then get a $40 million contract). So I very much disagree with the concept that Park's contract shows that other teams were leery. The Twins won with a bid that was above the expected posting fee and there were a number of teams making bids (alas, we don't know what #2 was but if the market was guessing $10 million you have to think some other team put up that amount). The Twins then negotiated well in a messed up system (so much leverage for the team, so little for the player). Park's contract is a testament to his desire to play in MLB and the Twins desire to not pay him (and plethora of options which made him a luxury and not a necessity), not that he is a bust risk.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

First of all, those contracts were signed five years apart. With baseball inflation, Nishioka's deal is far bigger than Park's. So they aren't similar. I realize that supports your point that Park is a bust risk but just wanted to point out that numbers can't be looked at in a vacuum. Building on that last thought, I think you're looking at it without taking context into consideration: When Nishioka inked his deal, the Twins were new to the posting system. They also had already traded away Hardy (12/9, signed Nishioka 12/16) so they had lost some of that leverage to pull back. They had no other good internal options to use in his place and needed to sign him. Nishioka also made it clear that he was fine staying in Japan if the price wasn't right. Those factors all undoubtedly upped his price as he had all of the leverage. When Park was signed, the Twins were undoubtedly cautious about the system having been burned before and were much more prepared to negotiate. They didn't need Park as they hadn't traded Plouffe yet (nor would they!) and had more than enough internal options to make Park a luxury, not a need. And finally, they had a very clear idea that Park really wanted to come to the U.S. The Twins had all of the leverage and they used it accordingly. My overall point is that you can't just say "similar numbers" and be done. You have to dig deeper. Inflation tells you one thing and a view of the context of each signing shows you another. The Twins handled each one differently for a number of reasons. That's what business do - they learn from mistakes. Hopefully they've done just that with Park.

I haven't followed the whole thread so just responding to one thing here. I hardly think the fact that they were both obtained in the same posting system is relevant. You wouldn't say that Nick Gordon was a bad draft pick because he was picked under the same rules that got us Chris Parmalee. You also wouldn't say that J.R. Graham is a good signing because the same Rule 5 system gave us Johan Santana. Many good players and many bad players have come through the posting system. This is the fallacy of composition at its worst. Similarly, to say that two players making the same amount are going to have similar results is faulty logic. Robinson Cano and Prince Fielder make the same amount and that doesn't change how I think each of them will do. The salary is irrelevant - guys should be judged on their own merit not similarity of their contracts. Same team has a bit more validity but no team bats 1.000 so it would seem a bit premature to say that because the Twins had one bad experience in the Asian market, the next one will be just as bad. I had a terrible first date when I was 17 but that didn't make me give up dating - I learned, adjusted and did (slightly) better the next time. Hopefully the Twins have done the same.

So I went to look at Nishioka's baseball reference page and it's really kind of baffling. I know hindsight says the Twins made a terrible call based on one season of unsustainable performance but it's way more complicated than that. Nishioka did have a bang up year right before he came but he also had two good years before that. He was turning 26, entering his prime. If you consider that the JPL is often considered just better than AAA (but let's call it AAA to be safe) it makes a pretty defensible call. If the Twins had a middle infield prospect in AAA (or to be honest, even AA) who put up OPS's of .820, .787 and .904 from age 23-25 there would be howls to get him up to the majors - this is a guy who is "putting it together" and "entering his prime". And then . . Nishioka fell off a cliff. We know how bad he was in MLB but even back in JPL at age 28-30 he's been pretty awful. Can't stop getting hurt, OPS the last three years of .728, .724, .690. Obviously we all wish that Nishioka had been signed by the White Sox instead but it's really a somewhat defensible signing. It's hard to beat the Twins up for it in a vacuum (that last part is big: I'm just referring to signing him, not to the part where we get rid of Hardy for two minor league relievers because he couldn't steal bases - in economic terms we're ignoring the opportunity cost and just looking at the move itself). Nishioka has been a huge disappointment as a baseball player, not just as a Major Leaguer. His is that classic tale of a very exciting prospect who never kindled on the big stage.

The thing that bothers me isn't Sano in the of, it's that when plouffe gets a day off they're not going to move Sano in for a game to get Aricas bat in the lineup. I'd rather see that then Nunez or Santana playing third

I concur. Also, I suspect Arcia will be a major part of the Twins no matter how things play out. The Twins are going to give Mauer more day games off and, they're going to rest Park and Poluffe and Rosario and Buxton and Sano on the regs. In all of those situations, Arcia is the guy who subs in for them in the lineup as either OF or DH (maybe Danny Santana for Buxton sometimes). Basically, Arcia gets in the lineup any time anyone who isn't a SS, 2B or C needs a day or hits the DL. Not crazy to think he'll be playing at least three to four days a week with a pinch hitting experience or two as well. He'll stay busy. So I guess I think it's kind of irrelevant how it plays out. Park will be on this team regardless and Arcia will likely beat out Vargas for options reasons. Both Park and Arcia are going to get plenty of playing time and Vargas will be waiting in AAA with Kepler. The Twins depth is very exciting this year.

Good write up. But Harmon Killebrew led the way in 1964, hitting 49.

I imagine he'll be hired as a First Base Sliding Coach.

It's spread over 15 years and yes it will matter. You can correctly say it won't matter as much as if it was part of today but the money doesn't disappear. The O's will have less to spend. That's how businesses work, they can’t make costs disappear. Bobby Bonilla’s salary currently plays into the Mets financial picture, even in a small way.

You’re the only one bringing up contract differences, I’m asking you to throw that away. We’re talking about performance, purely performance at the age. You seem confused about this (likely my fault) so let me take it back: ------- Entering his age 32 season, Albert Pujols had a career OPS of 1.037, five top-2 MVP finishes and an OPS+ of 170. His lowest OPS season was a .906, the only time he hit below .300 (that was his age-31 season, still a fine season where he hit .299). He’s a first ballot Hall of Famer if he retired right then. Chris Davis is currently entering his age-30 season. He has a career OPS of .835 and one top-3 MVP finish. He has a career OPS+ of 122. Since his age 27 season, he’s had one great season (which I call a Pujols Season since Albert did that for a decade - amazing) and one very good season, sandwiched around a dismal season where his OPS+ was 96. His best batting average was .286 – in 2014 he didn’t hit his weight. He’s been a very good power hitter who is a bit inconsistent and pretty one-dimensional. When Pujols moved to the Angels for his age-32 season his performance continued his drop off from his age-31 season. He hasn’t hit above .285 in the four seasons since and his OPS is .804 for an OPS+ of 126. Those are fine seasons but they are not Pujols Seasons. Interestingly those four seasons actually represent a close approximation to Chris Davis’s peak, whose last four seasons yield an OPS+ of 136. Davis hasn’t been a significantly better hitter that Pujols, peak Chris Davis has been slightly better than Old Man Pujols. And before you ask, I’m not cherry picking those stats, the four-year sample shines Chris Davis in the best light. ------- Okay those are the numbers. What I’m saying is that Albert Pujols shows that even a once-in-a-generation hitter and power slugger experiences issues when he gets towards his age-32 season (and I won’t do the numbers but Teixeira has a similar drop off as do a number of other power hitting first basemen). Chris Davis signed a 7-year deal at age 30 and here are the warning signs to me: (1) Chris Davis has never proven himself like Pujols or Teixeira did. We don’t really know if his big seasons are a flash in the pan or if the 2014 season is more representative of what we can expect the next season or two of his prime. I imagine it will be somewhere closer to 2015 than 2013 or 2014 for the record. But we can’t ignore his inconsistent past, which adds some risk. (2) If Chris Davis follows the pattern of much better players than himself (again, not a given – if better players drop off, we could reasonably see Davis’s decline being more sharp) he looks to be taking a drop-off in year 3 of this contract, his age 32 season (Pujols dropped at age 31 so I’m giving Davis an extra year since he likely has less wear and tear from starting his career later). If Davis is declining from his current state (Old Man Pujols), you’re talking about a replacement level player. For five years at $17 million a year while playing a premier offensive position. Even if he extends his peak a year beyond Pujols and Teixeira did, you’ve still got 4 years of a replacement player. That’s really tough, especially since The Tribe would be hitting Lindor’s prime and be looking to start locking him up along with their strong starting pitching. They could really use that $17 million at that point, especially since they aren’t a huge market team. So my point isn’t to say Chris Davis = Albert Pujols, it’s just to use Pujols to point out that even the greatest and most well-rounded slugging first basemen are prone to a drop off in their early 30s. With the caveat that we obviously can’t guarantee Davis will fall off in the same manner as Pujols and Teixeira (again just because A., doesn’t mean B.) there are some really alarming trends which don’t point in Davis’s favor. He’s coming up on an age where slugging first basemen experience a drop and in his case, that drop indicates he’s likely to be a replacement level player. That’s why I think the contract is a disaster (and absurd since the Orioles were competing against no one). Chris Davis would have been the wrong signing for the Tribe and the Orioles are likely going to really regret the last 4-5 years of his 7 year deal.

You've got to read the whole thread. This isn't about signing Pujols instead of Davis -- it's about projecting the future of 30 year old slugging first basemen. Pujols is just there because he is part of a comparison of that type of player. It's absolutely okay to talk about him when thinking about Davis's future.

I mean, I think GMs have to make projections about later years so it matters but agree hat you and I are likely not the authority on that. I just don't like Chris Davis's performance going forward (see above). But I do agree that the Tribe could have targeted some of the shorter term talent out there. I like the concept of bringing in some hitting, just not signing anyone on the cusp of 30 for most of a two term presidency. Cespedes would have been much more interesting to me, that's a good target that the Tribe were not in on. That's the difference between the Twins and the Tribe. The Tribe have the hard part set (pitching) and should have been more active with the free agent market. The Twins don't have position player needs (beyond catcher, which they took care of) and the free agent market would be a tough spot to grab the amount of pitching that would make a difference this year. Hopefully next year they will be at the point where one big free agent pitching signing will be warranted.

Don't compare where they are now, compare where they were when they were the same age. Pujos went into a significant decline at 32. The O's committed to Davis for 7 years at 30. That's the comp - you're getting bogged down in comparing the two in the present which you can't do due to age and salary differences. And yeah, I acknowledged you can't say "If A then B" but it's not like Pujols is an aberration. Have to agree to disagree on the window. When you have multiple pieces come up at the same time, I think you can plan on being competitive for that period of time. Yeah the Tribe only control the pitchers for 3-4 more years but they also have time/advantages in signing the guys who work out - that money, BTW, would be better used that way than paying for Chris Davis's decline.

1) $42 million is still $42 million. The Natives aren’t the Dodgers or Yankees and that does represent a lost opportunity later on. Don’t get me wrong, I’d have set the contract up the same way but I’m not going to pretend that money isn’t part of the cost. 2) Pujols was also a significantly better player, in the conversation for greatest hitter of all time. And Pujols contract is actually the perfect example of the downside, no matter the differences in length and when he signed it. Pujols fell off the first year of that contract, in his age 31/32 year. If Chris Davis follows that path with that level of decline (and he’s nowhere near as good as Pujols) he’ll be a replacement level first baseman in two years. With 5 years left on the contract. Mark Teixeira is another great example, as he fell off at age 32. Obviously you can’t say, “If A than B” but the comparable recent history suggests bad things. And again, both Teixeira and Pujols had vastly better resumes to bet on – Chris Davis is still relatively unknown. 3) That's true. But you’re ignoring the fact that Chris Davis was worth $5.8 million in 2014. That’s the big key to Chris Davis – he has two big years of playing well but there is equal evidence that the house may be built of sand. I’m not saying he’s for sure going to suck but the lack of a proven track record is a reason to pause. His most similar players on Baseball Reference are guys like Richie Sexton, Glenn Davis, Lee May and Cecil Fielder. All of those were good, even great, players for a few years in their prime but all of them fell off in their early 30s. 4) But will he give you even three years? And a lot of the issue with these contracts is that you have to play the guy on the back end. This isn’t the NBA where a guy who doesn’t perform but has a big contract rides the bench or sees his minutes reduced. Veteran baseball players who sign huge contracts play out those contracts, expecting and getting to have a regular job. It's hard to find examples of non-pitchers losing their jobs. Mauer isn’t fighting for his job at first, Teixeira wasn’t being pushed out of his position by Byrd, Pujols is years away from any reduction in playing time. The only real example of a huge money position player in danger of losing his job was A-Rod last year and that was for PR reasons more than performance. There is an opportunity cost to having to play Davis the last 3-5 years of that contract and that plays a major role in whether it’s a good signing. That last part is why it’s a bad gamble for the Indians. The Royals have a 3 year window, they can justify going all in with a guy like Chris Davis. With that young pitching and position player talent, the Tribe have an 8-10 year window. You really don’t want to start shutting the back end of that window by tying money up in a guy who will keep you from being flexible when Lindor hits his age-27 season. Believe in your youth movement - don't tie a boulder to the bumper of the bandwagon. Chris Davis’s contract isn’t the worst thing ever but it’s a terrible bet for the Tribe (and in an aside, made no sense for the O’s - who have no window. Davis just makes them an average team hoping to get lucky for 3-4 years.) He doesn’t have the track record to make you feel sure past performance isn’t a fluke or aberration and guys like him tend to start declining right about now, when he’s signing the contract. It is very believable that the last 5 years of that deal could be pretty tough, with the last few unbearable. It just doesn’t make sense for Cleveland.

After seven years you still owe him $42 million. Chris Davis has had two good seasons and is a year removed from a .704 OPS in 127 games. He's played a bit of OF but it is telling the Orioles have mainly kept him at first - he doesn't profile to be able to play OF in three years, let alone the end of that contract. He will be a DH or 1B. He is about to turn 30 and is a very one dimensional player. He's a power hitter with two elite seasons and five average ones. So you're betting that he will continue to be an elite power hitter into his mid 30s. How many guys do that? It's hard of think of anybody besides Big Papi - and he hit for average in a way Chris Davis never has. Pujols had a way better (HOF) track record and that contract looks terrible now. Texiera has been a terrible contract due to health and ineffectiveness - which is the rule rather than the exception for aging sluggers. Power hitting first basemen are not a good gamble in their mid 30s. If his power slips at all and he's hitting 25 bombs he becomes a liability. And the salary makes him untradeable so he will just block young talent. This could be a terrible contract for the last five years of the deal. It's the last thing a developing team like the Twins or Tribe should be doing, especially since first base is a relatively easy place to find power or to stick a young guy with defensive liabilities.