TheLeviathan

And then, as is usually the case in such situations, reality will hurt and Drew will have been utterly meaningless to the team that signed him. Ultimately negating the entire debate in the first place.

I disagree, I think most teams have better depth than we do. That's one of the problems with not being very good, you're often pretty shallow too. I know everyone is counting on an improvement from CF to boost the numbers there and that may well be true, but I think we'll be lucky if we don't make up that boost with a decline from C/1B/DH. I think people are really overlooking how bad that group could be for us this year. And those are positions that really hurt a team's offense if they struggle.

This is hardly a given right now for Boston, much less two years from now. I know this has been hard to understand for some - but Drew hasn't been a particularly sought-after player for quite some time. He was traded for scraps to Oakland (injury reasons granted), let go despite a team option, signed to a one year deal with Boston, and now can't get a contract into February despite (as we're told) only a measly second round pick and his demands standing in the way. Say what you want about his value as a player, but his value as a commodity hasn't been high in a long, long time. So projecting him as a favorably flippable asset just isn't backed up by recent events.

I think the combination we had at C/1B/DH will be worse this year than it was last year. People cite Mauer's injury - but forget Pinto hit out of his damn mind when he took over. Arguably better than Mauer in fact. I see a dip there. I see a very solid chance of a dip from Dozier. I see virtually no depth on the team in case of injury. And I see a team with very limited speed and very limited power. Not generally a good recipe. I don't necessarily think they regress....but I don't see them as being a whole hell of a lot better either.

I think the term "was" is important. Of that 13.7 WAR - 9 of it came in two seasons. Meaning he was roughly a 1 WAR player the other four. I know it's not fair to discharge those seasons, but the WAR total is a bit misleading if you don't parse it out a bit. I had higher hopes for Hicks than a 1-2 WAR player and maybe his peak will look like those two outliers for Young. I'm just not sure about that.

Matty Guerrier...for whatever reason....was always I guy I felt trust with when he came to the mound. Probably one of my favorites from that bullpen group - glad to see him in the mix.

Yeah, but we can only include him one trade......right? It's a bit discouraging to think he'd only get us Verlander and not both.

I like this comp for accuracy and the insight behind it. But I'm not sure I'm encouraged that it's the right comp......

Could be, but I look at probably the best pitcher on the market (other than the question mark that is Tanaka) and they got him for a better deal than Nolasco and didn't have to give up a draft pick. For a free agent signing, I'm not sure you can do much better.

This pretty much sums up my opinion. With the fact that we outperformed our Pyth. last year and the offense looks shoddy - I don't think we sniff .500 unless multiple young players make surprisingly big jumps this year. 72.5 - that's my prediction for Vegas' number. That would be a 6-7 game improvement over their actual record and an 11-12 game improvement over their expected record last year. That felt overly optimistic as I typed it actually.

I'm not sure you'll get an answer here, too many convinced he got what he deserved. (As in, same as Nolasco) On the other hand, I'm as perplexed as you are. This is too good a pitcher for this contract with that many insurance clauses for the Brewers. It's a steal.

Most future projections are full of easy things to criticize. Afterall, we're trying to guess the future. To me, the use of things like this is to diffuse unrealistic pessimism or optimism. I imagine this won't be the last projection that sobers us even after a successful offseason. My guess for Vegas is our over/under will be 73.5.

To be fair, everybody kind of does. So while we make take issue with the stats of some individuals, the end results are probably not as far off as we'd like to think.

I hope he has 40 nice, slow trots this year - nothing wrong with admiring your own handiwork from time to time.

The dip appears to be batting average driven, for whatever reason. 72 wins is about right from where I sit, maybe closer to 75.

That's exactly it, many of us who were former season ticket holders or people that would buy directly from the Twins have long wised up. I think minn's point is really spot-on. I imagine a significant portion of the 17000 that are signed up are there for only one more year for their all-star seats. Getting back to 19,000 might require a heckuva lot more than St. Peter realizes by this time in 2015.

Exactly right. When Mauer was coming up on his big contract we heard a lot of talk about "hometown discount", but in the end what players value is being able to get every penny they can get. You hear them talk about "owing" it to those that came before them and did the same and owing it to the next guy too. If Mauer takes less, then it weakens someone else's bargaining position. The union is keenly aware of this perception (even if it's not true and a faulty concern) and actively campaigns players to avoid it. If Robbie Cano was a smart businessman (and I'm assuming he, other players, and all their agents are) and realized the present value of money concept and wanted a front-loaded contract....is there any doubt there would be suitors? Some would back out, surely, for inflation reasons, but not all. Someone would do it. After all, the "agency" in determining the terms of contracts lies with players first. It's up to teams to play their game and how much to play it. But if Cano and the rest of the players suddenly decided that they wanted front-loaded deals to get better value out of their contract? Teams would cave. But we don't see that, meaning the impetus is on players - they've decided those terms aren't to their liking. Part of that is union pressure to avoid low yearly salaries that may (probably wouldn't but it's their concern) impact negotiations. And the other part is ego - they want to be on that list of highest paid. They don't want to be left behind in terms of yearly salary.

We could always live in Yatusk right? The funny thing is, for the very reason it is often smarter for teams to backend for inflation, it's pretty much always smarter for players to front end to maximize value. I find it dubious that the party largely in control in free agency (players) would allow the other party to dictate the terms. It's far more likely they are dictating the terms against their own immediate self-interest for the larger best interests of the union and future players. And to you AHsaves - maybe times, they are a'changing. I have read palers front ending to avoid tax hikes down the road. MAybe its a new trend, its certainly happened more in the last year than it had in years. if true, it speaks to my point about players deciding that.

This is another reason similar to my second scenario. You have a variety of arbitration players coming up in staggered years so you front end a few of them so that you can afford to keep them all long-term. Again, something many mid to small markets could utilize. Only the Cardinals have seemed to do so at all. I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Cardinals are not doing this out of ignorance or stupidity about inflation. More likely, they see those lost value dollars as considerably less important than retaining all their players.

It can be the biggest factor, and likely is in the largest contracts, but that reasoning doesn't hold in a situation like Drew's. Front-loading a 3/30 deal or a 4/52 deal is not nearly as impactful with inflation as a 7/200 deal. You're talking a couple million dollars in order to save much more than that in payroll flexibility. Say, for instance, we gave Garza 20-20-7-6 instead of 13M per. The first two seasons are basically at market value, but you lose maybe 1M in inflation. The subsequent seasons are closer to 1.75M. So you lose 4.5M over the course of his contract in terms of inflation value. But what you gain in 2016 and 2017 is A) Potential trade value (low pay for high rewards) Significant advantage in payroll flexibility C) Maximizing that you are paying the player the most money when they are most likely to contribute. And here is where I take my biggest issue: It's a bit disingenuous to say it's "understood" that it has to be that way. It's only "understood" to pay more on the back end because that's the environment players have demanded. As the original poster in this discussion mentioned - the Twins are precisely in Scenario B. (And I would suggest the idea we're the first to ever be in this scenario to be a bit unlikely. It happens, and not rarely) We have a rough idea of when the kids are arriving. We have payroll flexibility now and can anticipate wanting more later. Could we lose a million or two in inflation dollars to front-load Drew? Yes, but I guarantee a savvy GM would see that as minimal risk for the idea of having 5-7M more in payroll flexibility and the extremely high value of perhaps having a pretty good SS making 3-4M when you are looking to add more to your roster. (He has high trade value now and he's giving you huge bang for your buk when you need it most) Teams like Oakland, St. Louis, Tampa, etc. where they are very savvy and buyout arb. years to extend the life of retaining players could certainly utilize this strategy with some regularity. Yet....it doesn't happen. And the reason for that is it is a threat to player negotiating power and the union discourages it. I have no doubt that for teams this often works well for them too, but the buck ultimately stops with those with the most to lose and those most in control of the terms. In free agency that's the player, not the team.

So let me get this straight: Back-loading a contract is always the smarter way to do things? If teams had their way, they'd always choose back-loading? Here are just a few scenarios where it wouldn't be: 1) Resigning an aging player well into their career arc. 2) Better align payroll flexibility with player development (Think how many of us would love to do that right now. Including the initial poster I responded to. And he's right, it would make sense) 3) Increased trade flexibility as players age These scenarios happen semi-regularly and would very much benefit small and mid-market teams who rely on rebuilding through their farm. The notion that there is no such scenario it would make sense is a bit breathtaking. I'm not sure how you could arrive at such a conclusion. The truth is, teams would do this in these situations. And if they did, with some consistency, there would be union pushback so they didn't lose negotiating power. So it starts and stops with players who, afterall, have majority of the power in free agency negotiating.

It doesn't happen with any regularity. It's a rarity. I overspoke in a literal sense with "ever" but the fact remains: it isn't a viable method. You're welcome to show how many actually happen, I believe you've pointed out the only two in recent memory, but maybe there is this long list of them that shows it is viable. By all means. Considering the power players have in negotiating....if they wanted it....wouldn't it happen more often? They negotiate all sorts of comical, ridiculous, brazen things into contracts but front-loading is extremely rare. If it makes so much sense, why aren't some of the top-end FAs demanding it? Surely some team (like Seattle for Cano - someone always ponies up if you're talented enough, no matter how huge your demands) would give in. The simpler explanation isn't that all the teams have unified as one to deny this to players (when does that ever happen when it comes to these things?) but that the actual union is the one keeping it off the table? In fact, even A-rod, who you cited before - had in his contract that if any player was paid more than him the team could pay him 1M more and avoid the contract being voided. Ensuring his deal was backloaded or voided so he could re-negotiate. I don't deny it's speculative and all the articles I'm sure you googled thought (as you did) that it was a team driven phenomenon. Very few people seem to approach it from the opposite perspective. I'll simplify:front-loaded contracts ultimately hurt bargaining position as well. With free agency so important, that's clearly going to be a heavy pressure to give in to and the union (directly and indirectly) puts a lot of pressure on players to operate not only on their best interests or wishes, but for the betterment of others now and in the future. The teams don't typically care how much they operate in the best interest of each other. That makes the simpler explanation that the players are driving it. The contrary thing to believe would be your position. That every team in the league has joined together in stupidity, solidarity, or something to not front-load deals. Even though all of us could come up with situations in which it would be a brilliant move by teams to engage in. With so many savvy front office people, surely some of these situations would be more recognized and taken advantage of. But they don't. Not small markets, not big markets, not mid-markets. No one does it with any regularity. Or even with semi-randomness. It's rare. So what's simpler to explain? How a unionized force is acting in a way to increase their bargaining position or that 30 teams of very smart people are intentionally or unintentionally overlooking more ideal ways of offering contracts?

You noted two contracts in the last 10 years. That's pretty much all there is. It's even noted in this story how rare it is. It may not literally be "never". But, in practice, it's not far off. Exceptions, again, prove the rule. Rationally, yes it does make sense for them. But rationality rarely comes into play when ego and unions are involved. Players don't want to front-load because then by the back-end of their deal they no longer have the prestige of being a top-paid player. It also potentially alters the market for future player negotiations. Basically, it helps keep the "highest paid player" in baseball lofty so that teams can't negotiate relative to back-ended salaries. Say, if Sabathia or someone else had front-loaded. When Kershaw comes to the negotiating table....they have to argue with the team that the highest paid pitcher in the league is Sabathia at 14M and therefore they aren't going to more than double that in annual salary. It may seem silly (and it largely is) but that's how they operate. Guys back-load so they are "looking out" for the next generation of player salaries. So, yes, it is a player-driven phenomenon. Why Peralta accepted something otherwise is curious. (Though his PED issues may be a factor.)

This doesn't happen. Ever. I've heard it thrown around a lot lately. It's a player driven thing, they won't negotiate that way. Let's just all take that off the table.

Simmons is on his own level. But most measures I've seen had Florimon in the next tier. Drew not so much. Again, it all depends what you want to pick, but I don't think cherry picking with UZR is a fair way to argue. His 2012 UZR may be an outlier, it may not be. That's speculation I don't find value in engaging to be honest - I doubt either of us are qualified to draw that conclusion. The best supported argument is that we would be downgrading our defense to Drew, likely by a significant margin and likely that margin would only grow over time. We'd also almost certainly be upgrading our offense. And again, if you are willing to sacrifice that in the name of offense, I could see that. I don't share the view, however. (And I've become more and more against it as my own torn feelings on him have been met with this bizarre need by some to argue away all of Drew's flaws. I was more positive about it earlier quite frankly)