Otto von Ballpark

Why are you worried about blocking at all? Machado can/should play third. (And Sano can/should play first, at some point.) Plenty of room for him and whatever prospects emerge over the next few years. Harper worries me a bit more. His K rate spiked to 24% last year, which isn't bad, but it isn't good either, and the Twins don't necessarily have a good recent track record of controlling K's. Plus he's just a corner outfielder -- he has to hit more than Machado to equal his value --- and to his credit, Harper has hit more than Machado over his career, but it's something that would worry me about a long term deal. I think the back half of a Machado contract could have more usefulness / trade value than the back half of Harper's, just based on position alone.

I'm not sure that's a meaningful point. Most teams don't spend 20% on one player. You might be looking at maybe 2 teams every year? You could pick two teams every year by some random criteria (like the highest number of guys named Logan on the roster ) and odds are those two teams won't win the World Series either. (It's even worse than that, because the 20% requirement basically eliminates the top 5+ biggest spending teams, who we already know are more likely to win the Series.) Your 20% group of teams is a small, odd bunch. Is it really significant that the 2012-2014 Twins (Mauer) didn't win the World Series or make the playoffs? Same for the 2017-2018 Reds (Votto). Among teams actually trying to win, there is the 2016-2017 Diamondbacks (Greinke) -- but again, odds are against any random non-top-5 spending team winning it all over a short period of time (Arizona did make the playoffs one of those years, though). Would Arizona's odds have been better if they spent an additional $50+ mil? Sure, a bit -- and then they wouldn't have qualified under your 20% criteria anymore. Would their odds have been better if they hadn't signed Greinke, and instead signed a couple other players for ~$30 mil total? Probably not meaningfully so -- Greinke was worth 6.1 bWAR in that playoff season...

Well, Manny Ramirez was once busted for taking a female fertility hormone...

And given the performance of most Rule 5 selections, it's not a stretch to imagine that Rule 6 might involve imbibing spirits, at least unofficially.

Look, if you want to imagine a worst case scenario, that's great. But that's not the job of the front office. They should be looking at where they stand today and projecting forward. We have a good farm system, right now. I don't know about stars, but it's a farm that should produce a few MLB contributors over the next 5 years. If we had a farm system like Detroit a few years ago, completely barren, or even the 2010-2011 Twins, and we knew we would need to sign multiple quality FA annually to stay afloat, that would be a different situation in assessing Machado's fit for the organization. Of course, even our good farm today could get hit by bad luck or flop -- but in that case, we are probably doomed as an org for a few years anyway like the early 2010s Twins were, regardless of signing Machado. At least Machado might give us a chance to cover some of that with potential upside performance, or perhaps even an asset to trade to accelerate a rebuild or reload. If both fail you're not that much worse off than if just the farmed failed -- having $30 mil a year to invest in Lance Lynns isn't a meaningful remedy for a farm system that goes bust. I am not poo-pooing the downside risk -- it's just that the downside risk is significantly lower with mid-20s infielders than with most of the examples being tossed around here. Especially one on a 8/250 contract, the suggestion of which precipitated this thread -- 8/250 today isn't all that much different than Mauer's 8/184 considering baseball inflation, and contrary to what you or others might imply, Mauer's contract was not the primary limiting factor in the performance of the Twins the past 8 years. If we are talking MLBTR's prediction for Machado -- 13/390 -- that would change things considerably too.

It's not a caveat -- the poor farm hurt the Twins many times more than the "flexibility" lost in Mauer's deal. That, and unwise FA spending. It seems like you are trying to say the Twins fared poorly under Mauer's deal, which is a strike against any Machado deal, even though Mauer's deal wasn't really a primary factor for thr Twins performance those years. Smith and TR didn't lose their jobs because of Mauer, not even close.

The poor drafts and trades preceded the contract. We were pretty aware of them when the contract was signed, hence why we dumped our GM during the first season of Mauer's extension. That's not an issue right now,we have a solid system. Cot's says payroll dipped to $82 mil under Mauer, and only bounced back over $100 mil after the shaky investments in Nolasco and the Hughes extension. https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

I don't see why that answer would be no. With a better farm system, we could have been fine under Mauer's deal, and even survived worse. And Machado has lower risk factors in terms of position and age (Mauer's extension started at age 28, 2 years older than Machado is now). I think trading Machado down the road could also be easier than dealing Mauer ever could have been. Plus, if it turned out much worse, insurance could kick in some relief.

I disagree with the notion that the Twins lost flexibility with the Mauer contract. We had plenty of payroll flexibility from 2012 onward, had we needed it. Sadly the org was bereft of talent from bad drafts and trades. Likewise, I think we could add a Machado now, or could have added Corbin + others, and still maintain enough flexibility to supplement any homegrown talent developed over the next few years. Obviously we won't have the ability to sign a big contract like this for the next few years, but I see that as a limitation of reality more than flexibility. There aren't so many young talented FA that one team out of 30 can sign that many anyway. (But that also means you can't overlook any opportunity either.)

I'm not sure you are reading the general consensus very well. I think most fans endorsed the Mauer deal when it was signed, and many have also concluded that it didn't turn out that poorly, even if we wanted more. 21.9 bWAR for $184 mil = $8.4 mil per WAR, or roughly the average cost per WAR on the FA market at that time. To the extent that there were any reservations about the contract at the time, or disappointment with how it turned out, it likely centered around the heightened injury potential for catchers. Or if we would have been better off locking up Mauer to a longer deal earlier in his career. Both of which are points not exactly relevant to signing Machado today...

Curtiss's K/9 *was* good. Last year, I think it was basically average for a AAA reliever. And regardless, a "good" minor league K/9 doesn't seem like a very good predictor of MLB success.

There is no "Grecian ideal" for team building. If the early 2000s Cardinals didn't find Pujols, maybe they invest in a big FA to fill the gap. Same for the current Astros -- would they still eschew big FA additions if their core didn't come together so well? And FYI, the Giants never won a series with Bonds. But they managed to win 3 after signing a big FA bust in Zito...

"These long term FA contracts" seems to be painting with too broad of a brush. For example, if I am analyzing a potential deal for the 26 year old infielder Machado, I don't really care that the Angels gave a 10 year deal to a 32 year old 1B/DH (Pujols). I don't really care that the Rockies gave an 8 year deal for low-K starting pitcher to come to Coors Field (Hampton). Even the Cubs 8 year deal for a fellow 26 year old (Heyward) -- a premium defender in an outfield corner with questionable offense -- was for a very different profile than Machado. There's a lot of noise around trying to analyze "these kind of contracts" in the aggregate. That doesn't mean Machado is a slam dunk decison, of course. But at his age and position, it's worth some strong consideration. I really object to dismissing it out of hand.

This is a fair argument, but -- the Twins didn't do this, and I don't think they have ever done this (multiple $50+ mil FA contracts in one offseason). So while you may prefer your scenario, I do wonder if you would also prefer just signing Machado at 8/250 over doing nothing. Additionally, the odds that Machado "fails" on a 8 year contract beginning at age 26 are probably lower than the failure odds on McCutchen and Eovaldi on 4 year deals with their respective ages/positions/health histories. But on the flip side, the odds that Machado produces multiple all-star quality seasons, or even an MVP quality season, are dramatically higher. You've got to balance everything. The job of the front office is not just risk avoidance -- and if they focus too much on risk avoidance, they will probably find themselves out of a job! Heck, the Twins did something like this back in 2013-2015 -- spreading out their FA dollars on Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana -- but I'd still rather have Scherzer. Or even Greinke. I could see an argument for a different allocation of this kind of payroll, but it would probably have to start with a better class of player -- maybe Corbin or Keuchel this offseason?

Wright's deal was a 7 year extension that didn't start until he was 31. Again, Machado is 26. The 8 year contract that is the subject of this thread would end in his age 33 season. There have absolutely been bad long-term deals in baseball. But there have also been good ones, and Machado's age and position at least make him an interesting comp for some of the best. A-Rod and Jeter both signed 10 year deals at age 25 and 27, respectively, that turned out very well. Tulowitzki effectively signed a 9 year deal starting at age 26 (5 year extension on top of 4 remaining years) that obviously didn't work out as well, but even then, the Rockies did get a few productive years and were able to get out of the last few years of the deal.

Fielder was 2 years older when he signed that deal than Machado is now -- and Texas didn't sign him, Detroit did. Neither team is paying 100% of the back end of the contract (in fact, insurance is probably paying a portion too). Pujols was SIX years older (32) than Machado is now. An eight year deal for Machado now would run through his age 33 season. And both Fielder and Pujols were 1B/DH. There are arguments against deals, but you're not talking apples-to-apples here. Machado is a 26 year old 3B/SS. Getting him on a contract similar to Fielder, Pujols, or even a 31 year old Robinson Cano, would almost certainly be a good deal.

I mean, they're both on the fringe, but I can see a case for keeping Duffey over Curtiss. Duffey has some MLB success in 2015 and 2017, and was a bit better at AAA in 2018 (similar ERA, but better peripherals and capable of pitching multiple innings). Neither pitcher was out of options. I'd gladly cut Duffey tomorrow for a quality MLB free agent reliever, of course.

A year ago, I would have been surprised. But Curtiss basically had his worst BB and K rates of his pro career in Rochester last year, and he's almost 26 years old.

In 2 of your 3 examples, the signing team did NOT get stuck with the back end of the deal. (And the third, Greinke, could possibly be moved too, but for a no-trade clause.) I don't think those level of deals are necessarily scary, for the right players.

Cynthia?

I wouldn't call it "hell". Thanks to claims and trades, Drake racked up another season of MLB service time in 2018 toward his pension, and made $550k salary. He's not getting paid this winter, but he still keep benefits for him and his family as long as he's on a 40-man roster (or even while he's in DFA limbo). For a 43rd round draft pick who didn't debut until age 28, he's done pretty well by grossing over $1 mil in salary the last 2 years, at age 30-31, and racking up over 2 years of service time toward his pension. And he's done so largely because teams can't freely shuttle him to the minors anymore, and instead have to allow him to go elsewhere. I'm sure he'd prefer to stay in one place in MLB, but moving around MLB sure beats getting sent back to the minors.

Not in baseball, since Nolasco was released from his minor league deal with the Royals last March.

Astudillo is the face *and* the body of the franchise right now. Also, the hair.

FWIW, Sanchez took a 40-man spot last offseason when he was signed. It was a "split contract" that would have paid less in the minors than in MLB, but it wasn't a minor league deal. Also, it's unclear if the Twins would have been able to get a successful season from Sanchez. Although he would have been a nice alternative to try once he was healthly in June -- but so was Mejia and we passed on using him until our season was more or less out of hand...

Duensing has a no-trade clause too. Contractually, he can no longer be a part of any fantasy trades on the internet.