Otto von Ballpark

I have been wondering about that, in regards to Archer. It seems like bWAR is discounting him even more than a 4 ERA in 200 IP would suggest.

We would still have a team option on Ervin for next year, regardless.

Lavelle Neal said there is zero percent chance of the Twins signing Arrieta, for whatever that's worth. Maybe that means it is likely.

FWIW, Levine apparently reiterated the "priority" line a few week later than the November article I recalled. Molitor's quote from the same December article is a little more telling, though: https://amp.mlb.com/263716888-twins-serious-about-signing-yu-darvish.amp.html That doesn't sound too aggressive -- that sounds more like what I say when I hang around bake sales, hoping someone gives me a tray of unsold muffins at the end.

I am going by Mike Berardino until something better comes along: "reportedly refusing to go beyond five years at around $20 million per season" https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/13/starting-nine-answering-twins-biggest-questions-as-spring-training-begins/

I think the context is, from the non-financial perspective of a player. No one is doubting the Rangers have more money, but assuming the Twins and Rangers put up comparable offers for a player, there's not really a "big market" argument for a player to prefer one over the other.

Assuming 4 starters in regular rotation, we'd need a 5th starter on April 11, 24, 29, and May 4. Basically "skipped" twice in that span, the first week and the third week (around the Puerto Rico trip). Depending on how they did it, they could skip them on their next off day May 9th too, but you would need them by May 14th again. The DL is only 10 days now, so that helps, but I don't see them pushing Berrios, Mejia, etc. Early last season they were skipping the 5th guy a bit (Mejia?) but the other 4 spots were veterans (Ervin, Santiago, Hughes, and Gibson).

So to answer the question, are you going with the MLB draft in June? Which day? Although they'd have until August to actually sign them... I don't recommend it, but it's a interesting thought experiment to project the Twins never signing or acquiring another starting pitcher again, ever. At what point do they run out? Better to promote minor league depth guys, or just use the bullpen for all 9 innings? (Then Rod Serling reveals that we're actually living in that world now, and all of our starting pitchers are actually just long relievers!)

I wonder if that wouldn't be allowed? After all, it's not a player yet, just a pick. Maybe as a "future consideration"? Or maybe that would be prohibited too. There is a practical consideration for this -- it's possible for a team to forfeit this pick for signing free agents, right? Although an alternate "future consideration" could be agreed upon for such a possibility. I know there is also a restriction on trading international bonus money outside the current period, and that seems pretty strict.

He did say "not in terms of population". I think it's very fair to say the Rangers are not on the overall "big market" level as LA, NY, Boston, and Chicago.

Hey, you're talking about me! To me, "our first choice" to describe the consensus top FA kinda goes without saying, no? Especially in a market where nobody expected him to get $200 mil, or even $175 mil. Maybe I wouldn't have expected TR to say it, or the GM of a 100 loss team, but the 2017-2018 Twins absolutely can and should be considering every FA up to that range. They shouldn't have to signal that they are simply evaluating the opportunity. In retrospect, it certainly seems like your interpretation is correct, but even then, the outcome still seems disappointing because that means they didn't recognize the unique opportunity that Darvish and this market represented, etc. Maybe they'll blow us away with an impressive plan B, but at this point my feelings about that are probably similar to their's about Darvish -- it's more "hope" than expectation.

Despite the 103 loss season, I don't think the Twins circa October 2016 were a good target for a tear-down at all. With Buxton, Sano, Berrios, etc.? True, they shopped Dozier that winter, and had an interesting trade deadline in 2017, but I don't think that's enough evidence to suggest the new FO had/have any intentions of tearing down what they inherited. At least not enough to discount their probability of contention in 2018.

I just saw that too: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/nl-notes-darvish-marlins-padres-foltynewicz.html But I suspect those could be referring to the rumored Dodgers and Yankees "offers" which seemed contingent on those clubs moving Kemp and Ellsbury, respectively. The Twins will have plenty of opportunity to correct the record as it relates to their reported offer of "5/100+" presumably without an opt out. Although I understand if they don't want to do that immediately if they are still in negotiation with other FAs.

Payroll for luxury tax purposes is calculated based on the AAV of the whole deal and ignores the opt out. So the Cubs get no tax benefit from their mild front-loading. I think earned incentives can retroactively affect the tax too, so there is no benefit in using them to offset lower initial guarantees either. The opt out has value to the player that isn't reflected in luxury tax calculations, so that's a small manipulation. I've seen estimates that the opt out could have a present-day value of about ~$15 mil for Darvish, but averaged over the 6 years of the deal, it wouldn't be terribly significant.

It's not just a tax this year -- it's resetting it before it next year, when Kershaw is due to opt out (and Harper, Machado, etc. hit the market). The Dodgers could probably stomach a huge tax bill this year for signing Darvish, but they don't want to pay it this year AND next year (and potentially every year going forward). This was their best chance to reset the escalating penalties. And I believe the new CBA also added draft and international penalties for exceeding the luxury tax threshold by certain amounts, which could be a stronger deterrent than just the tax alone. And while they always like to upgrade, the Dodgers rotation is in pretty good shape: Kershaw 180 ERA+ Wood 154 Hill 126 Ryu 111 Maeda 99 Plus elite prospect Walker Buehler, and lesser guys like Stripling and Stewart who managed some effectiveness in 2017 in small samples. They already felt they had enough SP depth to deal Brandon McCarthy away too (and he was reasonably effective when healthy in 2017, with a 105 ERA+). They also may have some flexibility to make a deadline move, and maybe even get a late season return from Urias.

I don't think any of that applies much here. It's hard to predict team performance with too much precision -- no can really say "this isn't *quite* our year to contend yet" after last year. By comparison, it is not as hard to predict the market for external upgrades. There aren't many Darvish equivalents available, and the deadline and next winter will likely bring the Yankees and Dodgers back into the bidding (not to mention the Cubs again, the Astros, the Angels, etc.). Balancing those two factors into holding the line on Darvish this offseason is threading far too fine of a needle, I don't even think they would be attempting that.

3/42* sounds reasonable, but the biggest problem was it didn't take effect for 2 years. For all the consternation about long-term guarantees for Darvish, we effectively promised a much more suspect Hughes $14 mil per year 3, 4, and 5 years into the future, when we didn't even have to (we still controlled him with 2/16 remaining on the original contract). The extension got a lot of love here, but you are pretty quick to dismiss the "board consensus" on a lot of topics and this would be a good one to question. I think fans were so tickled to finally experience one good SP season, and pleased that our initial 3/24 contract was wise, that we didn't properly consider the effects of tearing up the remaining 2/16 and replacing it with 5/58. That said, F- is far too harsh. D or C grade on the extension is about right -- it wasn't a great decision, but it hasn't really hurt the team that much. * it's actually 3/42 rather than 3/39 because the extension bumped up his pay on his original contract too

They could switch to FIP on the Target Field scoreboard too! Or, they could switch between FIP and ERA, whichever is most flattering to the Twins pitcher.

The negotiation likely takes place before the offer (which was a long time this offseason!). It was no secret that Darvish still wanted the 6th year. If no bid came up with that, he could engage in further negotiation, but once the Cubs submitted a formal offer with that, there's really no need to follow up on the Twins offer. (And it's quite possible the Cubs and Darvish negotiated further after the offer to reach the final deal -- maybe the opt-out, no-trade, or incentives?)

If you've been reading the forums lately, you might think the title of this post and its author (me) are incompatible. And you might be right -- I have been rather prolific in my posts advocating the Twins sign Yu Darvish and, more recently, critical of the Twins offer in the wake of the Cubs deal. Here is a sampling (and feel free to post any questions or comments about these linked posts right here in this new thread too): What were the odds of the Twins offer actually being successful? http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28585-will-the-twins-ever-sign-a-top-free-agent-or-are-we-all-just-wasting-our-time/page-22?do=findComment&comment=712518 What were the risks of a larger offer, relative to the offer they made? http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28585-will-the-twins-ever-sign-a-top-free-agent-or-are-we-all-just-wasting-our-time/page-24?do=findComment&comment=712798 Would the Cubs have simply outbid us, regardless of the size of our offer? http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28585-will-the-twins-ever-sign-a-top-free-agent-or-are-we-all-just-wasting-our-time/page-24?do=findComment&comment=712806 But while I am disappointed in the process and the outcome, I still sought to understand it all better. Many other posters have offered explanations, some of which were probably pretty good but still left my mind unsatisfied for some reason. So I endeavored to explain it to myself. What's the defense? Interestingly, my chief defense of the Twins offer can be derived from a joke about an earlier post title -- "Twins Give Darvish a Formal Offer", where I noted that "prom proposal" could be considered a synonym for "formal offer." Consider this a variation on the theory "what if Darvish just didn't want to come here", but with a Valentine's Day twist. How does a person respond to romantic inquiries/hints/advances when they just aren't interested? They often don't sever all contact or even give a definite "no", but rather they leave more subtle hints of disinterest, likely while still trying to maintain a friendly relationship. What if Darvish did that to the Twins? What if Darvish responded generically to the Twins overtures, to prop up his market with their theoretical pursuit, but at the same time not giving them any specific parameters with which to construct a deal to his liking? How would that sound? "I don't know yet, check back later." "I'm really just waiting to see how the market develops." "Don't call us, we'll call you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHDNWf_ws38 While at the same time, he could be engaging in more detail with the Cubs (and Dodgers, Rangers, etc.). Even if the Twins knew from indirect sources that Darvish wanted 6 years, and wasn't backing down too far on AAV despite the slow market, it's not the same as hearing it from the source. The Twins would likely pick up on the disinterest directed toward them. But the Twins have reasons for not completely moving on, or publicly disclosing that either -- chiefly, negotiations with other players and teams (in trade). And ultimately, knowing Darvish's disinterest could affect the Twins' ability and willingness to put forth a competitive offer for him. Nobody wants to be the person (I hope) to rent a skywriter for a prom proposal directed toward a known disinterested subject. Even if you commit more money/resources to your offer than others, and your offer somehow "wins", there could be the distinct feeling that it was forced upon the subject, leading to an uncomfortable relationship ahead. If Darvish simply wanted to play in Chicago for 6/126 plus incentives and an opt out, there might be some resentment toward us for "not taking the hints" and offering a marginally larger guarantee, putting Darvish in a difficult position with his union and his agent whose financial interests could then be in conflict with Darvish's personal preferences. We remember the "players don't want to come here" mantra, and Dave St. Peter's response that money is all that matters -- a seeming contradiction, but in a way, both are true and the Twins likely have to find a balance (as they sought for many years between "the Metrodome is a dump" and "come on out to watch your Twins!"). So does this absolve the Twins? Not necessarily -- maybe not even close. It's quite possible that any disinterest was not pre-existing, but rather borne out of early conversations between Darvish and the club. There is certainly evidence to suggest this -- if the Twins expressed to Darvish the same reticence privately as they did publicly about the 5th/6th years or the opt out clause, and offered no indications about making up the difference with a big AAV, Darvish and his agent may have simply concluded it wasn't worth their time to engage with the Twins any further. Maybe it wasn't anything personal -- other than LA (who didn't win the bidding either), there didn't seem to be any reports about Darvish preferring any particular destination. Darvish has no notable connection to Chicago or its staff (excepting potential backup catcher Gimenez), and frankly there are more day-to-day similarities than differences between playing your home games at Target Field or at Wrigley Field, once you have reached the highest level of professional baseball. And while he may have been motivated by the Cubs' resources and willingness to deploy them, leading to greater postseason and World Series chances, it's also quite possible he simply saw them as the only realistic option for meeting his demands and prioritized his focus accordingly. And that would have been quite likely correct. Even if the Twins privately had some willingness to negotiate around a 6th year or opt out or even higher guarantees, it's not Darvish's responsibility to tease that out of them. Further, even if Darvish had a pre-existing disinterest in the Twins, it's not the job of the front office to simply deliver contract offers to willing players. Part of their duties is selling, recruiting, convincing -- not just free agents, but ownership and fans too. I'm sure the new front office would say they are gradually working toward that end, although their moves to date certainly suggest a mixed bag. (And taking a too-conservative approach to negotiations with Darvish would have in itself reinforced some negative preconceptions about our commitment to winning.) Maybe they are still working under the shadow of the previous regime, although Levine's prior relationship to Darvish would suggest that he could perhaps sell a new vision for Minnesota in this situation better than most others. What does this all mean? All told, I'm still not pleased with the Twins here. No matter how you slice it, they seem to bear a good portion of responsibility for the outcome as it stands today -- whether it's the too-conservative terms of their approach or offer, failing to create or communicate an environment where their commitment to winning is clear and unquestionable, maybe just overselling their interest with Levine's "priority" comment back in November, or even just the lack of success so far at securing a plan B alternative. And understand I'm not a person who advocates for the Twins to pursue every top free agent, and who criticizes them every time that doesn't happen -- I understand the realities of MLB market and payroll disparities. But I do expect the Twins should be able to not only pursue an occasional top free agent, but actually land one from time to time under the right conditions -- and the conditions this offseason around Darvish were riper for that opportunity than any top FA since the opening of Target Field, and looking ahead, they might be the best for the next 5-6 years too, at least. That said, I'm not giving up on them or their season. I'm committed to my Twins (perhaps for many of the same frugal financial factors which they apply to free agency -- no greater joy than taking in a ballgame from the cheap seats or on the radio!). And I hope they have a good plan B and can get it done rather quickly so it doesn't affect their spring training -- and so my mind can finally move on from all this unnecessary Darvish analysis!

And not the good kind of "GOAT" either! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9za8VW7xBI8

I don't know, "around $20 million" could just be a way to write $20+, the logical way to express "$100+" in annual terms. The lower number wouldn't surprise me -- the lack of reporting anywhere that we at least matched their AAV is possibly a clue -- but I don't know if Berardino really means to suggest it in this piece.

I agree on that specific terminology. But it wasn't really competitive either -- actually landing the player with it required a ton of conditions to met. 5% odds, maybe? Which could be described as embarrassingly low for a player we are supposedly prioritizing/pursuing. Also remember the opt out clause in the Cubs deal effectively adds about ~$15 mil in value too.

It's not THAT front loaded. 2/45 then 4/81. I'd guess that unless he has a brilliant, healthy 2nd season in Chicago, or the market explodes again, he won't opt out, but that doesn't necessarily mean disaster/mediocre. FWIW, not a lot of SP have opted out before. Sabathia essentially opted out of 4 years coming off a 7 WAR season, as leverage to negotiate an extension from the Yankees. Greinke opted out of only 3 years, and coming off a 9 WAR season. AJ Burnett is another, but he only "opted out" of 2/24 remaining in his deal at the time -- much closer to the classic "player's option." Kershaw is the one everybody expects next winter, but he will only be opting out of 2 years too -- and I could see a Sabathia-like extension for him in LA. Tanaka (3 years) and Cueto (4 plus team option) chose not to opt out this winter, but their forecasts are not that bleak as both were brilliant in 2016 but meh in 2017. Price would probably need a great 2018 to opt out next winter?

The Dodgers play in the NL with no DH, and in Dodger Stadium which is a pitcher's park. They were second in MLB in non-pitcher wRC+, only behind the Astros.