Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    $25 mil still leaves ~$100 mil annually for other assets. Perhaps more, if salary inflation continues. And those other assets wouldn't be bound by the years of Darvish's contract -- if payroll is tight in Darvish's last year, for example, a guy like Buxton could have salary deferred to the following year, etc. Nevermind that saving an extra $25 mil payroll space for "homegrown studs" (plural!) 5-6 years from now is very much counting chickens before they hatch.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    That's not a defense of the Twins. That is still misreading the player and market. If I nickel and dime on a house when I am willing to pay over asking price, and another buyer comes in with an asking price offer and I don't get the chance to counter, I don't get points for trying.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    What do you think of the Twins calling a Darvish signing a "priority" then? I am sure you personally were skeptical, but doesn't it still seem a little disingenuous? I didn't think it was likely either, but then when the market turned out all weird, I thought, hey maybe the Twins were on to something and are prepared to capitalize. So it is a little disappointing to learn that no, we weren't.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Better than the alternatives now and in the foreseeable future, yes. There are players better than Darvish, but they aren't available to us at this price now or in the foreseeable future. Darvish and his contract don't exist in a vacuum.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Plenty of people have acknowledged that. What do you think all of the references to $150 million or $160 million mean? Those are guarantees, and the Cubs only guaranteed $126. Maybe the Cubs would have matched it, but who knows? No one matched Arizona's offer to Greinke. No one matched the Nationals offer to Scherzer. And who cares? Do the Twins have a direct interest in keeping the Cubs payroll down?
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Because he is comparing apples to oranges. Obviously, 6/126 without an opt out is better for a team than 6/126 with an opt out (assuming the player is good enough for that range of contract, of course). But that's not the choice. It is more like 6/150 without an opt out, versus 6/126 with an opt out. Or, you don't get the player without the opt out, versus you do get the player with it. The opt out isn't intrinsically bad for a team. Just like a no-trade clause or anything else. It's all about how you value it.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    All evidence suggests the Twins could have done exactly that, landing the consensus top FA, at our greatest position of need, just by offering the consensus predicted contract (6/160 or thereabouts). It was a unique offseason in that regard, but the Twins apparently squandered the opportunity.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    So the Twins front office can't be expected to know/infer anything about a player's intentions, unless the player explicitly tells them? If so, they're out of their league. And the Twins offer was basically the same as the Brewers, which languished for weeks because everyone knew it was insufficient to seal the deal for a small market. Everyone knew the Cubs could match it or beat it if they wanted, and they are widely understood to be a more attractive destination for a variety of reasons. The Twins offer thus was either very naive or it was just more of our standard bargain hunting. I am leaning toward the latter, but the new FO tried to sell it as more than TR would have.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Actually, another worst case is you don't land the player. Or you have to guarantee more up front to land the player ($160 mil, in this case?).
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    What? You are saying it was impossible for the Twins to tell whether Darvish was seriously interested in us, or just using us to improve offers from his desired destinations? I don't really care about the reported Levine "connection" in particular, but they should have been able to know, far better than they apparently demonstrated.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Then that's on the Twins to figure out before Feb. 10, and not get their fans hopes up in the meantime. Especially given their "personal connection" in Levine, there is no excuse for letting Darvish string us along.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    $110 mil IS the lowball. Every observer predicted $135-$168 mil, and when you consider the present day cash value of the opt out and the incentives, he basically got a deal in that range. And the Twins didn't come particularly close to that, or even distinguish our offer from that of our smaller market neighbors to the east in Milwaukee.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Huh? There is zero evidence to suggest the Twins offer was better than 5/110 with no opt out. And while we weren't in the room and will never have "perfect" information, there is a fair expectation based on history that if our offer was indeed very close or better than the Cubs offer, it would have been reported in some fashion, somewhere. The Twins and Brewers looking for FA bargains is probably some of the least questionable MLB reporting of the offseason.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    This is a troubling quote from our front office. The comparison shouldn't be, this contract vs the exact same contract with an opt out. The correct comparison is the contract with an opt out vs. a more expensive / less valuable contract offer without an opt out.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    The Twins offer was reported to be essentially the same as Milwaukee's. Offers leak. A top FA turning down more money would definitely leak. And in a climate where players and agents are openly accusing teams of collusion, it defies logic to think that such an occurrence wouldn't leak.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Tons of reporting has them at 5 years, refusing 6. Then there is this: https://mobile.twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/962418511900545024 The way contract offers are reported, $125 mil is a notable figure. No way that gets rounded down to $100 mil. Best case, the Twins and Brewers were probably at 5/110 $22 mil AAV, with no opt out (Levine is also on record elsewhere with his great disdain for opt outs). That's not trying to land Darvish, that is trying to land a bargain. Which isn't always bad -- but it isn't always good either. Maybe next winter, Harper and Kershaw at 6/150 can be our "priorities"...
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    This is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, no? I'd guess Darvish would have had more respect for our commitment to winning if we actually bothered to offer him a market rate contract in the first place. Heck, maybe if we demonstrate the ability to land a Darvish, the next Verlander type trade candidate might be more willing to waive their no-trade clause to come here. If we want to overcome the perception that we're not committed to winning, we actually have to commit to winning, more than we've done to date.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Oh, and the idea that "maybe the Twins beat the Cubs offer but Darvish turned it down anyway" is pure fantasy. Aside from the fact that the reporting is pretty clear (5 year offer, ~$110 mil), the MLBPA hates players turning down bigger contracts. Particularly in this environment, it would be a HUGE deal. Not to say Darvish couldn't do it, but it defies logic to think he could do it without any trace of a leak. The single revelation that Darvish turned down a larger offer alone could probably destroy the MLBPA's collusion argument, all by itself.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Crazy to think the Twins, coming off a playoff berth with expectations of more, could have actually landed the consensus top FA on the market, at our greatest position of need (SP), simply by offering the MLBTR predicted contract (6/160). And they didn't do it. They better have a darn good plan B.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Berardino: https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/10/whats-next-for-twins-after-falling-short-in-yu-darvish-derby/ I can see why fans are upset. You don't call it a "priority" and then offer fewer years and ~$50 mil less than what most observers predict will be necessary to land the player. Adding Darvish wasn't a priority, "getting a bargain" was the priority, and it quite likely hurt the team, yet again.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Correct. Even though you can add a guy to the 60-day DL in spring training, those spring training days don't count toward the 60.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    I believe this is no longer true, since he had kids -- Mauer makes his permanent home in Minnesota.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Seems like if that's what the Rays wanted, Archer would have already been dealt, probably to some other club.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Maybe they meant it was an offer to go to a formal (dance)? Prom season is just around the corner!
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Hey, Jack Morris lost 18 the year before he took us to the WS! I like Archer, but I agree that there are enough questions about his performance that he is an equal or greater risk than Darvish, all things considered.
×
×
  • Create New...