Otto von Ballpark

But signing Buxton and Sano isn't really going to be affected by the last 2 years of Darvish. If there is any kind of immediate squeeze, they could backload or defer. Just like if they wanted to extend Dozier today, Hughes' deal would not be a serious impediment to that goal. And on a practical level, the Twins won't be able to simultaneously sign 5 or 6 market level star deals anyway, with or without Darvish -- at least a few would have to be staggered as arb buyout deals, etc. And between now and then, virtually the entire rest of the payroll comes off the books too -- Mauer, Dozier, Hughes, Ervin, etc. Any kind of immediate squeeze would require a lot more new commitments than just Darvish.

I keep reading this thread title as "Formal Burial"...

Not really. Just like Hughes' and Mauer's deals aren't really affecting a potential deal for Darvish or extension for Dozier. There are so many ways to structure a deal like that anyway, that it would really take more than 1-2 late-term dead-weight deals to have an impact.

Agents usually have a lot of low-level staff to do that:

I wouldn't worry too much about the hypothetical -- the idea that Darvish would make his ~$125 mil signing contingent on that of Mike Napoli is pretty far-fetched. It is almost certainly Napoli trying to ride Darvish's coattails than an actual concern from Darvish.

I meant, even within our own self-imposed limitations, Hughes and Mauer aren't really limiting us that much.

I didn't mean to say there couldn't be problems, just that they were relatively minor ones. We're already making a play on Darvish. How many simultaneous opportunities to spend a lot of cash do you think we could really take advantage of anyway? Opportunities to add guys like Darvish or Verlander are rare enough that you're not really limiting yourself if you can still manage one per year or offseason. And Hughes' roster spot hasn't been a big problem in season yet (60 day DL). Maybe this winter it contributed to us losing Luke Bard? Somehow, "potentially losing 2022's Luke Bard" doesn't sound like a compelling anti-Darvish point, does it? And we could always just release Hughes if we want that roster spot back, like the Cubs and Edwin Jackson. I'll drop it, because I know we are ultimately on the same side here. But I do think folks overrate the problems / missed opportunities of those contracts. To the extent that the last years of Hughes may have been a bad risk, it was probably because the front of the deal didn't offer enough upside, as we weren't likely contenders then. Not a concern with Darvish and our present roster, though.

I don't know, maybe you should ask them? For someone who frequently mocks "board favorites", it's certainly odd to see you citing board member opinions as evidence of your position.

Didn't mean to nitpick. I understand a longer deal being riskier by definition, but I think the risk is getting misrepresented around here (not necessarily by you, but by those making the argument you were referencing). A lot of folks here seem eager to do a 4 or 5 year deal, but frankly, the marginal risk of a 5 or 6 year deal isn't that much greater. Look at the Tigers. Zimmermann has been a bust so far, but he wouldn't be that much less of a bust at 4/88 rather than 5/110. Or the Sanchez deal, which was rough at the end but again, lopping off that last year doesn't change much. It would take a more severe disparity, like a 1-2 deal vs 4-5, or 4-5 vs 8-10, to introduce the kind of risk that should scare the Twins off. But those don't really apply of the Darvish situation. But yeah, I agree with you in general. Sorry to give an impression otherwise.

It's not "spin" to recognize there are different types and degrees of "bad contracts." A lot of people call Mauer's deal "bad" but at this point it is more just suboptimal. Even if Mauer was injured or playing awful, the last 1 or 2 years of a contract being "bad" is pretty benign in its effects. There is no real reason to fear the last year or two of a long-term deal. Now if you want to argue that a Darvish contract *today* is worse than the alternatives *today*, be my guest, although judging from the reports it would seem the Twins disagree.

What could they do? Sign Darvish? They can do that anyway. Extend Buxton? They can do that too. Take on a Verlander type salary in trade? They can do that as well (assuming the Verlander type was willing to come here). The Darvish contract may not return much on-field value in year 5 or 6, but it's not going to be a major impediment by then. It will be at its greatest impedance right now, which is just fine, because Darvish's performance should be at its most valuable now and there really isn't anything else to spend the money on right now either.

Thing is, in 5 years, it can't be a "horrible" contract, in the sense of restricting other moves. There will be, what, 1/25 left on the contract at that point? We may not get $25 mil worth of production in year 5, but it's not going to be a serious impediment to making other moves. Just like the last year of Mauer's deal isn't an impediment to signing Darvish now, or extending Buxton if we wanted to do so, etc. 1/25 is a short term loss that almost any deal can work around. And if that 1/25 at the end is the price we pay for getting the first 4 years for $100 mil, so be it. It's arguably cheaper and less risky than forking over ~$80 mil in prospects today to get Archer for 4/34, because we don't have to worry about replacing the prospects (or reversing Archer's 4 year streak of FIP under-performance). Looking at our payroll outlook, the only time the Darvish contract would be an impediment to other moves would be now, for big cash moves (we'd still have prospects to deal). And there aren't any clearly better big cash moves to make right now.

FWIW, I meant that line to say that you are now arriving at some of the core tenets of modern sabermetrics (BABIP and ERA prediction). I edited it out around the same time you responded because I thought I wasn't communicating that well. Nothing wrong with digging deeper for a better understanding, of course! But if you feel I am being too dismissive of your points, please keep in mind that this debate is far bigger than you and I and the context of Lynn and Darvish, and I may not be the best emissary for modern sabermetric thought. But I'll do my best as my time and typing allows.

Keep in mind, at its core FIP is just a shortcut to describe a pitcher's K rate, BB rate, and HR rate on an ERA scale. Projecting those rates is what creates the projection. (Although FIP can be derived from the projection too.) You can see Steamer doesn't like Lynn's K rate or HR rate to bounce back. With a return to normal BABIP, that makes for another high FIP, and Steamer basically projects guys ERA right around their FIP. I think Steamer is maybe overly pessimistic on Lynn, probably because it is agnostic about the TJ surgery/recovery context, but a non-elite K rate guy coming off a career low K rate is a concern. He hasn't yet bounced back fully from TJ in terms of K rate (and velocity?), and there remains the chance that he never will, particularly past the age of 30. Another projection is ZIPS which looks better for him -- gives his 2017 rates and thus FIP a little boost, and gives him a better ERA than FIP too. Still has him at .289 BABIP, a tick lower than Steamer but much closer to average than his 2017 mark. https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2018-zips-projections-st-louis-cardinals/ In my opinion, Lynn is no slouch, but I still prefer Darvish, who is not without risk of course, but has already come back better/farther from TJ in terms of K rate and velocity, while a contract for Lynn would be a bet on that full recovery which hasn't yet happened. And Darvish has a higher ceiling (peaked at 5.9 bWAR, compared to 3.7 bWAR for Lynn) and probably a higher floor (he's basically been a 4+ bWAR performer, prorated to 31 GS, in each of his 5 MLB seasons so far). I am sure the Twins have their own criteria that goes beyond any data we have (or could comprehend!) but from my vantage point, Darvish is the higher aim, and I would like them to aim high, given the circumstances.

Now that's what I call a SCORCHING hot sports take!

FIP and BABIP are just stats which can be calculated on a career, season, or even a per game basis. They get more useful/predictive with a larger sample. They are not projections themselves. Projections like Steamer incorporate multiple years of BABIP and FIP (and/or its components).

One 40-man spot opens up on Feb. 13, with Pineda moving to the 60-day DL. So any signing could be announced now, and become official on Feb. 13 with no one lost. Rule 5 pick Kinley is the other obvious candidate for removal, if they needed an additional spot. But I doubt they sign two MLB contracts right now (at least one would probably be a MILB deal with an early opt out).

Career BABIP: Darvish .292, Lynn .297. League average has been between .293-.298 since 2012. Lynn was a .244 BABIP pitcher last year in much the same way Danny Santana was a .405 BABIP hitter in his rookie season. Even to the extent that it might reflect skill, for that season, the players in question have shown no ability to maintain that level of skill over a larger sample.

Nitpick, but Darvish would only be 37 at the end of a 6-year deal (in his age-36 season, as his birthday is in August).

You're not likely to know with any confidence whether these "young guys" will pan out as MLB starters 12 months from now -- they currently have virtually zero experience above AA (Gonsalves 5 games at AAA, Jorge 3, and Romero/Littell/Thorpe all with zero). 2018 is almost certainly about AAA refinement and getting their feet wet in MLB. Best case, next winter they might be in a spot like Mejia this offseason -- able to compete for an open job, ready to come up as a reinforcement if needed, but not someone to whom you want to hand a spot. The timing is perfect for the Twins to make a multi-year SP commitment, if that's what it takes to get the best SP on the market. There is a clear and obvious need today, likely one for 2019 as well given the inexperience of the prospects, and a couple current vets coming off the books before 2020 too (Ervin and Gibson, if he makes it that far).

FIP predicts future ERA better than ERA itself. Lynn and Cobb both had worse FIPs than ERAs last year (Lynn especially so).

This I agree with. There's no way they can roll out Berrios, Gibson, Mejia, Hughes, and Slegers to start the season, is there? I don't even think we can plan to skip the 5th spot (not that teams do that very much anymore). After the opening series, we play 9 consecutive days, then we have the trip to Puerto Rico, then we play 19 consecutive days into May.

How did extra rest work for Ervin in 2015? What about 2016, when his 3 best months were July, September, and August? (For that matter, his worst months in 2017 were June and July.) It seems logical that players would tire as the season wore on, but sometimes I think trying to tie that to results is a fool's errand. These guys are pretty much selected from the population based on their ability to compete at the highest level over an extended time period -- given that, it's very difficult to distinguish between fatigue and normal statistical variation. And in modern MLB, it's very unlikely that a pitcher could throw 200 IP, coming off back-to-back 4 WAR seasons, and not be worth $13 mil the following year ($14 mil option minus $1 mil buyout).

Yup. Our SP prospects (aside from Slegers) have virtually zero AAA experience, Trevor May hasn't started a game in over 2 years, and Phil Hughes hasn't been above replacement for 2 years either. And Hughes was already in our top 5 at the MLB.com depth chart, before Ervin's surgery news broke!

I'd like to imagine he injured it in his last game. A lot of middle finger injuries could occur at Yankee Stadium.