KirbyDome89

Agreed, Archer alone isn't eating up that $20+ M they were looking to spend. Get another arm and/or an OFer.

Lets hope this "priority," works out better than the last one...

What player, when he hits FA for the first time (or any time,) doesn't push for the longest and/or most lucrative contract he can get? I don't think Darvish wanting the security of a long term contract is in any way unique to him, or an indictment on how he views himself going forward. I don't see that as betting against himself. If the option is the bet you're talking about I would argue he's in fact gambling on himself. If he performs at or above market value he has the opportunity to strike another big deal.

I understand there is a cost for missed opportunity if years 3-5 may have been better than expected, but I think the risk of decline in those years weights heavily as well. The slope of the decline curve isn't necessarily constant. Lets say years 1 and 2 are great, then he walks and has another good season in year 3. There is nothing to suggest his performance can't drop precipitously, especially at a position as volatile as pitcher. I agree that the risk of negative performance hurting the team is the same in either scenario. Poor performance with an opt out guarantees the player stays and a contract without an option does the same. You're right, the risk is never static, but that works both ways. Really all we can work with is data that says performance dips as players age, when and how rapidly the dip occurs is anybody's guess. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "heads I win, tails you lose." If that player walks the team has received value beyond what they paid for. In the game of FA you can't ask for better. I wouldn't call that a loss. There is potential to lose out on future performance, but I think getting out from underneath the risk of decline, especially considering Darvish's will be in his late 30s, is at worst a fair trade off. From the player's perspective I would call it "we each win, but me a little more so."

We don't know the exact amount the Twins offered, and we don't know exactly how the negotiation process with Darvish went. Both are undeniably true, and we aren't likely to ever uncover exact details regarding either. No, nobody knows exactly what the Twins offered, but that doesn't mean the scenario where they outbid Chicago but Darvish turned them down is equally as likely as MN simply being outbid. This one has been beaten to death. Nobody knows the exact details of any offer other than Chicago's, and we can't say with 100% certainty what counter offers were made, or even if they were entertained by Darvish. Again though, we're looking at a scenario where one outcome is far more likely than another. Yu was comfortable waiting until the week before ST to get that 6th year. I don't see why he would suddenly sign a deal with the first team to blink before giving anybody else the opportunity to match or beat the offer. Even if the argument is that he wanted LA or Chicago more than MN (which I partially subscribe to) it's in his best interest to allow teams to counter if for no other reason than to squeeze more out of his preferred suitors. While "we don't know," is correct, I also feel it's being presented as though all proposed scenarios are on equal footing, and that simply isn't true. The reality that these remote possibilities exist doesn't damage the fact that it's unbelievably more likely that the Twins offered less than the Cubs, and they weren't interested in beating $126 / 6. If anything, I think you could argue that the improbability of the other scenarios strengthens the argument that the Twins didn't compete with Chicago. Exceptions prove the rule right?

The opt out doesn't negatively affect the Twins. It's fair to say that it's very unlikely the Twins are even mentioned in the running for pitchers like Darvish, let alone making formal offers, in either of the next few offseasons. With that being the case, why not just give him the opt out? If he walks, that's still 2 seasons of high level pitching they're never going to replace in FA. I can understand the hesitancy to go 6 years, but the opt out should have alleviated some of that pressure, not added to it. The "worst case scenario," I described was an attempt to view the contract through the lens of somebody who saw the option as a point of contention.

I agree with you to a certain point. The Twins offered 5 years and weren't willing to do a player option. Those are undeniable and they call into question how serious the club was about signing Darvish. If posts are simply calling the team cheap and offer no elaboration, then you're right, it's counter productive. However, I think the notion that the Twins offered less than the Cubs can be considered factual as well. Others have posted this before me, but I can't imagine how, if Darvish turned down more lucrative offers, we haven't heard anything about it, especially given the tension between ownership and the union. Something could certainly come out in time, but for now I believe saying that MN offered less isn't simply a guess. If that's the case, money does play a prominent role in Darvish going elsewhere.

Just saw this....wow.... Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together. I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2. IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue.

It honestly is an application of Occam's Razor. Did the Twins best the Cubs offer both in terms of years and salary, and Darvish spurned them, or did Chicago simply make a better offer? I would argue that the latter is more likely. We'll have to disagree about Mauer and whether the Twins have been crippled the past few years.

Do you believe $126 M was too high? Mauer hasn't "crippled," the Twins with his $23 M annually. I don't see how Darvish making $21 M would.

Yes. The Twins desperately need a front end starter. They're starting a window of contention and they aren't able to fill that hole internally within a reasonable amount of time. Darvish provides a solution that doesn't involve giving up high end prospects. The market is depressed at the moment. The Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox weren't in the running. The contract Darvish agreed to could've easily been bested by the Twins. They had seemingly everything working in their favor to sign a big FA and they whiffed. It's a disappointment.

That's irrelevant. The Twins were competing against offers made by other clubs this offseason, not past offers issued by the franchise.

I believe LA certainly wanted him and he wanted to be in LA, but it just didn't work out. If the year 2 option is correct I think that desire has a lot to do with it. Agreed, a B- is better than a F. I viewed the offseason as Darvish and then everybody else, but doing nothing other than signing a few back end vets to minor league or one year incentive laden deals would be almost criminal at this point. It was always a more likely scenario that he didn't sign with the Twins. How that blame is divvied is digging deeper into the rabbit hole. I think the hype by itself wasn't much of an issue, but when you combine it with the modest (by ace standards) contract the Twins wouldn't beat, they do walk away with a little egg on their face.

That's a great point. I think there is a bit of truth to either side. 1) MN certainly wasn't the preferred destination and Darvish apparently made that clear, so the Twins were at a disadvantage. That said, I'm not sure Chicago was ever tops on the list either, and the deal he signed wouldn't have been hard for the Twins to match or beat. 2) I have no doubt the Twins wanted Darvish as part of the team. I think every club wants a pitcher like that. The question all along though was how far were they willing to go to make that happen. I'm certain they knew they needed to compensate either financially or in years offered, for whatever disadvantages they faced. It doesn't look like they wanted to do that, so IMO questioning how serious they were about Darvish is more than fair. Maybe they'll come out with details about the offer they made, but that seems unlikely. You made another good point about $125 M / 5 being a decent deal, and I agree. It makes me wonder why, if the 6th year really was the sticking point with the Twins, they weren't willing to push past $126 M and offer that over 5 years.

Oh for sure, they aren't bringing in 2 pitchers better than Berrios so his development is key regardless of who they sign. Agreed, I have no interest in trading for a guy like Odorizzi either. My only quibble is that if they're serious about competing I would rather they make the trade for a front end guy now rather than at the deadline. Players, especially pitchers, tend to be more pricey at the trade deadline. If they're going to give up a high end prospect like Gordon or Gonsalves at the deadline to rent an ace for 3 months, I would prefer they offer a bigger package now, i.e. Kepler, Gordon, Gonsalves, or whatever it takes (within reason obviously,) and get a guy like Archer with years of team control. I just think it's a better value long term and I worry about a rotation even with Cobb or Lynn making it to the deadline still in contention. Of course those proposals are hypothetical and they might get the arm they need in July for less.

If it's between a trade for Odorizzi or signing Cobb/Lynn I would sign either of the 2 and give up the unknown talent (pick) rather than prospects who have started to establish themselves. Both Cobb and Lynn would be a boost, but IMO they aren't the pitcher you want starting game 1 or 2 of a playoff series. They certainly could sign either of the two and still work out a trade. That might be the best case scenario. True, there's downside risk, but after swinging and missing on Darvish the Twins have to do something.

Unless they can convince Arrieta to take a short deal and reset his value (unlikely,) I would rather the Twins pursue a trade than sign Cobb or Lynn. Gotcha, yeah I don't think they'll have trouble bringing in formerly elite guys near their end as long as the team is winning.

The Twins are in a good cycle right now. Top players aren't interested in signing short deals, they made that very apparent this offseason.

I get that nobody really wanted to hand out that 6th year, I really do. That said, it's a down market where the big spenders (Boston, NY, LA) weren't competing for Darvish. The Twins have a desperate need for a top of the rotation starter, and $21 M annually plus incentives seems like a very agreeable price. It feels like missed opportunity. Heres to holding out hope for a trade.....

Vargas is younger, cheaper, and better at this point. Napoli doesn't even fill any real need on the team. I agree with a post I read earlier; the idea that Darvish's decision is somehow contingent on Napoli being part of the organization seems odd and highly unlikely. The interest in him last offseason was at least understandable from a FO perspective. This year it's head scratching. I get it that he's "their guy," but right now it seems like its the only reason, and IMO not a good one, for bringing Napoli in.

I'm with you, those characterizations get old. I always find it funny that weather seems to be such an impediment to the Twins drawing interest but the Tigers and Cubs have had no problem luring top players recently. It's almost as if players will go wherever the $$ is. Crazy right?

They have a scout going to Lincecum's showcase on the 15th. I saw the Heyman report too and apparently Darvish has turned down a 5 year $110 M offer. There's some speculation that's the Twin's offer, as they were the latest club to submit a formal proposal. IMO it could just as easily be a previous offer that was pushed out after the Twins topped it.

I would say it redirects some of the flow rather than empties the bucket. If signing Darvish, at a position of extreme weakness, means they aren't able to hold onto a guy(s) like Rosario/Kepler, who play a position of strength, then that's a deal I'm willing to make, and I hope Falvey agrees. I'm with you 100% on the budget spending.

Dozier at $5 M isn't impeding signings or clearing room. Mauer and Hughes certainly help, if all goes well that could be a Buxton/Sano annual salary and maybe a little more. Ervin leaving doesn't do much, even with him they're likely going to have to spend in FA to really contend; his departure just means the Twins are handing out a more expensive FA contract to replace him. You could argue that if Romero, Gonsalves, and Jorge all hit their ceilings and Berrios can solidify himself as a 2 the Twins might not have to dip in FA for starting help, but is that likely? Even it it does happen, again, we're talking about holding onto 5-6 guys. They might be able to buy out some arbitration years on the lower tier guys like polanco or kepler, but I can't see Sano, Buxton, or Berrios agreeing to give up potential FA years, and those are going to be the big contracts. You certainly could backload one of those large contracts, but that isn't helping you hold onto the arbitration buyouts through their prime.I'm with you, even if all 6 of those guys pan out, and want to resign, the Twins likely wouldn't be able to make it happen, but the attempt certainly isn't any easier with one player already absorbing a massive amount of salary, and that's the point I've made the whole time. Who knows, if the Twins buck the "cheap," trend and sign Darvish, maybe they'll also shed the notion that large contract(s) dictate what they're able to do. Lets hope so..

We're talking about signing one guys vs. five or six. Buxton and/or Sano could easily command at least what Darvish is asking for annually. Also, unless the Twins decide not to truly contend for the next few years their payroll should rise above the bottom 1/3 of the league, which means they won't have the luxury of the extra $$ they're trying to use to lure Darvish. Comparing their financial outlook now vs. 4 years from now is apples to oranges IMO. Maybe you have higher hopes for the end of the Darvish deal than me. It wouldn't surprise me if years 5-6 are dead weight.