KirbyDome89

If he wouldn't sign a minor league deal then wish him good luck finding a major league contract elsewhere. NOBODY was going to question why the Twins wouldn't budge from that position to bring in Anibal Sanchez.

Thats a great point. If they have so little confidence in those guys and another move is coming then what the hell are they waiting on at this point? If this is it, or they're trying to scrape together another 1 year deal then, well.....

I'm not sure why this FO is still getting credit for "being patient." If "patient," is redefined to mean excessive frugality to the point of harming the team I'll give credit where it's due. I was all for trading Dozier last offseason, but they didn't. Holding onto Dozier is a win-now move. I didn't think MN was close to that point, but I was wrong and essentially every member of the young core took strides forward last season. The FO got a lot of credit for feeling out the organization and having the foresight to hold onto Dozier and/or Santana, although I do question how much of those decisions was foresight and how much was simply an unwillingness to walk in and blow things up. Either way, it worked out last year, but they haven't done anything to address their most significant need in either of the last two off seasons. That doesn't mesh with the win-now theme. Refusing to sign front end FA pitchers to long term deals, no matter how desperate the need, means they're counting on prospects to fill in the gaping holes on the roster. That isn't going to happen within the next year or possibly two, so as of now it looks like they're more focused on the future. That runs opposite of the message sent all last offseason. The trade deadline was a microcosm of these last few off seasons; flipping back and forth, a lack of significant transactions to push the club in any discernible direction, and ultimately a team that suffers for it. These moves, or lack thereof, are the same half measures that everybody is tired of, except this time they're on a larger scale.

I hope he's back. I don't think Vargas is any sort of long term solution, and if the interest in Napoli is any indication it doesn't look like the FO sees him in that role either. I'm excited about Rooker but he also hasn't seen a pitch at AA yet, and as far as I know he's still capable of holding down a corner OF spot. If Mauer is on the roster Rooker could still be a great RH platoon 4th OF/DH bat which the Twins currently need. I wouldn't let Mauer go because Sano has to eventually slide to 1B. If Miguel shows he can't handle 3B this season and Mauer has another good year it doesn't make any sense to hurt your defense (Sano at 1B) and potentially your offense (depending on who replaces Mauer's bat) when Sano could just as easily slide into the full time DH role. Granted, there are a lot of "ifs," in that scenario but it isn't inconceivable that Sano struggles defensively and Mauer has another good season further removed from the concussions. If last season was Mauer digging his way out that concussion black hole he could be extremely valuable for the next few years. Admittedly I'm a fan. He has the plate discipline and swing that can play well even as he continues to age. The guy is a professional hitter and a great defender. It would be nice if he was a Twin for life.

There's no doubt that they need improvement in both drafting and developing arms. A team like Tampa has consistently drafted and developed high level pitching. I think that's a much more sustainable model to emulate rather than signing or trading for guys like Carpenter or Jake Arrieta. Don't get me wrong, all teams should be looking for that diamond in the rough, but I think the other pitchers you listed (Martinez and Reyes) are better examples of the drafting/developing prowess of St. Louis.

Carpenter won a Cy Young and finished 2 or 3 in a few other seasons. To me that isn't an example of mediocrity. I agree that St. Louis has definitely been better at identifying talent and developing it, but coaching can only take you so far.

No disagreement about the offense being a letdown in the postseason. I'm giving them a little more rope because it's typically more difficult for offenses to get the best of elite pitchers than vice vera but you're right those were poor team performances all around. Their more recent signings (Ervin, Hughes before the extension) and possibly Cobb or Lynn are definitely a notch above. If we're choosing between a guys like that or a steady stream of 1 year lotto tickets for the next few seasons then I'm pulling the trigger on Cobb or Lynn. I just think the Twins can do better.

2010 they gave up nearly 6 runs a game 2009 they gave up nearly 5 runs a game 2006 they gave up 13 runs in the two games Johan didn't pitch Not many offenses can compensate for that kind of pitching. I'm not saying the lack of playoff success is entirely the fault of the pitching staff, but against elite level pitching offenses are going to have 2 or 3 run games. I would love it if MN had some young arms with elite potential. It's certainly more cost efficient and less risky than spending in FA, but the reality is the Twins have failed in that area for a while now, so their options are limited at the moment. Yes, teams that can grow elite pitching leave themselves with financial resources to commit elsewhere but in that group of teams mentioned earlier many have made big signings or trades.

Having an elite pitcher doesn't preclude the Twins from filling out the rest of the rotation with back end guys (I'm not sure how else to interpret "balanced.") Those type of pitchers can't match up with what Boston, NY, Houston, Cleveland, LA, or even Seattle is going to run out in first few games of a series. The Twins horrific postseason record the last decade + would suggest it's going to take more than 3-5 range starters to go anywhere in October.

I'm not defending the offer MN made. I'm as disappointed by it as anybody, and I think we're right to question how serious the team was about Darvish given what he signed for, the subsequent comments from the FO, the offer they made, ect. That said, speaking strictly from a PR standpoint, I understand why they made the offer, even though I agree with you that they knew there was no chance it was going to be accepted.

But we're ok with pretending that talent won't win out?

Fair enough. The negative response to the Twins not beating an offer they could've or should've is certainly better than the backlash they would've received for not even making an offer.

This is an honest question. If they had moved on from Darvish weeks ago, why did they submit an offer just a few days back? If they had essentially bowed out, I'm guessing it was because they thought Darvish was getting that 6th year and/or the opt out, or their price limit had been exceeded, and they weren't willing to match. So why come back later and offer $100+ M / 5? They would've had to know at that point that their offer wasn't going to get it done, right? If it was a "nothing to lose, lets just take a shot," move then I guess in that sense they're right. Nobody is questioning the Twin's interest in Darvish, they were vocal about going after him. There is no doubt they were legitimately beaten in their pursuit either. The questions raised have to do with how serious they were about making an offer that would entice Darvish.

Including Castro in the bag was tongue in cheek. Agreed on the rotation and bullpen though.

Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....

The circle is complete.

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."

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.

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.

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?

Even then it's a hard pass. I'm all for the recruiting, not so much the ABs he'll absorb....

I don't think anybody would rather see the owners pocketing $ rather than trying to improve the team. That said, as a Twins fan, I want the team to make smart decisions. If there was a need at 1B and Hosmer was asking for 8 years I doubt I'd be thrilled if MN pulled the trigger on that. I've been on the Darvish train all offseason, but even I cringe at a 7th year. I agree 100% with the article that players should should make demands, but I think it was a great point to also say those demands should be rooted in reality. If this was a case where owners were colluding to depress the market and players were actually being undervalued than the agents who have been vocal would have a legitimate gripe. Ted was right, there is an upper threshold. IMO it looks like the top end FAs have made demands that go beyond that threshold, and have refused to back down, and in doing so they're holding the entire market hostage.