MLBTR is holding chats specific to each of MLB’s 30 teams as the offseason kicks off. I published my Offseason Outlook for the Twins a couple weeks back, and will spend an hour today fielding Twins-specific questions. Click here to read the transcript of our Twins-offseason-centric chat.
Guest
3:14 It is clear that the Twins have money to spend. Other than SS, what other FAs could you see them targeting?
Steve Adams
3:17 They’re in a pretty fun spot for fans, because the roster is flexible enough that they could realistically pursue just about any free-agent position player. If Correa signs elsewhere, they can realistically pursue either Bogaerts or Swanson. Willson Contreras would fit there. Any of the second-tier starting pitchers, and to an extent, Rodon, are all viable.
–
Not trying to be a wise guy here, but…
What’s The Plan?
I’ve been trying to figure that out about the Twins since they brought in Falvey and Levine.
For instance…..
If the manager (I assume under instructions) is yanking starters at around 5 innings, then that means the team needs a strong, deep bullpen. They don’t have that. They lost their pitching coach early in the year. They traded for an All-Star closer. He went south, needed adjustments, and the pitching coaches couldn’t fix him.
Bullpen pitchers are volatile. What’s being done to assure there are coaches – with an “s” – that can work with bullpen pitchers? A team can sign a bunch of FA bullpeners coming off of good years, but more often than not they don’t repeat it. If a team is going to use 3-6 bullpen guys from the 5h inning on, there’s a very good chance that at least one doesn’t have his good stuff that day. That can cost a team the game. How are the Twins addressing this?
The MLB-wide average starting pitcher only went 5.2 innings in 2022. This is not a Rocco Baldelli or Flavine thing. But I too was surprised they rolled Maki over instead of improving on that front.
crise;
Yes, I knew what was going on with 5 inning pitchers 2-3 years ago. Not all teams do it. Example – the Astros keep their starters in.
But the point is that if an organization is adapting that strategy, they have to cover it with a deep, quality bullpen; coaches to work with the pitchers; and quality catchers to partner with them in games. I see no provisions being made by the Twins – other then they want to make some trades and sign some free agents for their bullpen.
Samuel1 second ago
Gary
3:51 What’s your guess on the type of contract the Twins would legitimately offer Correa? Will they be in the ballpark of what he’s looking for?
Steve Adams
3:54 They just paid him $35.1MM for one year and were willing to commit $105.3MM over three years if all hell broke loose following that signing. It’s been nearly 15 years since they committed $184MM to Joe Mauer, and payroll has moved forward quite a bit since.
–
I understand using past salary numbers to make a point. However…
Fans need to understand that the last 3 or so years (give or take a year) of that Mauer contract absolutely handcuffed the Twins. They were coming out of the Ryan rebuild and needed a few veterans to bridge a gap until the youngsters could adjust to MLB play. Not stars – just reasonable veterans. They didn’t have the money because Mauer’s contract ate up too much of the payroll and he wasn’t producing.
Everyone knows this is a problem with long-term contracts. But talking about giving players 9-10 years of a salary because the team has salary space to pay him for the coming year or two is something used car dealers do when trying to get a customer to buy a 3-year-old car with 50,000 miles on it to make the payments seem affordable by taking out a 7 year loan. The cars best days are behind it, it going to slowly deteriorate and need maintenance before the thing can be paid off.
What the market has discovered is that you can mitigate the last few terrible years by offering player opt-outs. It may cost you your star for a couple years, but it does follow Branch Rickey’s maxim of “better a year early than a year late.” We got a year of peak Correa this season and pretty much payed market value for it. We had two more option years where things could have worked out the same or Carlos could have wrecked his back and blown up the budget, but we missed both those things when he opted out.
The trick about opt-outs is that you should be paying full market on the front end when the player is younger and less on the back end when he’s less likely to be healthy or effective, and put the opt-outs in where he starts becoming riskier. If he’s healthy he’ll bet on himself and leave before things fall apart. (At least that’s the management happy path. The downside is that you never get any discount for top players., because if the market rises he leaves when you might start saving some money.)
“What the market has discovered is that you can mitigate the last few terrible years by offering player opt-outs.”
LOL
crise;
I couldn’t read any further.
Have you been reading the articles on here the past 2 days? It’s the players that do well enough to demand more money that opt out. The players that are doing poorly refuse to take the opt out.
That’s exactly what has happened with Mr. Correa. He opted out because he wants more money. And the Twins are talking about giving it to him.
I’m fully aware of Branch Rickey. Most of what I believe works in baseball I learned from what he did and his philosophies. Rest assured he would never have agreed to give a player a multi-year contract where the player could leave to get more money if he was doing well…..but stuck the team with a guaranteed large salary if the player deteriorated (which is what happened with Joe Mauer – although that was a set contract).
Mauer’s contract was eight years of flat money, all the years the same. Some contracts are heavily back-loaded so the Marlins (not sayin’, just sayin’) can enjoy the first couple years and then trade the expensive part of Stanton’s contract. But if you’re going to offer opt outs you can save your butt by paying more up front and making the back end of the contract cheaper and less attractive to the older player. You’re going to be paying the injured or ineffective guy anyway, but this way you have a better chance of missing the old crappy years if the guy’s ego puts him on the market.
crise;
That’s great in theory. But you have to get the player – that is negotiating with other teams – to sign that.
Very few free agents that are in demand accept a team being able to pay a small part of the contract and let the player go. I don’t recall any quality player that signed for over 5 years allowing a team to buy him out. The whole purpose of a long-term contract for the player is security.
crise;
Fair enough…..
Let’s see if the 4 SS’s, Judge or Rodon sign a long-term contract to their mid-30’s that allows the team to buy them out…option….whatever.