Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
  • Glen Perkins Signs Extension With Twins

    Contract extensions are usually popular with fan bases, which is not the norm for financial transactions. It’s easy to see why – all the ingredients are there. People love to emotionally project a popular and productive player to be popular and productive for years. An extension does that, provided you don’t think too hard about the financial side of it. That’s the actuarial department's job.

    All the ingredients are also certainly there for the contract extension Glen Perkins signed with the Twins. Perkins has been awesome since moving to the bullpen, including being named an All-Star last year. He’s a hometown guy and media and fan-friendly. As Twins Assistant GM Rob Antony said, “I think there's a premium value for a closer that's 31, that's done a pretty good job for us, that fits in very well in this clubhouse, and means a lot to this team.” With that background, why wouldn’t a deal get done?

    The more interesting question for both sides might why a deal did get done, considering Perkins was already under team control for the next three years at a bargain rate. Here are how the deals compare:



    Perkins
    The deal gives Perkins a raise over what he would make the next couple of years and guarantees another $14M in future earnings. It costs him a chance to hit the free agent market in 2017, when he might have made almost twice as much as he will get paid over the last two years. Of course, he would have been be 34 at that point. The security was worth the big payday. That’s why Perkins approached the Twins about the deal.

    There is also an interesting provision that gives a subtle nudge to the Twins to NOT trade him. If he is traded, that option year changes from a team option to a player option. That makes him not quite the tradeable asset that he would be otherwise.

    Twins
    The Twins take on the risk of a 31-year-old getting hurt and being on the hook for another $14M. But the savings they could reap if he stays healthy are considerable. You’ll recall that as Joe Nathan approached free agency, the Twins signed him to a four-year deal that paid him $11.25 million starting when he turned 34 through turning 36. (That didn’t turn out so well.) This five-year deal tops out at about half that much money and ends when Perkins is 35.

    It also keeps Perkins anchoring a bullpen in those years when the Twins believe they’ll return to being competitive. “We believe that he’s going to be part of turning this thing around,” said Antony.

    Sweet Spot
    It is somewhat unusual for a team that already has a good contract to risk an extension. It’s also unusual for a premier player to seek one out. Perhaps in this case, the hometown ties played a part in overcoming those traditional obstacles. Antony concluded, “We know that this contract, [Perkins] signed, because he wants to be in Minnesota. We signed because we want to keep him here.” Together they found a deal that the team, the players, the fans and even the actuarial department can support.
    Comments 52 Comments
    1. Dman's Avatar
      Dman -
      Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
      I like Perkins a lot, but I'm not a huge fan of the extension.

      The Twins already had him under control through the 2016 season for about $12.5M. Roughly $4M for the next two seasons and a $4.5M club option for the 2016 season.


      So they essentially just added close to $10M in new money for a reliever and his age 34 season.

      The 2018 club option is nice, but I just don't see much upside in this move. If everything works out they get him for about $16M+ for those two additional seasons.

      So best case scenario, they paid market value. Guess we just hope for best case scenario.
      My conspiracy theory is that when the Twins first signed Perkins for the closer role they didn't know if he could cut it so the contract was workable for both the setup and closer role. At the time I don't think the Twins thought he would be an All Star closer. The extension eases some of the under payment for Perkins talent. If he remains the quality closer he is then 8 Million per year is still a hometown discount. Extending also pretty much gets Perkins away from trade talk and he wants to be in Minnesota. We should be happy he wants to be here. I think this was just the right thing to do.
    1. SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
      SpiritofVodkaDave -
      Relief pitchers (especially those with no history of injury-knocks on wood...twice) age a lot better than other players. Additionally 34 for any player is hardly that old, while it is no longer their "peak" you typically don't see such severe declines in players across the board until 36,37,38,39. For RP the decline is even less and less, Rivera, Nathan, Hawkins, Hoffman, etc are some of the most recent examples of guys who pitched just fine into their late 30's and early 40's.

      Is there risk? Yeah I guess...but they are basically getting a very good (dare I say elite?) closer locked up on a deal that is pretty close to what they handed Blackburn.

      Win Win Win Win Win Win Win.

      As far as the trade chip thing goes: Now they can have another trade chip if one of the closer prospects they have in the minors is legit, just trade that guy away. Or don't, and build a truly elite bullpen from the 7th inning on.
    1. ashburyjohn's Avatar
      ashburyjohn -
      Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
      Is this not a perfect chance to do exactly what some of us have been calling for them to do and frontload the deal? Give him the 12.5 million this year, and then you've only got to pay 3 mil per year the rest of the way.
      It's not on the scale you suggest, but you could view the renegotiation of 2014-16 as shifting to more front-loading than if they were to wait to negotiate 2017-18 at something more in the neighborhood of $10M a year. Well, less back-loading, let's call it.
    1. diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
      diehardtwinsfan -
      I don't get the complaints. Perkins is still a really affordable pitcher. He's been closing at an all star level for several years now, and if another team wants him, they are still going to be paying for him. Personally, I would have traded him (strictly from the business angle), but he's a classy guy who is one of the faces of the franchise. This is hardly a bad move.
    1. zchrz's Avatar
      zchrz -
      I like this move, Perk is a great story and has turned into a great closer. Reading Souhan's article about him and Mauer talking about playing out their whole careers, and winning a ring, with their hometown club was pretty cool. There was a time I wanted them to just cut ties with Perkins and move on, I was very wrong.
    1. DJL44's Avatar
      DJL44 -
      Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
      So best case scenario, they paid market value. Guess we just hope for best case scenario.
      They paid 2014 market value for 2017 and get an under-market option for 2018. 2017 market value will almost certainly be higher.

      Perkins is a very effective LH reliever. He might pitch until he's 40 like Dan Plesac and Darren Oliver. Eddie Guardado was effective until age 35.
    1. John Bonnes's Avatar
      John Bonnes -
      You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php/27...ion-With-Twins
    1. biggentleben's Avatar
      biggentleben -
      Excellent move for the Twins. Local guy, effective in his job, and now signed cheap into the point where his 40 saves don't constitute 70% of the team's wins in a season.
    1. Thrylos's Avatar
      Thrylos -
      was not gonna do that, but what the hey... That's what Glen Perkins is thinking about that extension (from yesterday) :

    1. Heimer's Avatar
      Heimer -
      As a twins fan........ .... No
      As a Minnesota fan.... Yes
    1. diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
      diehardtwinsfan -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJL44 View Post
      They paid 2014 market value for 2017 and get an under-market option for 2018. 2017 market value will almost certainly be higher.

      Perkins is a very effective LH reliever. He might pitch until he's 40 like Dan Plesac and Darren Oliver. Eddie Guardado was effective until age 35.
      I'd still argue it's cheap. 6M for an elite closer is a bargain.
    1. DuluthFan's Avatar
      DuluthFan -
      For those upset about the no trade issue, consider the 10/5 rule regarding trading veterans. A ten year veteran, the last five with the same team, has the right to refuse a trade. This is similar to the trade language that was worked into the Mauer deal. Perkins needs 2(?) more years to reach the 10/5 plateau.

      Edit: After looking at the Twins Daily roster/payroll page, 2017 would be Perkins' 10th season. It effectively makes his option year a non trade season.
    1. JP3700's Avatar
      JP3700 -
      The contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8M of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5M.

      Here are possible scenarios:
      1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
      2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
      3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


      Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

      Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

      Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.
    1. drunksam's Avatar
      drunksam -
      Personally, I love it. As a fan of Minnesota athletes, it eases the disappointment of Decker signing with a New York team.
    1. SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
      SpiritofVodkaDave -
      Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
      Here are possible scenarios:
      1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
      2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
      3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


      Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

      Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

      Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.
      1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"
      2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.
      3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

      Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:
      1. Talented
      2. Loyal
      3. Team player
      4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)

      Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)
    1. SweetOne69's Avatar
      SweetOne69 -
      Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
      Teams don't do x until suddenly one does, gains a competitive advantage, and then the rest of the teams play catch up. Besides, I'm not sure that one home town guy wanting to make sure he plays his entire career for his favorite team and willing to take less money than he'd probably get if he was to play out his contract to make sure it happens sets a huge precedent.
      The CBA prevents teams from doing this. A player's salary can only decrease 20% from one year to the next.
    1. JP3700's Avatar
      JP3700 -
      Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
      1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"
      2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.
      3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

      1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.
      2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.
      3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.

      Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:
      1. Talented
      2. Loyal
      3. Team player
      4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)
      I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.

      Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)
      Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

      At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.
    1. Bark's Lounge's Avatar
      Bark's Lounge -
      This is a win win for the Twins and Perkins. Fair price for a Top notch relief pitcher, who is by no means past his prime.

      I am happy for Glen. He is living the dream. Playing Major League baseball in the metropolitan area he grew up in, playing for the team he grew up cheering for, and getting paid well to do so.

      As a fan of the Twins, I appreciate his loyalty and his ambition to initiate this extension.
    1. alarp33's Avatar
      alarp33 -
      Quote Originally Posted by jp3700 View Post
      the contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8m of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5m.

      Here are possible scenarios:
      1. he suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14m+ that you didn't need to.
      2. he declines through age and injury then you have given him $10m more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
      3. he continues to be very good and you've paid him $16m+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


      only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an aav of $8m+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8m this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

      Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16m extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16m to sign another elite fa reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

      Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.
      amen
    1. alarp33's Avatar
      alarp33 -
      Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
      1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.
      2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.
      3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.



      I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.



      Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

      At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.
      Exactly. You seem to be the only person here who has grasped that this was completely unnecessary. Explore it after 2014 or 2015 if both parties want too. It's not going to be a killer contract even if he does fall off a cliff, but so so unnecessary
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.