Dempster Turns Down 2-Year Offer; Would You Go To 3?

Ryan Dempster has turned down a 2 year, $25 million offer from the Red Sox that would have paid him $12.5 million per year, according to ESPN: http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/...ox-source-says

According to the story, he fielded an even larger 2 year, $26 million offer from the Royals but turned that down too. Apparently he is really pushing hard for that third year. Maybe he thinks this will be his last contract?

So, TwinsDaily, would you give him three years? Would you go to, say, 3 and $30 million? 3 and $33 million? Or if the years are the issue, would you take a pass?

no.

No, I'd rather go four years on Jackson or another younger pitcher.

I'd like to see our big fish FA Pitching Signing to be at least 3 years. I'd prefer someone younger for the big fish (if we actaully get a big fish type guy)...

I'd like to see someone good with at least a 3 year contract so he will be with the club in 2015.

If Terry Ryan felt that Dempster's arm would still be operational in 2015 and if he felt he was the Big Fish Guy... OK with me... But I think Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum would be better choices for at least 3 years.

I wouldn't sign him to two years. No multiyear contracts to decline phase players.

The fact that 2 teams only offered him 2 years and he turned them down should give you your answer.........which should be no.

How about better, younger players....not three on Dempster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

No, I'd rather go four years on Jackson or another younger pitcher.

---

Agreed. 3 yrs for Jackson, 4 for Sanchez - which won't happen.

According to Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times, the Dodgers are nearing a six-year, $145 million contract with free agent right-hander Zack Greinke.

The Dodgers have long been considered the favorite in the Greinke sweepstakes, but this is the first progress we've heard toward an actual signed agreement. There's still work to be done, but it sounds like there could be an official announcement at some point Saturday night. The Dodgers were known to be bidding against the Rangers. Anaheim bowed out of the hunt earlier this week.
Related: Dodgers, Rangers

Source: Dylan Hernandez on Twitter GET ON IT RYAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physics Guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

No, I'd rather go four years on Jackson or another younger pitcher.

---

Agreed. 3 yrs for Jackson, 4 for Sanchez - which won't happen.

---

Sanchez will get at least five years. I think you might be able to get Jackson for four, though. And maybe Marcum for three. I'd rather have any if them than Dempster.

According to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, the Rangers remain interested in trading for Justin Upton, despite missing out on signing Zack Greinke.

With Greinke likely headed to the Dodgers, it appears that acquiring Upton has become general manager Jon Daniels' top priority. It's also plausible that if the Rangers decide to stand pat on their rotation, they could afford to trade for Upton and still re-sign Josh Hamilton.
Related: Rangers

Source: Ken Rosenthal on Twitter

No on Dempster, that 3rd year will turn out to be a mistake for anyone making the deal. If we give someone a longer term deal, lets make sure he is young enough to still perform in the last years of the contract.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Dempster prefers pitching in the National League and with a team that hold spring training in Arizona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Sanchez will get at least five years. I think you might be able to get Jackson for four, though. And maybe Marcum for three. I'd rather have any if them than Dempster.

---

Sanchez is also the safest bet in my opinion. I'd give him a 5 year deal to frontline the rotation. If they have 20-25M to sign someone, I'd rather they go out and get him than sign a couple of lesser guys to 2/3 year 8-10M/yr deals...

I'm really not a fan of Dempster. Too old and I'm really not a believer in him outside the NL. Instead of dempster I would try to get Lilly for nothing but salary relief. It's only a 1 yr contract so it won't hurt in the future and they aren't going to spend all of the available money this year.

But unless the Twins are serious about going after Sanchez, Jackson or Marcum they have to do something. Right now we are seeing a few teams that didn't really need starters taking starters off of the market. There could easily be nothing left for the Twins.

3/33 - Marcum
4/44 - Jackson
5/75 - Sanchez

I think this is what these guys will get and I think you just need to do it. It's great to get good value like Willingham but it doesn't make any sense to save money so you can have a 75M payroll.

Personally I've liked the contracts that Baker and Haren got. I'm certain that Haren wouldn't have signed a 1 yr contract but they could have made a move with the Angels or tried with a 3 yr contract.

kab, I wonder if those aren't going to be about 10-20% larger than you figured. That's about where I would put them all, probably closer to 20% larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

kab, I wonder if those aren't going to be about 10-20% larger than you figured. That's about where I would put them all, probably closer to 20% larger.

---

I agree with you, BUT if teams take too long, their prices might drop to 10% higher than this (and by their I mean Sanchez.) I am now thinking that you would have a real shot to get the first two at those prices/years.

Personally, I would love to get Edwin Jackson on a three year deal. I'd be wary handing out any contract longer than that to the guys that are available.

I'd consider a 3rd year on Dempster, but I'd max it out at $32M total value and front load the deal to a certain extent (which is the the correct way to do it for a "decline phase" type player). Especially with the additional room in the budget trading Span created. So Dempster gets $14M in year 1, $11M in year 2, and $7M in year three. I would argue he's actually got pretty good odds of being worth that amount of money in all three years of his deal, and even if he's a little below it would be manageable.

Marcum is another pitcher I'd do 3 years for, and considering his age you can do a more balanced contract and still come out in good shape, but Dempster is the better pitcher right now. If the Twins are serious about competing in 2013, signing a pitcher like Dempster to a 3-year deal at these kinds of numbers is eminently reasonable and doable. Now, the real question is whether Dempster is willing to do this kind of deal and/or come to the Twins, which is are much bigger questions. While I think my proposed numbers are reasonable, he may well think he should get something in the $36-40M range, which is where I think the numbers get too high to make it a good bet.

$7M for a 1-2 WAR pitcher in the final year of his contract as the 5th starter "veteran presence" is ok. $13M for the same guy is not. Keep in mind, last season the Twins did not have a single 2 WAR pitcher on their staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmlease1

Marcum is another pitcher I'd do 3 years for, and considering his age you can do a more balanced contract and still come out in good shape, but Dempster is the better pitcher right now.

---

Are you sure about that?

Marcum: last 3 years: 3.62 ERA. 7.5/2.4 K/BB 1.179 WHIP 30 years old
Dempster last 3 years: 4.04 ERA 8.4/3.4 K/BB 1.327 WHIP 35 years old