Thread: Would you have gone 5 years and $80M for Anibal Sanchez?

I am of the opinion that no pitchers are worthe the money and length. As good as they can be, there is just as much risk that they will burn out, blow a ligament, or just stop pitching well. 3 years max.

I would have no problem if the Twins went to 5/80 or even 6/90. I think they will have a difficult time spending their available payroll during the next several seasons. There's a good chance that Sanchez could be solid for most of the contract and it seems like there will be a lot of inflation in baseball salaries soon.

I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

Originally Posted by Top Gun

I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

Which makes them an asset, unlike Correia

I would say no to Anibal Sanchez at that contract.

We all hate that the Twins are cheap, but I think we secretly like that they are frugal. I like the fact that when they have a hole/opening on the team, they don't immediately go into the free agent market and start bidding on whatever is available at that position. I think that's how the worst MLB contracts come about -- obviously some huge money deals like Zito and Soriano, but also some lower-level free agent duds too: Gary Matthews, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Silva, Jacque Jones, etc. I have a hard time believing that those guys were truly desired at those prices - but impatient teams with immediate needs boosted their market considerably. Put another way, the Twins never wake up really regretting a free agent tryst from the night before.

The problem for the Twins is that they are so averse to signing free agents, they won't sign anybody, or they self-impose a spending cap (which appears to be $5 million for free agent starters) which effectively precludes them from signing anybody decent. They need to identify guys they really want, and if those guys hit free agency and the Twins have a need for them, they need to bid fairly aggressively. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but Mark Buehrle is the most obvious example that comes to mind: that would have been about three times the largest "true" free agent Twins contract ever (Willingham, I think), but Buehrle is the Grecian ideal of a Twins pitcher if such a thing exists: good control, incredibly consistent and durable, great defense, quiet, low-profile, etc. And the Twins were already looking at some potentially long-term rotation holes last offseason. It could have been a match made in heaven if the Twins had ANY kind of a smart strategy at actually acquiring good players on the free agent market.

So basically, yeah, if Sanchez isn't anything special to the Twins (and it doesn't appear that he should be), I fully endorse NOT breaking the bank to get him now. Although the other part of this is, if there isn't a special guy like Buehrle available, and you still have a need, you need to be aggressive trading (which TR has been this offseason) and also more aggressive on short-term deals for GOOD lower-tier pitchers (Brandon McCarthy, possibly Dempster, maybe even Scott Baker, but definitely NOT Kevin Correia). Willingham actually fits this mold on the offensive side of the ledger -- he isn't a superstar, and in many ways is not a stereotypical Twins type of player, but he's good, and the contract just isn't big enough to ever be really regrettable. At minimum, they need to make a move like that on the pitching side of the ledger -- it will likely cost more, but it should still fit the market. But I'm afraid it will be another year, at least, before they realize this.

I do not secretly like that they are frugal.

There's getting good value for your money and there's being a miser. I don't have any problem with trying to get good value but I think FA is evolving and salaries are going to inflate and teams are going to be taking a lot of players off the market in what looks like big deals. It's possible that the Twins go into next offseason with <50M (possibly <40M) committed and very few options to spend it on then also. At some point you have to spend the money.

I openly like that they are frugal IF they now keep there studs for big money. Even then you see some bad deals with long deals ie Morneau. But with new stadium revenue imagine how the last four years would have been with hunter and santana

And punto

Originally Posted by minn55441

Just saw this on CBS sports
Unlike Josh Hamilton, Anibal Sanchez is giving his old team the last shot at his services. After being offered a reported $75 million over five years by the Cubs, Sanchez gave the Tigers one more chance to match the offer, CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman reports.
Detroit had been offering a four-year deal to Sanchez, but in reaction to the offer from the Cubs, the team will likely have to offer five years in order to keep him.

I wonder if he is giving anyone else a shot still?

Losing teams have to pay the premium. Sanchez's loyalty indicates that players really do prefer to play on a winner.
As for offering him the 5/80--as long as it doesn't cost a draft pick, yes. If a draft choice is forfeited, then no.

Whatever his value, I would add 10% for the benefit of keeping him from Detroit. And I agree that a premium need to be paid to attract good players to the Astros of the AL.

Originally Posted by minn55441

It's not my money, so yes make him an offer he can't turn down. We will be overpaying, but that is what the market is dictating the price is for a quality starting pitcher. Kind of like paying $3 a gallon for gas the first time, it seemed like we were being robbed every time we filled up. Now it looks like a bargain.

This is a very disappointing off season if we don't add anyone better than Correia.

There was a SA on #13 @2.99 today!

Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Padres are "strongly pursuing" Edwin Jackson.

While the Pads appear to be big fans of E-Jax, he might ultimately be out of their price range. Rosenthal says the market for Jackson is "strong," and the Padres "may bow out" if the right-hander gets 4-5 years at $12-13 million per season. The Rangers, Brewers, Angels and Indians are also known to have interest in Jackson, though Texas and Milwaukee prefer him on a short-term deal.
Related: Padres

Source: Ken Rosenthal

I could see giving Jackson 4 years at $13 million. The Twins need to get one more decent pitcher if they want to avoid last place 3 years in a row. The Twins could easily lose more that $13 million in revenue next year if they continue to put out a third rate product.

Absolutely not. The difference between Sanchez and Dempster, Marcum, and Jackson is not that great at all. There's an extra 30-50 million involved for no real apparent reason.

Sanchez ends up back with the Tigers...damn?

Looks like 5 years and $80 million to stay with the Tigers. Sanchez actually went back to the Tigers to give them the final opportunity.

The tigers sign Sanchez another big contract. The Twins sign Kevin Correia.

This must be the TV Revenue that the tigers are pulling in. LOL

No they have an owner committed to winning good for them. I'm jealous

Originally Posted by Top Gun

Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Padres are "strongly pursuing" Edwin Jackson.

While the Pads appear to be big fans of E-Jax, he might ultimately be out of their price range. Rosenthal says the market for Jackson is "strong," and the Padres "may bow out" if the right-hander gets 4-5 years at $12-13 million per season. The Rangers, Brewers, Angels and Indians are also known to have interest in Jackson, though Texas and Milwaukee prefer him on a short-term deal.
Related: Padres

Source: Ken Rosenthal

If the Padres can afford Jackson, there is no ****ing reason why the Twins shouldn't be in on the bidding.

COME ON, Ryan.

I can understand not wanting to get involved in a five year deal to a pitcher. But a four year deal to a 28 year old? That's a relatively small risk. The same goes for a three year deal to a 32 year old or a two year deal to a 35 year old.

Originally Posted by Kwak

Losing teams have to pay the premium. Sanchez's loyalty indicates that players really do prefer to play on a winner.
As for offering him the 5/80--as long as it doesn't cost a draft pick, yes. If a draft choice is forfeited, then no.

I believe he was offered arbitration, and I agree with this. Good point.

Another day, another downer, with no commitment to this point for REAL pitching to be added.
FA pitching is a mystery to the GM of the MN Twins.