63 replies to this topic

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'd offer Gibson 3yrs at $30-36M.Lance Lynn signed one of the few 3yr (30M) contracts this offseason.He had produced more than Gibson career-wise, but they are on opposite ends of the pendulum swing with Gibson being much better the past 1.5 yrs.The FA market has some talent available in Gerrit Cole and Chris Sale at the top, followed by Verlander (37yrs old), Bumgarner and Porcello.I'm not sure the Twins would be in on any of those.Zack Wheeler was a younger player (30) who should interest the Twins.Most of the FA starters are Gibson's age or older.

 

https://www.mlbtrade...ree-agents.html

 

Berrios is the only other one that interests me.He is the most likely bet to maintain his performance IMO.Get him to sign a five year contract to buy out this year, 3 years of arbitration and one year of FA.Might have to overpay a bit, but it would give him financial security and FA for his age 30 season. 

 

Sano and Buxton are a no at this point.Their range of possibilities is far to great to extend them.Talk to me again after the season. 

 

Rosario and Kepler both have issues.2nd half 2017 and 1st half 2018 Rosario is an All-Star, but second half he had a .622 OPS.I think he has plateaued.Kepler has the opposite problem, he is maddeningly consistent (3 yrs 95 or 96 OPS+ in a row) and hasn't taken the next step.I wouldn't extend either with Cave, Wade, Rooker, Kirilloff and Larnach all potential replacements. 

 

I would be interested in Polanco after this season if he can produce a full season at or near .800 OPS.I still think he ends up at 2B and would love to see one of Lewis, Javier or Gordon push him over there. 

 

Great post.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

your 3-5th starters have a combined 20 (hyperbole I didn’t look it up) innings of MLB experience and number 2 appears to be a solid 4th-5th starter. If that’s the plan, might as well blow the whole darn thing up right now and start planning for ‘25/‘26

and I was criticized in another thread for suggesting that those guys actually compete for the 5th spot this year. But now its OK for them to be our 3-5 next season and still no experience?

[nicksaviking]

Neither of which is close to as good as him. Which is the point. I'd like actual good players here, not affordable ones.

I agree. My point is that 32-33 year old Kyle Gibson isn’t likely to be as good as 30-year-old Gibson was either. If we want to replace the production of Kyle Gibson at his peak, it shouldn’t be with Kyle Gibson post-peak.

I don’t care if he’s extended, but if/when he declines people are going to want to get that production back. And if we’re complaining about salary now, having a $13M per year liability isn’t going to make things easier.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I'd offer Gibson 3yrs at $30-36M.Lance Lynn signed one of the few 3yr (30M) contracts this offseason.He had produced more than Gibson career-wise, but they are on opposite ends of the pendulum swing with Gibson being much better the past 1.5 yrs.The FA market has some talent available in Gerrit Cole and Chris Sale at the top, followed by Verlander (37yrs old), Bumgarner and Porcello.I'm not sure the Twins would be in on any of those.Zack Wheeler was a younger player (30) who should interest the Twins.Most of the FA starters are Gibson's age or older.

 

Yes to offering Gibson that, I'd even up it a couple of mil and have a 4th year option of some sort. Either a buyout or one that vests with starts or IP's.

[Sconnie]

 

and I was criticized in another thread for suggesting that those guys actually compete for the 5th spot this year. But now its OK for them to be our 3-5 next season and still no experience?

I am on the side of sign a starter to make the top of your rotation better, but agreed, your 5th starter and/or swing man should be actively groomed for future rotation fixtures. It is why I was so POed about Perez. He is no better than the in house guys and then those guys get no experience. It'sa lose/lose proposition

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I agree. My point is that 32-33 year old Kyle Gibson isn’t likely to be as good as 30-year-old Gibson was either. If we want to replace the production of Kyle Gibson at his peak, it shouldn’t be with Kyle Gibson post-peak.

I don’t care if he’s extended, but if/when he declines people are going to want to get that production back. And if we’re complaining about salary now, having a $13M per year liability isn’t going to make things easier.

Kyle is still trending upward however.

[Sconnie]

 

Kyle is still trending upward however.

agreed, but for how long? It's hard to tell until it's too late and you're saddled with the Phil Hughes extension.

 

I'd still take 32-33 YO Gibson over the next Martin Perez

[spycake]

If we decide to extend Kepler we should model his deal after the D-back’s extension of Ketel Marte in 2018.

FWIW, Marte was still a year away from arbitration when he signed that deal. (And likewise a year further from FA.) Marte was looking at a roughly league minimum $578k when he signed. Kepler is already guaranteed $3.125 mil this year.

[spycake]

Of course....this all started with someone saying they can "easily" replace him FA next year if he leaves....

I don't think that is an accurate characterization of driv's post.

He said would be interested in a Gibson extension, but not "if the price [to extend] is basically the same as what it would be in free agency". In that case, you may even "replace" Gibson with Gibson next winter -- just no point in locking into it now if there is no discount.

[jokin]

 

agreed, but for how long? It's hard to tell until it's too late and you're saddled with the Phil Hughes extension.

 

I'd still take 32-33 YO Gibson over the next Martin Perez

 

I would take Gibby at 32 and 33 over what Perez brings to the table in a NY minute.

 

Regarding Hughes extension, any member of the grounds crew who took a quick glance at his career trajectory could have told you that extending Hughes could be one of the last nails in your GM coffin.

[rgarfinkle]

I think Berrios is the most obvious candidate, for all the reasons mentioned above.The analysis of Gibson and Rosario in previous posts describes the pros and cons of that, and I can go either way.I have two main thoughts:(1) I would differentiate Buxton from Sano.Buxton has been injury prone and maybe hasn't been as able to learn what he needs to learn about hitting a baseball, but he's a world-class defender and a willing (if sometimes stubborn) worker.I'd take a chance on extending him, because even if his hitting is mediocre he still contributes, and if he learns how to handle pitching he's a near all-star.And I think he'll work hard.Sano concerns me more.Can he ever have a body that will work?And what position can he play?You can't extend him on the basis of him being a full-time DH, but are you sure he can play in the field?I would like to see if he can maintain a good weight, show some positional flexibility, show that he can be more than a one-dimensional slugger before I'd pay him.I'd risk having to overpay later.

(2) the other point I'd make is, it can be worth signing guys even if you don't necessarily want to keep them forever.The cost certainty makes players more tradeable, as long as you haven't wildly overpaid.I think that applies to Rosario in particular, maybe Polanco.Sign them up, and then if everything breaks right with prospects and you want to trade either or both, you have a contract that can be dealt.

[Mike Sixel]

I guess I don't get teh fear with Gibson at 33 or so. By that argument, you never sign a FA pitcher, because that's pretty much how old they are.

 

they literally have 1 pitcher under control past this year with any real MLB experience. 

 

And, as we see with this FO, somehow Perez is who they think is a good idea to sign. Not to mention the two Rule V guys they wasted spots on. 

Edited by Mike Sixel, 30 January 2019 - 01:49 PM.

[Physics Guy]

 

I guess I don't get teh fear with Gibson at 33 or so. By that argument, you never sign a FA pitcher, because that's pretty much how old they are.

 

they literally have 1 pitcher under control past this year with any real MLB experience. 

 

And, as we see with this FO, somehow Perez is who they think is a good idea to sign. Not to mention the two Rule V guys they wasted spots on. 

This is a big reason why I feel we should extend Gibson. There are probably a half dozen SP on the FA market I would want next year besides Gibson. Gibson is a known quantity and was #12 in WAR for SP last year in the American league. No brainer IMO. They should also try to sign whoever is best among Pineda and Odorizzi at the end of the season, assuming they don't both suck. Doesn't the current team have an exclusive negotiating window?

Edited by Physics Guy, 30 January 2019 - 03:59 PM.

[HrbieFan]

I would entertain extending Gibson on a fair 3 year deal. Something around 3 years $36m

[jsteve96]

Everyone is always sleeping on Polanco.. I'd give him 6/40 today with last 2 years being option years 1 team, then 1 player and I doubt he would turn it down. Similar deal would be Ketel Marte.

[spycake]

Everyone is always sleeping on Polanco.. I'd give him 6/40 today with last 2 years being option years 1 team, then 1 player and I doubt he would turn it down. Similar deal would be Ketel Marte.

And like Marte was, Polanco is still a year away from arbitration. Seems like he would have more incentive to negotiate than some others. (Berrios is also still a year away from arb.)

[sweetmusicviola16]

According to LEN 3:

"The Twins are working to sign some of their young players to multiyear contracts and could announce some of those deals by the end of the week."

 

[sweetmusicviola16]

The emphasis is on Berrios and Rosario with indications that Sano and Buxton are on the wait and see list.

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

From the MLBTR article reporting the same:

As in most cases, he suggested, the team’s interest is twofold. “Having those guys under control for longer than what they presently are would be a good thing, in our minds,” said Falvey. Likewise, he added, “it’s helpful to know you are going to be able to plan out a number of years with a lot of young players.”

 

How is that "twofold" reasoning not just saying the same thing two different ways? (As I read it again, I think this is less of an case of the convoluted corporate-speak we sometimes get from the FO and more of an issue of slapdash MLBTR writing.)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Seems odd that the front office would come out and announce extensions before the extensions have been formally agreed to by the players.

 

We all have our preferred and less-preferred players we'd like to keep around, but even though I like Taylor Rogers, I don't think a Rogers or Polanco extension is going to fire anybody up or be considered a success as the LENIII article is implying. So let's hope it's one of the big names who gets extended, one of the names in the original post on this thread.