Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Is this the offseason to extend Revere?

  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#21 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    2 + 2 = 5

  • Members
  • 2,674 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

NO a lot bigger things to work on!

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.

 

Yogi Berra


#22 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Willihammer'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp']No. Hell no. Play him for another year or two and then flip him.[/QUOTE]

After two years then, who is your outfield, with Revere and Willingham gone?[/QUOTE]

Hicks, Arcia, Benson, Rosario, Buxton, Kepler... There's no shortage of Twins outfield prospects.[/QUOTE]

Where does Joe Benson's or Aaron Hick's minor league track records compare so favorably to Ben Revere's minor league track record. Why would you expect them to be better than Revere at the Major league level? Then you have Buxton and Kepler who are still in A Ball. How is floating Revere something like 5/14 with a 6th option so much riskier than penciling in Buxton and Kepler into your 2015 and 2016 outfield?

#23 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

[quote name='Willihammer'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Willihammer'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp']No. Hell no. Play him for another year or two and then flip him.[/QUOTE]

After two years then, who is your outfield, with Revere and Willingham gone?[/QUOTE]

Hicks, Arcia, Benson, Rosario, Buxton, Kepler... There's no shortage of Twins outfield prospects.[/QUOTE]

Where does Joe Benson's or Aaron Hick's minor league track records compare so favorably to Ben Revere's minor league track record. Why would you expect them to be better than Revere at the Major league level? Then you have Buxton and Kepler who are still in A Ball. How is floating Revere something like 5/14 with a 6th option so much riskier than penciling in Buxton and Kepler into your 2015 and 2016 outfield?[/QUOTE]

As a 22 year old, Aaron Hicks OPSed .844 in New Britain.

As a 22 year old, Ben Revere OPSed .734 in New Britain.

It's safe to say that Hicks is the better player. He's fast, he's rangy, he can out-throw me, he can draw a walk, and he actually hits for a little bit of power. Outside of raw speed, Revere doesn't do anything better than Hicks (and the speed bit is up for debate).

As for Benson, he's a wildcard. Fell on his face last season and this will be his make-or-break season.

If Revere's value is high after 2013 or 2014, it would be in the Twins' best interest to move him, just as they moved Span. That's what you do with a surplus.

#24 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

OK well if Hicks and Benson are both better players than Revere by 2015 and one of them displaces Revere in CF then there would still be a 3rd outfield spot to fill, and Revere could easily be the best guy to fill it.

But, put aside for the moment any projections about our farmhands.

We have just witnessed how - even when you buy high on young players, like we did with Span - because the Twins did it early enough and for cheap enough, Span's "team value" still went up even though he regressed. I mean, Certainly Meyer is a better return than anything Span would have fetched as a mid-summer rental earning the market rate and going year to year. Can we agree on that?

Except, with Revere, to extend him now, the Twins would probably be buying low, and Revere would, if anything, progress over the course of the contract.

Consider the possibility that Revere's BABIP spikes to .340 next year. Span had two such seasons before he extended (.339 and .353 to be exact). Suddenly Revere puts up a .306/.348.350 line (along with more steal opportunities, thus more steals, and the usual great defense, great baserunning, etc). What does that do for the arbiter? It would not take long to start seeing the millions slipping away.

But, if after 2014 or 2015 everything on the farm has worked out perfectly - meaning 4 of Hicks, Arcia, et al are MLB players than Revere - and there is a buyer out there who likes Revere - now that buyer's almost certainly going to give you a bigger haul for him. Where is the downside?

#25 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:01 AM

As for Benson, he's a wildcard. Fell on his face last season and this will be his make-or-break season.

If Revere's value is high after 2013 or 2014, it would be in the Twins' best interest to move him, just as they moved Span. That's what you do with a surplus.

Getting back to the projecting part, surplus of what? Surplus of minor league talent? You trade away your MLB players when they gain value in order to make room for wildcards who haven't don't a thing at the MLB level? I guess I would rather see the farm guys who do end up sticking it in the MLB, stay on my team.

#26 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,090 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Willihammer'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Willihammer'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp']No. Hell no. Play him for another year or two and then flip him.[/QUOTE]

After two years then, who is your outfield, with Revere and Willingham gone?[/QUOTE]

Hicks, Arcia, Benson, Rosario, Buxton, Kepler... There's no shortage of Twins outfield prospects.[/QUOTE]

Where does Joe Benson's or Aaron Hick's minor league track records compare so favorably to Ben Revere's minor league track record. Why would you expect them to be better than Revere at the Major league level? Then you have Buxton and Kepler who are still in A Ball. How is floating Revere something like 5/14 with a 6th option so much riskier than penciling in Buxton and Kepler into your 2015 and 2016 outfield?[/QUOTE]

As a 22 year old, Aaron Hicks OPSed .844 in New Britain.

As a 22 year old, Ben Revere OPSed .734 in New Britain.

It's safe to say that Hicks is the better player. He's fast, he's rangy, he can out-throw me, he can draw a walk, and he actually hits for a little bit of power. Outside of raw speed, Revere doesn't do anything better than Hicks (and the speed bit is up for debate).

As for Benson, he's a wildcard. Fell on his face last season and this will be his make-or-break season.

If Revere's value is high after 2013 or 2014, it would be in the Twins' best interest to move him, just as they moved Span. That's what you do with a surplus.[/QUOTE]

Brock, how do we know he can outthrow you? Did you and Hicks have a non-televised throwing contest?

It can be argued that Span's value was heightened to some extent by his team-friendly contract and his established Major League bona fides. Revere falling into the 4th OFer role at a cheap long-term deal wouldn't be all that bad at some point down the line, with the possible annual ability of dangling him for a position of weakness.

#27 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

Hell no, no rush.

#28 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 13,546 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:39 AM

OK well if Hicks and Benson are both better players than Revere by 2015 and one of them displaces Revere in CF then there would still be a 3rd outfield spot to fill, and Revere could easily be the best guy to fill it.

Where is the downside?


If there is an empty outfield spot it will be a corner outfield spot and part of the emphasis moving Span was that Revere, if he's going to play, belongs in CF. His skill set loses considerable value when you have to have him play there. With Hicks looking like a really good bet for our future CF, that's not something to plan on.

The downside is that if you extend Revere there is a good chance he starts to underperform his contract. What Revere does well is very predicated on skills that are hard to project long-term: high BABIP, high contact rate, speed. If any of those things slip he's not a very good player. Span, on the other hand, hits the ball with far more authority and worked counts/walked. Those skills aren't as tenuous as Revere's and thus made him a better long-term investment.

Given how badly Revere regressed towards the end of the season it's better to shop him with team control. That has value as well and then the team you decide to move him to has more control over their long term obligations to him.

#29 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,496 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

Simply put, no. Extending Revere is not like extending Longoria or something like that. Revere is a very flawed player who I still think s a very good 4th OF. I have no problem with him being a place holder on a 90some loss team until the OF of the future arrives, which could start as soon as next year. But to give him a guaranteed deal contains a fairly high risk with very little reward. This is very similar to the Nick Blackburn deal. Revere isn't going to get a ton during his arb years. No reason to guarantee him a lot of money...

A contract can make a player tradable... It can also make them untradable.

#30 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:15 AM


As for Benson, he's a wildcard. Fell on his face last season and this will be his make-or-break season.

If Revere's value is high after 2013 or 2014, it would be in the Twins' best interest to move him, just as they moved Span. That's what you do with a surplus.

Getting back to the projecting part, surplus of what? Surplus of minor league talent? You trade away your MLB players when they gain value in order to make room for wildcards who haven't don't a thing at the MLB level? I guess I would rather see the farm guys who do end up sticking it in the MLB, stay on my team.


The Twins have two outfielders in AA who tore the cover off the ball last season. Both are younger than Revere and better hitters. That's a surplus.

Why extend Revere when he's not even arb eligible yet and you have two superior players in the minors? It's an unnecessary risk.

#31 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,368 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:39 AM

Risk of extending? See Nick Blackburn.

Risk of not extending? Revere becomes a much better player than projected and he is due a big pay day in arbitration.

I'd take the second risk. The first means you carry around a poorly performing player too long because of the contract. The second means you pay more for good performance.

The Twins are not a small market team. They can afford to pay high performing players their due in arbitration.

#32 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,998 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

No. Hell no. Play him for another year or two and then flip him.


Yes, if the Twins find themselves needing him as a starting OF in 2014 it is simply a bad thing. I like the guy and all a lot, but there is no long-term future with him. Hopefully he improves enough to add to his trade value (same for Parmelee, because neither are long-term starters for the Twins).

#33 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:03 AM

There's also this guy named Buxton, too, though I realize he's a ways off and no sure thing...But the Twins have 2-3 players behind Revere who could play CF (3 if you count Joe Benson). If Hicks and Benson don't work out, Buxton could be ready by the time Revere starts to get expensive. The point is, there are 2-3 players (again, Benson needs to rebound) could be better than Revere, so there's a good chance that one of them works out. If they bust, you can do as Jorgenwest says and consider re-signing him at that point. It's just not worth it right now.

#34 DaveW

DaveW

    Aaron Hicks update (5/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS

  • Members
  • 12,932 posts
  • LocationNYC aka Aaron Hicks Ville

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:23 AM

You don't give extensions to 4th outfielders

#35 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,998 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

You don't give extensions to 4th outfielders


You just hurt Mastro's feelings.

#36 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,998 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:31 AM

There's also this guy named Buxton, too, though I realize he's a ways off and no sure thing...But the Twins have 2-3 players behind Revere who could play CF (3 if you count Joe Benson). If Hicks and Benson don't work out, Buxton could be ready by the time Revere starts to get expensive. The point is, there are 2-3 players (again, Benson needs to rebound) could be better than Revere, so there's a good chance that one of them works out. If they bust, you can do as Jorgenwest says and consider re-signing him at that point. It's just not worth it right now.


Hicks, Arcia, Benson, Roberts, Kepler, and Buxton all are better projected players in MLB. Revere is arb eligible in 2014 and won't be expensive at all until at least 2016. So extending . . . why??????????

#37 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,541 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:08 AM

Depends on the extension amounts. We can always do the deal with 1 less year with the option. He's not arbitrtion eligible till after next season. so the contract extension now whould shape up something like.....
year one 500,000
year 2 1,000,000
year 3 3,000,000
year 4 6,000,000
Option 8,000,000

so i could see a 3 year up to 5 million extension or 4 year 11 with options at the end of each, why not? Its obviously team friendly with the risk Revere regresses but if he maintains then it is a good deal for us and who he eventually gets traded to.

#38 DaveW

DaveW

    Aaron Hicks update (5/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS

  • Members
  • 12,932 posts
  • LocationNYC aka Aaron Hicks Ville

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:20 AM

Depends on the extension amounts. We can always do the deal with 1 less year with the option. He's not arbitrtion eligible till after next season. so the contract extension now whould shape up something like.....
year one 500,000
year 2 1,000,000
year 3 3,000,000
year 4 6,000,000
Option 8,000,000

so i could see a 3 year up to 5 million extension or 4 year 11 with options at the end of each, why not? Its obviously team friendly with the risk Revere regresses but if he maintains then it is a good deal for us and who he eventually gets traded to.

The problem is there is a very good chance that by year 4 Revere is not worth 6 mil a year.

At the end of the day he is a very good 4th OF, you don't give these guys long term contracts when you don't need to. I'm not sure why people think he suddenly might "break out" or something, 2012 is about as good as its going to get from Revere unless he magically learns how to throw the ball or magically learns how to hit for power.

#39 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 17,604 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:58 AM

Michael Bourn hit 9 home runs last year. Before that his previous high was 5 and typically he hit 2 a year.

Ben Revere had 553 at bats last year at age 24. Michael Bourn had 127 career total at age 24 and the Phillies were able to acquire their closer by trading Michael Bourn for Brad Lidge after that season.

Bourn hit .229 his first full year in the Majors with the Astros. At age 25 which is really two years behind Ben who got MLB at bats at age 23.

Bourn is now set to sign for 75 million at age 29.

I acknowledge that there are negative comps as well but am not motivated to find them.

I do not believe that Revere should be extended at this time but I continue to be amazed by the under valuing of Ben... And from Twins fans to boot.

#40 Ultima Ratio

Ultima Ratio

    Assistant to the General Manager

  • Members
  • 2,284 posts
  • LocationHere

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

Let's not make another Blackburn contract mistake. Arb years don't have to be bought out... that's a good thing, that's what they are there for.

Should'a gone fishing