Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Should Twins Offer Dempster A 3-Year Deal?

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#21 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,591 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.

#22 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 9,890 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.

Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.

#23 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    It's going to get better, it has to.

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,083 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:08 PM

We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.

Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.


Kettle, meet Pot.

Posted Image

#24 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 9,890 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

[quote name='twinsnorth49'][quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave'][quote name='Nick Nelson']We live in a society where a man can be "insulted" by being offered $48 million to play baseball. What a world.[/QUOTE]
Get off the soapbox!

That offer is insulting to Sanchez and his agent, since it is at least 33% less then even close to market value for him. Dollar amount doesn't matter, let's say you know your fair market value as a blogger is $50,000 a year, if someone gave you a serious offer to write for their website for $20,000 would you not feel insulted?

Same thing with the CEO who is worth 10 mil a year being offered 2 mil a year.[/QUOTE]

Kettle, meet Pot.

Posted Image[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have replaced soapbox with faux social outrage.

#25 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

Yikes, did we just wonder into an free market/socialism debate?

Damn you Dempster for starting a deeper argument. I don't get what were talking about so I will change the subject...DON'T SIGN DEMPSTER FOR THAT KIND OF DOUGH...MOOLA...MARK...YEN...EURO...POUND...PESO...FRANK...RUPEE...NAIRA...etc. (ps I couldn't think of any more international amounts of monetary values)

#26 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,000 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.


Great post. Funny how Terry Ryan was derided for calling the free agent market thin when according to the posters here there aren't any pitchers good enough to play for us. Don't get me wrong, I think the asking prices on some of these players are pretty obscene, but is there any real difference between bitching about the price before the guy is signed and whining about how the team missed out after the guy signs somewhere else?

That said, Dempster would be a good idea for a year or two. I really like Dempster. Three years though? Not so much.

#27 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

If we sign Anibal sanchez 1st, yes i would offer Dempster a 2 year contract with a option 3rd year , maybe a vesting option?If not Dempster then either Jackson or Haren as the #2 option for our 2013 rotation.
As for Sanchez offering him an opt out after his 2nd year might improve our chances of signing him.With salarys skyrocketing , this might look good to him. Like i have posted i would offer 15 million over 4 years with an vesting option at 20 millon ,with an opt out for him after 2 years, allowing him to pursue bigger money , and also giving him security at the same time..

#28 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

Yeah guys you can't bitch about no pitching but then bitch about the money it costs to get FA starters....just doesn't work boys can't have it both ways. Now I agree...NO on Dempster but if he's commanding and will probably get 12-13 mil per season for 2-3 yrs from someone then what do we expect to pay for anyone decent??

#29 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

Agree totally! with 70 charger

Edited by Dilligaf69, 03 December 2012 - 01:37 PM.


#30 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else amused at how much consternation there is over the Twins so far doing nothing to address next year's pitching staff, and yet there's constant derision over almost every potential contract being thrown out as a possibility. Just to lump myself amongst the people I'm chiding, 3 years for a 35 year old pitcher seems like a bad idea to me, as well.


Great post. Funny how Terry Ryan was derided for calling the free agent market thin when according to the posters here there aren't any pitchers good enough to play for us. Don't get me wrong, I think the asking prices on some of these players are pretty obscene, but is there any real difference between bitching about the price before the guy is signed and whining about how the team missed out after the guy signs somewhere else?

That said, Dempster would be a good idea for a year or two. I really like Dempster. Three years though? Not so much.




Not bad but doubt he does it..

#31 edavis0308

edavis0308

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 576 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

Context needs to be taken into account with all these deals. The line or Dempster appears to be at 2-3 years where shades of gray kick in if you really want him or not. What if he refuses to sign for anything less than 5 years? Would you still want him? Of course not (assuming he isn't signing for a million or two a year). If he would sign a three year deal at a decent price, why not, but assuming fair market value, I would get nervous after two years and decent money. Sure, everyone around here is clammering for signing some free agent pitchers, and paying market value. I think it is just fine if people don't want to sign the free agent pitchers at over the top foolish contracts.

#32 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:02 PM

Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.

#33 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 9,890 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.


Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should go out and start overpaying for mediocre starting pitchers. Now if you want to over pay for Dempster on a 1 year deal, fine. But I don't want to see them handicap the future by handing out a bunch of bad long term contracts just for the sake of "spending money for 2013"

If you give me the choice between:
1. Overpaying for Dempster on a three year deal or
2. Blowing up the team and go into a complete rebuild.

Honestly, give me #2 as Dempster really doesn't make us that much better for the future.

#34 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.


Exactly..

#35 071063

071063

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

Not a fan of Dempster for 3 years. At his age and the current Twins roster, I would be inclined to look at someone younger and overpay / over term them.

#36 joeboo_22

joeboo_22

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:24 PM

I just don't know if Dempster is an AL pitcher, or if he wants to pitch in the AL, he did finally accept the trade to Texas last year, struggled somewhat with a 5+ ERA (though many pitchers struggle there), other then that had pitched only in the NL, looks more like a NL pitcher to me. Especially for a 3 year deal. I'd hate to give him a 3 year deal. Also a lot of innings on that arm, came up at 21 pitched a bunch of innings his first couple of years, then went to the bullpen for a few and then has been right around 200 IP in each of the past 5 years except last year.

#37 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,000 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:24 PM

Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.


Exactly..


Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.

#38 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

[quote name='70charger'][quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='Top Gun']Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.[/QUOTE]

Exactly..[/QUOTE]

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.[/QUOTE]

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?

#39 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 14,503 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:38 PM

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?


While I hate getting into payroll debates, it's worth noting that the Twins went over their budget in 2010 to get Pavano in January. $112m isn't really a fair baseline to use, as it was a conscious overspending based on a specific opportunity.

#40 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,000 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

[quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='70charger'][quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='Top Gun']Everyone on here wants to save money, remember you don't get that money, the owner just puts it his pocket and laughs at you.[/QUOTE]

Exactly..[/QUOTE]

Completely wrong, actually. There is a finite amount of money available for the Twins to spend on payroll, and that doesn't just fluctuate year to year. Saving one year may mean spending another year. To say that you know exactly what the Twins' payroll plans are for the coming several years is just wrong. You don't.[/QUOTE]

Cool, so we should expect the Twins to spend that saved 18M the saved last year from 2011 payroll?

Twins spent 112M in 2011, 94M in 2012, so will they A: not only got back to 112M, but add an additional 1*M they saved? Or B: just go up to 112 again?

Or is it neither?[/QUOTE]

The argument wasn't about "should," it was about "does." The fact is that you don't know what management does with it. Their plans are not public.

But to answer your alternate question, they should invest it in the future. Whether that means this coming year or in 2015, I don't particularly care, as long as the investments made are wise.