Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

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

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,755 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:15 AM

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.


That's certainly possible but those numbers are much higher than others here have been predicting. Some thought that Marcum might take a 1/8 contract.

#22 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,363 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

I would offer three years to Dempster if he is still around after Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum. If the Twins really miss out on all four . . .

#23 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,363 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:42 AM

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Physics Guy'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp']No, I'd rather go four years on Jackson or another younger pitcher.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. 3 yrs for Jackson, 4 for Sanchez - which won't happen.[/QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE]

Have we heard any details about anything with Jackson? I wonder if there are 4-year deals on the table for him. I am also wondering that, if not, he might be like Dempster and jump at the one extra year if offered by somebody.

#24 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

It's all over for another two years, just let Pohlads keep there money, and take Ryan out and shoot him, he didn't get the job done.

#25 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:08 AM

I would offer three years to Dempster if he is still around after Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum. If the Twins really miss out on all four . . .


At that point, you need to overpay just to get somebody. I hope Ryan is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to be left in that position (and I think he is).

As for Jackson, I haven't heard anything on him yet, which I find odd. Behind Greinke and Sanchez, he's probably the guy I'd want most on my team. Unspectacular, but young and consistent.

#26 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,256 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:20 AM

With Greinke off the board...

Sanchez... Jackson or Marcum... Does anyone really care if the Twins go off the deep end salary wise.

I don't care what they pay right now... If Jackson wants 15 a year... I don't care... The Twins have the money and they got to land someone.

Outbidding the other teams in free agency is how it works.

Years... Sanchez wants 7... Dempster wants 3... I don't care... They got to land someone.

I'm worried we have stopped fishing in the walleye lake and are going after panfish exclusively right now. Or more accurately... We never did go to the Walleye Lake... Just kinda drove by it and thought it look to crowded.

Edited by Riverbrian, 09 December 2012 - 10:22 AM.


#27 jmlease1

jmlease1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:07 AM


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


Marcum last 3 years: WAR 3.8/2.9/1.3
Dempster last 3 years: WAR 2.4/0.5/3.6

Which is these two pitchers looks more like a "decline phase" pitcher now? But when I talk about a pitcher being better right now, I', more concerned about what kind of season they're directly coming off of rather than averaging the prior three. But one of the things I probably should have said was "Dempster is a better pitcher for the Twins right now", in part because I see him as being more likely to pitch 200 innings at the top end of the rotation which is sorely needed.

Dempster's 3-year averages are pulled down by 2 really good years sandwiched around 1 bad one. Marcum's averages are pretty even: he is who is he. I like both pitchers for the Twins, but Dempster's desire for a 3rd year might make him a viable option with a front-loaded contract that helps smooth the Twins payroll situation and stay reasonable. Marcum may be looking for 4 or 5 years at bigger money.

#28 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,288 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

Marcum may be looking for 4 or 5 years at bigger money.


Where on earth are you getting that from?

#29 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,621 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:27 AM

I would offer three years to Dempster if he is still around after Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum. If the Twins really miss out on all four . . .


At that point, you need to overpay just to get somebody. I hope Ryan is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to be left in that position (and I think he is).

As for Jackson, I haven't heard anything on him yet, which I find odd. Behind Greinke and Sanchez, he's probably the guy I'd want most on my team. Unspectacular, but young and consistent.


Explain to me why it matters? If they won't pay going rates, and they won't overpay, why would it matter if they have payroll flexibility at all? They have $25MM to spend, plus another $25MM next year, plus Morneau's contract likely coming off the book. How would signing two legit MLB players right now hurt them in 2014 or 2015, when virtually the whole roster will be near minimum wage players?

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#30 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,621 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:28 AM

Oh, and they will have less room to spend on draft picks next year also, due to the number of picks they'll have.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#31 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:30 AM

[quote name='mike wants wins'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='Shane Wahl']I would offer three years to Dempster if he is still around after Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum. If the Twins really miss out on all four . . .[/QUOTE]

At that point, you need to overpay just to get somebody. I hope Ryan is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to be left in that position (and I think he is).

As for Jackson, I haven't heard anything on him yet, which I find odd. Behind Greinke and Sanchez, he's probably the guy I'd want most on my team. Unspectacular, but young and consistent.[/QUOTE]

Explain to me why it matters? If they won't pay going rates, and they won't overpay, why would it matter if they have payroll flexibility at all? They have $25MM to spend, plus another $25MM next year, plus Morneau's contract likely coming off the book. How would signing two legit MLB players right now hurt them in 2014 or 2015, when virtually the whole roster will be near minimum wage players?[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand me. I hope they don't end up with only Dempster left on the market with 4-5 teams bidding for his (in all likelihood) lackluster services. I'd prefer they stay in the mix earlier with some of the better pitchers on the market like Jackson, Sanchez, and Marcum than underbid on those guys and then get stuck with overpaying for the old, declining guy.

#32 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

We have several prospects on the way with Gibson, Hendriks, May, Barrios, and Meyer to go along with Diamond and Worley. I think it would be better and safer to sign someone on a 1 or 2 year deal then it is to clog up the spots for all of these guys with potentially over the hill pitchers. I think we can get solid talent that allows us to stay competetive in the short run while we develop these pitchers and whoever we draft this year. I would rather sign Brett Myers to a 2 year contract and another pitcher for a 1 year deal. A 3 year deal for Marcum, Sanchez, or Edwin Jackson makes sense. There's not much left I would sign to a 3 year at this point.

#33 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,621 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:39 AM

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand you Brock. Sorry. I agree with you.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#34 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 6,486 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

I would offer three years to Dempster if he is still around after Sanchez, Jackson, and Marcum. If the Twins really miss out on all four . . .


According to what I saw on Quick Hits: Liriano, Twins, Dickey, Phillies, Dempster: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com Dempster would prefer an NL team and one that does spring training in Arizona. We really need to cross him off the list for discussion purposes.

#35 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

ESPN's Jim Bowden reports that if the Dodgers are unable to sign Ryu Hyun-Jin, they'll shift their attention to Anibal Sanchez.

Even after agreeing to terms with the top free agent pitcher on the market, it appears the Dodgers might go after arguably the second-best hurler. Sanchez is said to be looking for a six-year deal in the $90 million range, and if anyone is willing to give him that much, it's probably the Dodgers.

#36 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 6,137 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

Yup, we're getting priced out of this in a hurry. Dodgers gobble up both of these it only brings more suitors to Marcum and Jackson. I said it before and I'll say it again, we're going to regret balking at the early pricetags.

#37 Physics Guy

Physics Guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 772 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

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


I would be happy with any of those and think they are all reasonable. After last season, I would think Jackson would jump at that. We was hoping for 3/30 last year and settled for 1/10, I think.

#38 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,363 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

With Greinke off the board...

Sanchez... Jackson or Marcum... Does anyone really care if the Twins go off the deep end salary wise.

I don't care what they pay right now... If Jackson wants 15 a year... I don't care... The Twins have the money and they got to land someone.

Outbidding the other teams in free agency is how it works.

Years... Sanchez wants 7... Dempster wants 3... I don't care... They got to land someone.

I'm worried we have stopped fishing in the walleye lake and are going after panfish exclusively right now. Or more accurately... We never did go to the Walleye Lake... Just kinda drove by it and thought it look to crowded.


I think the analogy might work differently. For instance, in my view panfish (sunfish) taste better than walleye. So that might be what the Twins are trying to do--get the smaller deal with the better taste. They shouldn't do that. One puts walleyes on the wall, not panfish.

#39 jmlease1

jmlease1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:51 PM

Marcum may be looking for 4 or 5 years at bigger money.


Where on earth are you getting that from?


Informed guess, like most of the speculation around here. He's 30 years old, I'm sure his agent is selling him as someone who should be getting a 4 or 5 year deal rather than 2 or 3. Hell, most people around here are of the opinion that Marcum is a better pitcher than Dempster, so why wouldn't he be looking for more years & more money?

#40 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,755 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:48 PM

Informed guess, like most of the speculation around here. He's 30 years old, I'm sure his agent is selling him as someone who should be getting a 4 or 5 year deal rather than 2 or 3. Hell, most people around here are of the opinion that Marcum is a better pitcher than Dempster, so why wouldn't he be looking for more years & more money?


he's not going to get 4 or 5 years (unless things just get stupid on all of the contracts) because he is injured every year. He should make good money each season but I can't see anyone giving him more than 3 yrs because of the injury risk.