Article: Trade Glen Perkins

[bird]

Doesn't have to be a relief pitcher (or even with the Twins or Rochester or New Britain). If you remember, Perkins was a failed starter and a heartbeat and a grievance away to be what Diamond is today. Joe Nathan was a failed starter and was the throw in in that trade... Who knows what Kris Johnson (for example, just throwing a name) can do as a closer? I am certain that (at least) 3 AAA & AA pitchers (Meyer, May & Berrios) have higher ceilings than Perkins

 

I get it that there's huge performance volatility among relievers. I also get it that a mediocre former starter can surprise us and excel as a reliever. Perkins is a case in point of course. I also agree that Meyer and Berrios have higher ceilings and am guardedly hopeful May does too. My argument is not about whether to trade Perkins. It's about filling holes by trading clearly surplus talent, so while we can surmise that a new "closer" will come out of the woodwork from AAA or AA for 2015, it's far from a certainty. My view is trading Perkins possibly creates a deficiency rather than reduces a surplus, so whatever deficiency gets solved via the return better be impressive.

[Thrylos]

I get it that there's huge performance volatility among relievers. I also get it that a mediocre former starter can surprise us and excel as a reliever. Perkins is a case in point of course. I also agree that Meyer and Berrios have higher ceilings and am guardedly hopeful May does too. My argument is not about whether to trade Perkins. It's about filling holes by trading clearly surplus talent, so while we can surmise that a new "closer" will come out of the woodwork from AAA or AA for 2015, it's far from a certainty. My view is trading Perkins possibly creates a deficiency rather than reduces a surplus, so whatever deficiency gets solved via the return better be impressive.

 

Agreed, in principle. But there is another thing in consideration (and I am not sure that the Twins' management is good at: ) Planning.

 

These days, trading deadline, you plan. You say: "I plan to be a competitive(*) team in 2015" or "2015 will be a rebuilding year of incremental improvement, hopefully". If the Twins' plan is to compete in 2015, yes, you keep Perkins. If the Twins' plan is to rebuild in 2015 (as in 2012-14,) Perkins will be a luxury and a good return of a prospect or two who will arrive when the team will be compete, will be more beneficial for the Twins.

 

But they got to plan, be realistic and don't half bake it again. Not sure they can do it.

 

 

 

 

(*) where competitive means competing for the AL Central Championship and trying to make it deep into the post-season

[diehardtwinsfan]

The problem with the AJ trade a few years ago is that at the time it didn't exactly look like some huge no brainer obviously from the jump it was a good trade for the Twins to make since they didn't need AJ, and at the very least they got some "intriguing names back" however its important to remember at when the trade was made:

 

Liriano the centerpiece of the deal was I think the 90th rated minor leaguer the year prior to getting traded, however arm injuries basically derailed that entire season, so he wasn't exactly some high "can't miss" arm and only had reached A ball. At that point he was well outside the top 100.

 

Nathan was a 28 year old middle reliever coming off a nice year, but prior to that had very pedestrian numbers in the majors and minors. Not exactly a "can't miss guy".

 

Boof! Was a top 25 prospect two years prior to the Giants trading him, by that point though still a "solid prospect" had fallen off the top 100 map completely and his numbers/stuff projected to be a back end guy at best.

 

Luckily the Twins hit lightning in a bottle with both Liriano and Nathan, if the Twins were to entertain a package for Perkins it would have to start with at least one can't miss player. It couldn't be two guys with no track records or lightning in a bottle types.

 

Now...if we are talking about a package for Willingham/Suzuki/Morales...then a lightning in a bottle type (see: Liriano) would make more sense.

 

Actually, Boof was the centerpiece. Liriano was the PTBNL. Speaking of people who don't come back from TJS... He was never the same.

 

That said, I've echoed Dave's thoughts that a killer pen has value, and I like the idea of having 4 or 5 shut down guys during the next wave.... I think that this is one of the areas where the Twins will likely have a surplus of talent in 2016-2020. That's good as relievers can be flipped.

 

Getting back to Perkins, I do think there's something to be said for the fact that he's a hometown guy who signed a hometown deal. Yes, I get there's a NTC, but so many of us rail on the Boras types for getting every dollar out of team and then turn and say "it's a business decision" to flip a guy who WANTS to be here. Don't get wrong, I do think that the Twins need to listen, but if they were going to trade Perk, it should have been done last year. They extended him instead. If someone bowls us over, by all means do it, but my guess is that Perk will likely be on the block in a couple years when guys like Tonkin, Pressley, O'rouke, Achter, Oliveros, and/or Burdi are established and guys like Jones are knocking on the door (not to mention several of the 2012 and 2014 SPs who were pretty good relievers in college who go back to the pen). Either way, if Perk is still pitching well, he will still be supremely valuable and quite tradable.

[TheLeviathan]

It's about filling holes by trading clearly surplus talent

 

I would suggest this is what teams contending or near contending do. Teams still rebuilding should consider how present talent can augment their future plans in ways they currently are weak.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I think the fact that Perkins is LH is a detriment as a closer. That means 2/3 of the time he gets the wrong end of the platoon advantage.

 

Anyhoo, I get the arguments for keeping him and I get the arguments to trade him. I highly, highly doubt the Twins will trade him. I do think that closers are fairly fungible, though. It would be wise to at least see what kind of offer comes back. Maybe Dan Duquette will go crazy at the chance of winning the AL east, and the ASG closing battery of Perkins/Suzuki would net Dylan Bundy?

[Guest USAFChief]

Here's the thing about relievers - they are easily the least predictable position for success. Guys fluctuate rapidly (in part due to how easy it is in limited innings to see swings) but also because their career arcs are the most erratic.

 

Take the man you're talking about - he was a Slowey-esque pariah who was within an eyelash of being cut to an All-Star closer. Had someone asked the same question circa 2006 you would've never put Perkins on this list and yet here we are.

 

Again I'm not an advocate of moving him, but "there is no clear cut successor" is not a good argument in regards to relievers.

While somewhat true in general, I don't think that's true at all for the good ones. Forget whether he's the "closer," Perkins is a good reliever because he throws hard, has good stuff, and has some command. Those things are not in abundance, which is why such relievers aren't all that common and are in demand.

 

While nobody could accurately predict that Perkins would be this good, for this long, he had the makings of a good reliever while he was a starter, which isn't necessarily true for many starters. There were those who said when Perk was a struggling starter that he could make a good reliever, because those qualities were there, and it didn't take huge imagination to think a guy with his stuff, who might pick up a couple MPH in short stints, would be an excellent BP candidate. None of those things apply to a guy like Slowey, who always depended on command and deception, not stuff...he wasn't going to be throwing 96 no matter if you limited him to 1 pitch per week.

 

I actually think "there's no clear cut successor" is a great argument for keeping Perkins. Who else on the Twins, or in the high minors, is going to come in and K more than a hitter per inning?

 

He's a proven, dependable player at his position--relief pitcher--much better than league average. He doesn't cost a great deal of money, and his age isn't a factor for a while yet. At some point, if you want to start winning baseball games, those are the exact guys you have to keep on your roster, rather than trading them for something that might be useful at some point down the line.

[TheLeviathan]

While nobody could accurately predict that Perkins would be this good, for this long, he had the makings of a good reliever while he was a starter, which isn't necessarily true for many starters.

 

I don't think that's fair nor backed up by the stats. He literally doubled his K/9 going from SP to RP. He cut his Hits/9 and HR/9 by 35-40%. You could argue he became a totally different pitcher because of the added velocity of switching to the pen.

 

He exceeded even optimistic projections. He's an abnormality to have that much improvement simply by switching roles.

 

I actually think "there's no clear cut successor" is a great argument for keeping Perkins. Who else on the Twins, or in the high minors, is going to come in and K more than a hitter per inning?

 

If you had asked the same question in 2011, anyone who had answered "Glen Perkins" would've been laughed out of the conversation. Maybe that guy ends up being May. Or Oliveros. I'm not sure and I'm not sure it matters. This team is getting great bullpen work from all kinds of guys that would've been thought to be scrubs in the very recent past.

 

I personally don't deal him because of the contract and what I assume happened behind closed doors to facilitate it. But I don't think the idea that Glen can't be replaced is a good argument. This team has been replacing good relief pitchers for years with regularity and proficiency. It's one of Ryan's greatest strengths.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I personally don't deal him because of the contract and what I assume happened behind closed doors to facilitate it. But I don't think the idea that Glen can't be replaced is a good argument. This team has been replacing good relief pitchers for years with regularity and proficiency. It's one of Ryan's greatest strengths.

 

Agreed.

 

If I am a GM, I would pretty much never hesitate to trade a closer, at least not for the reasons commonly stated in this thread. Especially if my scouts and coaches have been exceptionally good at replacing them for ~15 years. If I am a contender, my asking price would be a little higher and I'd prefer to have a ready replacement; otherwise, I wouldn't worry about having an immediate successor.

 

Perkins would still probably stay on my club right now, but only because I wouldn't actively shop him and I don't expect anyone to meet my reasonably high asking price (something above the recent Huston Street return).

[tobi0040]

immoral?

 

More or less immoral than talking to the newspapers about how bad a player a rookie teammate of yours, who just got demoted, is, if you are the player's union representative?

 

Nothing to do with morality.

 

Touche. It was a dumb statement by Perkins and he should not have made it. But one bad comment in the media does not equal a guy that leaves $20M on the table to play for his hometown team.

 

Immoral may have been a bad word on my end. But it seems slimey to me. Hey, commit here for the next 5 years and take a discount......then shop the guy around 4 months later with the primary selling point a team friendly contract.

 

He would not have done that deal with anyone but the Twins, IMO.

[JB_Iowa]

Immoral may have been a bad word on my end. But it seems slimey to me. Hey, commit here for the next 5 years and take a discount......then shop the guy around 4 months later with the primary selling point a team friendly contract. IMO.

 

Except that he could have held out for a no trade clause as part of that team friendly contract -- and yet apparently his clause is limited to 3 teams.

 

Maybe they have a "gentleman's agreement" that he wouldn't be traded in the first year or two. If so, then violating that would be unethical even if it is a verbal, not written, agreement.

 

But I don't think that just because it is a "team friendly contract", there would be anything particularly unethical (and certatinly not immoral or even slimey) about trading him barring some other mutually agreed upon understanding.

 

I do think there might have been some "handshake" agreement on not trading him (at least not early) because Perkins sounds very confident that he won't be traded.

 

I also want to point out that when this extension was signed, there were a number of posters on this board pointing out that it wasn't a particularly "team friendly deal."

 

I agree that he would not have done the deal with anyone but the Twins but it was also Glen who pursued the extension not the team so would any other team have even offered it to him?

[halfchest]

1. I want the Twins to win, but they have lost 90 games the past 3 and soon to be 4 seasons with Perkins. He is obviously not the difference in relation to winning and losing.

 

2. How many sellouts are happening when the Twins are losing 90 games AND they have Glen Perkins? How many jersey's are being sold BECAUSE of Glen Perkins? Hwo many fans are watching games BECAUSE Glen Perkins might close it out. The answer is a very minute fraction. The Twins drive ticket and jersey sales by winning but they survive on shared revenue and corporate sponserships, not you the tempermental fan. (royal you, not you you)

 

3. The model for success the Twins are commited to following is predicated on developing their farm system. Trading a veteran piece for multiple prospects is how they keep that system running. I may not love it as a fan, but I understand that is how they are going to compete. Glen Perkins is a nice player, but his usefulness to this club going forward is being turned into multiple prospects to develop at more vital positions. What is going to change next year that will allow Glen Perkins to save more games? We will be losing Willingham. Mauer will be older. We aren't going to sign a big name free agent. The chips are all in waiting for the farm system to produce it's stocked talent and we will not be competitive until it does. Because that timeframe is uncertain, why hold onto a stock that will only hold it's current value at best?

 

No one player is the reason a team wins or loses, or the reason a team brings in revenue. This isn't Tennis or Golf so yes it takes a team. Revenue does in fact come from fans. Corporate sponsors don't just come out of nowhere because they really like baseball. They sponsor the team because fans watch and/or go to the games, buy the merchandise etc. So yes, the fans do in fact drive the revenue. Think of it like radio, I don't pay a dime to listen to it, they make their money by selling advertising. However, if no one is listening then they don't sell advertising. Same goes for a professional sports team, if no one is watching the games, then no corporations are going to sponsor the team/invest in advertising. Now I'm sure a portion of this is locked in long term (Target, TV deals) so year to year performance and fan interest doesn't matter but the point still stands. It's economics 101, businesses(the Twins) are there to satisfy(appease) their customers(fans). We do agree though that winning is the ultimate goal and that will both win fans and as a result of winning fans bring in better TV deals and corporate sponsorships.

 

Again, you're absolutely right that Glen Perkins is a small part of this big picture. The same argument can be made for most professional athletes other than the huge stars like say Lebron or Jeter. The decision is if they are a positive part of the team or a negative.

 

My belief in keeping Perkins is that he provides value both as a fan favorite and on the field performance. He's locked in for 4 1/2 years and yes, I believe the Twins will compete in that time frame and he will be part of what makes them competitive. There comes a point where a team not only needs to rely on their farm but they need to start retaining MLB players to partner and the timing of this seems to be what the biggest disagreement on this board is about. The Twins are most definitely not buyers, they're also not in fire sale mode like they were when they sold Span and Revere a few years back. Keeping players that will be a part of the future makes sense to me at this point. I could be wrong maybe we suck for the next four years and/or Perkins falls off a cliff. That's just the risk you take, same as if they trade him. Maybe they get the next Clayton Kershaw, maybe they get the next J.D. Durbin.

 

In the end, this is a ridiculous argument that no one will be proved right or wrong for a long time. If they trade him they need to wait for the prospect(s) to develop and if they keep him and he thrives, we'll still wonder what could we have gotten for him and was it better. If the Twins keep him and he sucks, again who knows would we have gotten anything decent for him anyhow?

 

I think I will need to be done with this thread as I need to get some work done but it's been entertaining to say the least.

[Guest USAFChief]

This team has been replacing good relief pitchers for years with regularity and proficiency. It's one of Ryan's greatest strengths.

I would say rather than "replacing" good relievers, the Twins have been more likely to keep good relievers once they find them. That they've had a generally good back end of the bullpen is because they value good relievers, more so than because they're easy to find.

[TheLeviathan]

I would say rather than "replacing" good relievers, the Twins have been more likely to keep good relievers once they find them. That they've had a generally good back end of the bullpen is because they value good relievers, more so than because they're easy to find.

 

Look at our bullpen pieces - three failed starters (Swarzak, Duensing, Perkins), two castoffs/minor league deals (Fien and Burton), and one nobody (Thielbar).

 

It's not like these were "good" players we've kept, they've been found and transformed into good players once they went into our bullpen.

[bird]

Agreed, in principle. But there is another thing in consideration (and I am not sure that the Twins' management is good at: ) Planning.

 

These days, trading deadline, you plan. You say: "I plan to be a competitive(*) team in 2015" or "2015 will be a rebuilding year of incremental improvement, hopefully". If the Twins' plan is to compete in 2015, yes, you keep Perkins. If the Twins' plan is to rebuild in 2015 (as in 2012-14,) Perkins will be a luxury and a good return of a prospect or two who will arrive when the team will be compete, will be more beneficial for the Twins.

 

But they got to plan, be realistic and don't half bake it again. Not sure they can do it.

 

 

 

 

(*) where competitive means competing for the AL Central Championship and trying to make it deep into the post-season

 

I get what you're saying. My complaint is a little different. I think they've lacked a "sell discipline", not a lack of planning. Planning is very difficult because so many things (players) go awry. For example, I think their plan was for Sano and Buxton to play on the big club this year, maybe Rosario too. In 2010(?), their plan was to put a rotation out there of Liriano, Baker, Pavano, Slowey, et al. When things go in the pooper, it's easy to blame it on a lack of planning. And your example of timing the retention or disposition of Perkins illustrates this. One plan would be to incrementally improve, so maybe the thought is that 2015 is the year of competitiveness (.500 ball) and 2016 the year of possible contention for the division. If I'm planning for this, I retain Perkins, don't you?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Touche. It was a dumb statement by Perkins and he should not have made it. But one bad comment in the media does not equal a guy that leaves $20M on the table to play for his hometown team.

 

Immoral may have been a bad word on my end. But it seems slimey to me. Hey, commit here for the next 5 years and take a discount......then shop the guy around 4 months later with the primary selling point a team friendly contract.

 

He would not have done that deal with anyone but the Twins, IMO.

 

I know we're arguing in circles on this one, but... by definition, he couldn't have done ANY deal at that time with anyone but his hometown team.

 

For his most recent deal/extension, he was 3 years away from FA, and it guaranteed another 2 years and $14.375 mil. He wasn't even at a table on which he could leave any money, much less $20 mil.

 

I guess he passed up the chance to wait 3 years, for a chance at maybe $8 mil more if we say he could have gotten $11 mil AAV for those 2 added years. Given the uncertainties of the intervening 3 years, that's worth quite a bit less than $8 million.

 

I don't doubt his motivations were very much influenced by his local ties, but I feel you are exaggerating the "team-friendliness" of his contract. It probably does not give rise to any moral imperatives against trading him.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Are saves factored into the fwar calculation? It appears to me Glen could have 20-30 more saves from 2012 to 2014 on a better team.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

 

I am not an expert on fWAR (or anything for that matter), but it does not appear that saves are any kind of factor in its calculation.

 

From the link you provide, covering 2012-2014, Sean Dolittle and Jake McGee equal or exceed Perkins' fWAR total but neither accumulated any saves until very recently. Dellin Betances and Wade Davis each beat Perkins in fWAR this year, with a combined 1 save between them.

[John Bonnes]

It's a team-friendly deal, it's a player-friendly deal AND it's worth noting there is some language in it to protect Perkins from a trade. As I recall, he can list 3 teams to whom he would not be traded AND the last year of the contract becomes his option if he's traded. That implies that there is no hidden gentlemen's agreement. That was negotiated and stated plainly.

 

I'm sure Perkins would not want to be traded. And I really question if the Twins would get the value people think they could at the trade deadline. (Too often, teams don't want to give up the value they would need to for a long-term deal at the trade deadline. They would rather give up far less for a rental.) So I don't know that there is a compelling reason TO trade him.

 

But he can't be untouchable.

[bird]

Levi, I agree with you that the Twins could uncover someone (Burdi, Tonkin, Oliveres, May) and overcome the loss of Perkins. They've taken this kind of gamble a lot, and won the bet with the bullpen but gotten their butts handed to the with the rotation. We know for sure that Perkins is elite as a reliever. But he may implode next month, or suck next year. I guess I'm inclined to see one or more of these prospects show that they're a notch better than Fien and Thielbar first before shopping Perkins. Contract understandings aside, I'd guess the offers we might see for him wouldn't be enticing enough to get me excited about the deal.

[nicksaviking]

While somewhat true in general, I don't think that's true at all for the good ones. Forget whether he's the "closer," Perkins is a good reliever because he throws hard, has good stuff, and has some command. Those things are not in abundance, which is why such relievers aren't all that common and are in demand.

 

But because he's a reliever, these attributes are greatly muted. Closers only pitch one inning at a time and most of the time you can even give up at least one run and STILL get the job done. When Perkins stole Capps job in 2012, Capps had actually only failed to hold the lead one time in 29 games finished compared to Perkins four failures in 36 games finished. Perkins was clearly the better pitcher, but in the grand scheme of things, it didn't matter. It rarely does.

 

The Twins won't trade Perkins, and it probably is wise from the PR standpoint, but dominant relievers are a luxery and not used enough to make much of a difference anyway.

[jorgenswest]

I wouldn't trade him for the return the Padres received for Street. It will take more than a fringe 100 prospect that plays only 2B, a young good glove SS with a questionable bat in A ball and a reliever prospect. The Padres did well to get that return for Street who has an option for next year. They probably need one guy to make it to balance the year and half they lose on Street.

 

It would take two of those players to become regulars for the trade to work out in comparison to Perkins and his longer commitment. I don't think that is happening. I also don't think the market will return more. I'd rather keep Perkins.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's a team-friendly deal, it's a player-friendly deal AND it's worth noting there is some language in it to protect Perkins from a trade. As I recall, he can list 3 teams to whom he would not be traded AND the last year of the contract becomes his option if he's traded. That implies that there is no hidden gentlemen's agreement. That was negotiated and stated plainly.

 

I'm sure Perkins would not want to be traded. And I really question if the Twins would get the value people think they could at the trade deadline. (Too often, teams don't want to give up the value they would need to for a long-term deal at the trade deadline. They would rather give up far less for a rental.) So I don't know that there is a compelling reason TO trade him.

 

But he can't be untouchable.

 

Well stated. That's why you're the boss!

 

To trade Perkins, I'd probably want something like the Huston Street package PLUS our legendary Capps package (Ramos). That's a solid top 100 guy, another borderline top 100 guy, both from the upper minors and at up-the-middle positions, plus a couple good, young performers from the lower levels.

 

Don't think that's been exchanged for any closers recently, so I certainly won't blame the Twins for not soliciting deals on him at this point.

[bird]

I would suggest this is what teams contending or near contending do. Teams still rebuilding should consider how present talent can augment their future plans in ways they currently are weak.

 

I'd suggest that the real difference between what contending and rebuilding teams do is related to the probability that contenders have a surplus to work with and rebuilders generally don't.

[tobi0040]

I know we're arguing in circles on this one, but... by definition, he couldn't have done ANY deal at that time with anyone but his hometown team.

 

For his most recent deal/extension, he was 3 years away from FA, and it guaranteed another 2 years and $14.375 mil. He wasn't even at a table on which he could leave any money, much less $20 mil.

 

I guess he passed up the chance to wait 3 years, for a chance at maybe $8 mil more if we say he could have gotten $11 mil AAV for those 2 added years. Given the uncertainties of the intervening 3 years, that's worth quite a bit less than $8 million.

 

I don't doubt his motivations were very much influenced by his local ties, but I feel you are exaggerating the "team-friendliness" of his contract. It probably does not give rise to any moral imperatives against trading him.

 

Yeah...I get he was with the Twins and could only sign with the Twins. My point was I don't believe he would have signed that deal had he been drafted and in the same positon with any other team.

 

From his comments and SI's take on the link below, it appears that A) This contract was viewed as team friendly and Glen signed that deal be with the Twins forever and that was what was important to him....which I read to mean it wasn't all about the money.

 

I think we are overblowing the fact that he has 3 teams on a no trade. 3 teams? 10% of the league? Also, the team option switching to a player option, this is not a huge deal IMO given that he will be 36 at the time, his 6th or 7th year of free agency and at that point likely a 7 year closer track record as a top 10 closer, all for $6.5M.

 

The guy signed that deal at the time it was plausable we were an 85-90 loss team the next year. So 3-4 months later trading the guy...it just doesn't smell right to me

 

http://www.si.com/mlb/strike-zone/2014/03/17/glen-perkins-extension-minnesota-twins

[RichardSchuette]

The young Twins starters entering the rotation over the next couple of years are going to need to know they will have a solid bullpen and closer behind them. Trading Perkins doesn't make sense at his bargain price tag. It's a bad trap to fall into - trading off everyone who shows some promise just because the win record doesn't reflect his value to the team. That's how you find yourself on a 27-year rebuilding program, like Kansas City.

[TheLeviathan]

Levi, I agree with you that the Twins could uncover someone (Burdi, Tonkin, Oliveres, May) and overcome the loss of Perkins. They've taken this kind of gamble a lot, and won the bet with the bullpen but gotten their butts handed to the with the rotation. We know for sure that Perkins is elite as a reliever. But he may implode next month, or suck next year. I guess I'm inclined to see one or more of these prospects show that they're a notch better than Fien and Thielbar first before shopping Perkins. Contract understandings aside, I'd guess the offers we might see for him wouldn't be enticing enough to get me excited about the deal.

 

Yup, I'm cool with that. I wouldn't be looking to move him. I'd listen though.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think we are overblowing the fact that he has 3 teams on a no trade. 3 teams? 10% of the league? Also, the team option switching to a player option, this is not a huge deal IMO given that he will be 36 at the time, his 6th or 7th year of free agency and at that point likely a 7 year closer track record as a top 10 closer, all for $6.5M.

 

The guy signed that deal at the time it was plausable we were an 85-90 loss team the next year. So 3-4 months later trading the guy...it just doesn't smell right to me

 

You can't say that an ineffective no-trade protection was a team-friendly concession that suggests you owe it to the player not to trade him... that's a bit of a contradiction in terms!

 

Interesting that you brought up his age. His recent 2/14 extension was not only signed 3 years in advance, but also effectively covers his age-34 and age-35 seasons, which makes it somewhat less likely (although far from impossible) that he was going to command significantly more money if he had waited for free agency. If his conversion to relief had happened a few years earlier, enabling him to test the market at a younger age, it's quite likely he doesn't sign such a "team-friendly" extension.

 

He also signed the deal coming off a career best season at age 30. The fact that he has improved since makes it a better deal for the team, but I think it is coloring our perception of how team-friendly it was at the time. (And mind you, I think it was team-friendly, just not to the extent that it should influence a decision whether to trade him above and beyond the contract terms and his on-field performance.)

[tobi0040]

You can't say that an ineffective no-trade protection was a team-friendly concession that suggests you owe it to the player not to trade him... that's a bit of a contradiction in terms!

 

Interesting that you brought up his age. His recent 2/14 extension was not only signed 3 years in advance, but also effectively covers his age-34 and age-35 seasons, which makes it somewhat less likely (although far from impossible) that he was going to command significantly more money if he had waited for free agency. If his conversion to relief had happened a few years earlier, enabling him to test the market at a younger age, it's quite likely he doesn't sign such a "team-friendly" extension.

 

He also signed the deal coming off a career best season at age 30. The fact that he has improved since makes it a better deal for the team, but I think it is coloring our perception of how team-friendly it was at the time. (And mind you, I think it was team-friendly, just not to the extent that it should influence a decision whether to trade him above and beyond the contract terms and his on-field performance.)

 

I guess if the Twins knew at the time they did the deal that Glen left money on the table because it was the Twins.....then shopping him 3 months later with a selling point being the contract....seems slimey because the contract was only $22M because it was with the Twins. Maybe he would have only signed 4 years and $32M with the Pirates?

 

At the end of the day we don't know the context of the conversation between the two parties. But I suspect that Glen will NOT be traded and this is one of the reasons why. We will never know the context of the conversation or why they didn't trade him.

[Otto von Ballpark]

At the end of the day we don't know the context of the conversation between the two parties. But I suspect that Glen will NOT be traded and this is one of the reasons why. We will never know the context of the conversation or why they didn't trade him.

 

I agree, although I will add, there wouldn't necessarily have to be any conversation for this to be true. TR, as much as he is known as "Trader Terry", is not terribly likely to deal anyone at any given time. Virtually all of his deals in the last 15 years have been some combination of expiring contracts, clearing room for younger players, addressing MLB weaknesses, or just marginal/spare parts for minor leaguers. Pretty much nothing comparable to Perkins or Dozier since perhaps the Knoblauch deal.

 

Probably explains Perkins' weak no-trade protection -- it was probably largely unnecessary, like buying extra insurance when you rent a car, and not worth surrendering any salary for it.

[chopper0080]

No one player is the reason a team wins or loses, or the reason a team brings in revenue. This isn't Tennis or Golf so yes it takes a team. Revenue does in fact come from fans. Corporate sponsors don't just come out of nowhere because they really like baseball. They sponsor the team because fans watch and/or go to the games, buy the merchandise etc. So yes, the fans do in fact drive the revenue. Think of it like radio, I don't pay a dime to listen to it, they make their money by selling advertising. However, if no one is listening then they don't sell advertising. Same goes for a professional sports team, if no one is watching the games, then no corporations are going to sponsor the team/invest in advertising. Now I'm sure a portion of this is locked in long term (Target, TV deals) so year to year performance and fan interest doesn't matter but the point still stands. It's economics 101, businesses(the Twins) are there to satisfy(appease) their customers(fans). We do agree though that winning is the ultimate goal and that will both win fans and as a result of winning fans bring in better TV deals and corporate sponsorships.

 

Trading Glen Perkins is not going to significantly affect attendence or the team's bottom line. End of story.

[Beezer07]

Trading Glen Perkins is not going to significantly affect attendence or the team's bottom line. End of story.

 

Because you said so? I'm not buying it. He's a very popular player, and there aren't a lot of reasons to go see the Twins right now unless you're a diehard. Not saying people go to games to see him pitch (they probably don't), but getting rid of him would be another tick in the "why should I go see the Twins?" column.