Berardino: Twins close to extension with Dozier

[jimmer]

I disagree, I think its a solid formula. He's basically halved the plate. Which is why I think his walk and power numbers move inversely. He sits inner half waiting for a pitch to pull, and draws a lot of walks on pitches that won't go there. I wish more Twins batters annexed a portion of the plate like that.

I guess we will see.  I like the idea of being able to hit the ball where it's pitched. And those walks only continue if the pitchers are missing the outer half.  I liked his climb in the OBP category in the 2nd half, myself. Either way, it's not stupid to discuss it as some suggest it is. 

[Steve Lein]

So if he's not extended he will hit arbitration at 28.  Why is this a knock on him or somehow an indictment on his abilities? This happens a lot with players drafted out of College if they get to arbitration.  Meyer is 25, he'll be 28 or 29 before he's eligible too. 

 

And while he may not be a superstar, if he continues to play the way he has the last two years, especially last year, he is extremely valuable.  Those guys don't grow on trees and we currently have a dearth of players in that category.

 

In general I'm not a fan of signing a guy before he's had an arbitration year already, unless he's done something like Mike Trout. Meaning, the player is a superstar, and young. Dozier is neither. He just isn't the type of guy I'd try to buy out of arbitration at this point. He's not going to be super expensive in arbitration yet anyway, and the more data you can collect before an extension gives you a better foundation for what the $$ should be.

 

Like I said, I think we're seeing what his peak is going to be like already, which is pretty good. But a new contract now to me would also pay him with expectations of continued improvement, meaning more $$ for something I'm not so sure we're going to see.

 

If it's a Span like-value of a deal though, I'm all for it. I just don't think that's the type of deal he's going to get handed.

[jimmer]

There are plenty of teams that are seeing the real value of signing all types of players prior to reaching their arbitration years. Since there's only one Trout, seems we don't need to point to only him and say since Dozier isn't him the team shouldn't extend him

 

He was a mid 4 WAR guy last year in his 2nd full season and he was almost a 3 WAR guy in his first. If he just stays at an average of 3 WAR in the next 4 years he is worth extending now.

[tobi0040]

I wonder why we haven't heard anything regarding this extension since the initial report two days ago.  I wonder if the talks fell apart.

[Steve Lein]

There are plenty of teams that are seeing the real value of signing all types of players prior to reaching their arbitration years. Since there's only one Trout, seems we don't need to point to only him and say since Dozier isn't him the team shouldn't extend him

 

He was a mid 4 WAR guy last year in his 2nd full season and he was almost a 3 WAR guy in his first. If he just stays at an average of 3 WAR in the next 4 years he is worth extending now.

 

Trout's just a name that demonstrates the type of player I'd do it for, not that I'm comparing Dozier to Trout. As I said, that type of player is a young superstar. If Dozier we're 24 or 25, I'd be much more inclined to do this, as you'd be getting a bunch of his "prime years" with such an extension. He's already in those seasons, so I'm far less inclined to believe he's still got anything left to improve, and there's the increased risk because of his age.

 

Like I said, great player to have on your team and I don't want him going anywhere, it just seems premature and unnecessary to me.

[jay]

Like I said, great player to have on your team and I don't want him going anywhere, it just seems premature and unnecessary to me.

I can understand why some people think it's unnecessary, but it's definitely not premature. If the Twins don't extend him now, one of two things will happen:

1) He'll continue to produce at levels like the last two years or better. In this scenario, he gets far more expensive to extend as he's further proven what he is and the very purpose of the Twins doing an extension is greatly diminished.

2) He has a slump or injury and doesn't produce as well. In this scenario, an extension isn't going to be likely any way.

 

You have to take risk to get a benefit. Extend him now or don't at all.

[jimmer]

Trout's just a name that demonstrates the type of player I'd do it for, not that I'm comparing Dozier to Trout.

You picked the best young player to hit the game in decades as the type of player you'd extend.

 

So, basically, you wouldn't extend the majority of players drafted out of college, because college players tend to hit their arbitration years around the same time Dozier will.

 

Graduate at 22, spend 3-4 years in the minors, we're talking 27, 28.

[USAFChief]

Pretty much everyone likes Dozier, but the point, in his specific case, is the Twins don't have to extend him to keep him around through what are likely to be his best years.

[beckmt]

I would not extend Dozier, too much chance of decline and not enough of an upside.  Twins have a decent pipeline of middle infielders, so I would be more inclined to trade him at his peak rather than extend him

[halfchest]

This is a great discussion.  I've honestly flip flopped a lot reading the arguments which is rare.  I usually form an opinion and stick with it.  It really keeps coming down to it depending on the numbers.  Do we just sign him through his arb years and add some options?  That to me is best case scenario.  The Twins get some cost certainty and Dozier gets some guaranteed wealth in return.  Then put some well paid options on the end of the contract.  Then if Dozier continues to be a 3-4 WAR player you pick those up.  

 

I don't believe any contract he signs will prevent future contracts so after thinking it through I think an extension would be fine as long as there aren't large guarantees in years 5 and 6.  I hope those will be options where the Twins can either cut their losses or pay dozier what he's worth for a couple seasons.  

 

It's not winwin and it shouldn't be any extension has some risks for both sides.  When it comes down to it I would be fine with the Twins going year to year as well.  They may pay more for those four years if he continues to produce but they won't be stuck with someone who is injured or if there is a sharp drop in his production.  

[nicksaviking]

I assume this is a Target field reference given the right handers cited?  If so, Dozier has more HR on the road than at home.

I doubt he nor any other ball player would try to taylor their technique or approach based on road stadiums.

[tobi0040]

I doubt he nor any other ball player would try to taylor their technique or approach based on road stadiums.

 

I guess I don't really see the worry here.  This is a good article, although it is dated a year. His HR's in 2013 were all to LF, but most were no doubters. 

 

http://www.baseballprof.com/2014/01/2014-brian-dozier-fantasy-projection/

[DJL44]

I wonder why we haven't heard anything regarding this extension since the initial report two days ago.  I wonder if the talks fell apart.

 

This may come off as snarky but sometimes talks on a multimillion dollar contract take more than two days.

[tobi0040]

This may come off as snarky but sometimes talks on a multimillion dollar contract take more than two days.

 

It is not that the deal is not done, it just seems odd that we haven't heard anything in three days.

[Steve Lein]

You picked the best young player to hit the game in decades as the type of player you'd extend.

 

So, basically, you wouldn't extend the majority of players drafted out of college, because college players tend to hit their arbitration years around the same time Dozier will.

 

Graduate at 22, spend 3-4 years in the minors, we're talking 27, 28.

 

Reading way too much into it. All I'm using for Trout is his name. I've immediately after said "young superstar" as the player I'd extend. Trout's definitely the cream of the crop, but not nearly the only one.

 

College players who are of the "superstar" type get to the majors within 2 years. Look at Kris Bryant as an example. He's going to debut at 23. Jon Gray's going to debut at 23. Carlos Rodon's probably going to debut at 22. Colin Moran might debut at 22. Hunter Renfroe might get at chance at 23. Andrew Heaney debuted at 23...

 

I wouldn't extend a lot of the players like Dozier (not a superstar, not young) until they had a longer track record, yes.  He's still under team control until he's thirty-one. I think there's a ton more risk with a guy like him on an extension, so I'd rather have the longer track record, even if it means more money (that's a good thing).

[Otto von Ballpark]

So, basically, you wouldn't extend the majority of players drafted out of college, because college players tend to hit their arbitration years around the same time Dozier will.

 

Graduate at 22, spend 3-4 years in the minors, we're talking 27, 28.

I don't think the majority of players drafted out of college are seniors like Dozier, and definitely not top draftees.  The first college senior drafted in 2014 was #45 overall.  Only two were drafted in the top 110 picks, only 4 in the top 144 (four-plus rounds).  Twins didn't draft their first senior until the 8th round, and only 10 of their 40 total picks were seniors (versus 18 college underclassmen).

 

So yes, as a general rule, I might hesitate to extend a guy drafted as college senior and not on any kind of fast track (MLB debut a week shy of 25th birthday), barring exceptional performance.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It is not that the deal is not done, it just seems odd that we haven't heard anything in three days.

It does seem a little odd, but remember Dozier wasn't even arbitration eligible yet.  He had zero reason to have any prior contract discussions with the Twins, so they may have only started at the ground floor in negotiations when this report came out.  (As opposed to a player who has already exchanged arbitration figures with the club, etc.)

[jimmer]

I don't think the majority of players drafted out of college are seniors like Dozier, and definitely not top draftees.  The first college senior drafted in 2014 was #45 overall.  Only two were drafted in the top 110 picks, only 4 in the top 144 (four-plus rounds).  Twins didn't draft their first senior until the 8th round, and only 10 of their 40 total picks were seniors (versus 18 college underclassmen).

 

So yes, as a general rule, I might hesitate to extend a guy drafted as college senior and not on any kind of fast track (MLB debut a week shy of 25th birthday), barring exceptional performance.

So if Meyer starts putting up 3-5 WAR seasons, you won't want to extend him. 

[TheLeviathan]

So if Meyer starts putting up 3-5 WAR seasons, you won't want to extend him. 

 

So we just extend anyone that puts together a 4 WAR season?  Because that's what it's starting to sound like in this thread.  

 

Brian Dozier is a damn fine player and one of my personal favorites, but his particular circumstances do not favor an extension IMO.  I think that's all most people are saying.

[jimmer]

I think I've gotten to the point where my posting about Dozier's possible extension has well exceeded my caring on the subject.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So if Meyer starts putting up 3-5 WAR seasons, you won't want to extend him. 

Did you even read my post?

 

"as a general rule, I might hesitate to extend a guy drafted as college senior and not on any kind of fast track"

 

Meyer wasn't a college senior, and his MLB debut was held back by probably a full year-plus due to a shoulder injury in the minors.  I guess you can add injury as an exceptional circumstance to my general rule above, although it doesn't apply to Dozier.

 

Assuming Meyer doesn't break camp with the Twins this spring (or spends 20 days on optional assignment at some point over the next three years), we will have full control over him until his 32nd birthday!  I am definitely not sure I would extend him beyond that, without accounting for a lot more factors than two seasons of WAR.

[TheLeviathan]

Assuming Meyer doesn't break camp with the Twins this spring (or spends 20 days on optional assignment at some point over the next three years), we will have full control over him until his 32nd birthday!  I am definitely not sure I would extend him beyond that, without accounting for a lot more factors than two seasons of WAR.

 

Meyer could put up 10 WAR his first two years and that shoulder might STILL lead me to avoid an extension.  That's part of why it's so silly to say "had good season.....gotta give that guy a 6 year deal!", which is at the heart of a lot of the reasoning in this thread.

 

I get it, Dozier is a damn good player.  But if he's still a damn good player at 32 when he's about to be a FA - then let's pay him money then.  I'm not worried about saving a few million dollars, I'm worried about sunk cost when it was absolutely unnecessary to engage in the risk in the first place.

[kab21]

It's funny how Span is held up as an example of contract very much in the Twins favor after the point.  Believe me, these same discussions were held 5 years ago with Span since he was also older and pre-arb.  His contract might not seem expensive now but that is partly due to salaries inflating big time in the last 5 years. 

 

The other thing is that Span's contract was considered to be an awful signing after he slumped the next season and got injured the following season.  This was a contract that wasn't always considered to be ridiculously in the Twins favor in the early and middle part of the contract.

 

As far as the Dozier extension goes we don't know what the terms are.  The best terms imo are guaranteeing the arb years at reasonable amounts and getting two reasonable priced team options tacked on at the end.  That gives the Twins cost certainty and more team control.  This wasn't an extension that critically needed to be done (Hughes did despite a similar level of complaining) but if done correctly it doesn't hurt the Twins either.

[TKGuy]

Shows commitment to winning, we are always looking to trade. What to do with Polanco though?

[jorgenswest]

Lots of discussion about his WAR. His WAR last year needs to be seen in the context of 707 plate appearances. His health was valuable but not projectable. Projections have his WAR at 2.7 and 2.8 for next year. At ages 32-33 he will be in decline. Any contract that guarantees significant money those years will be very difficult to trade.

 

The down side of giving him 6 years and having him decline is much worse than the downside of having to pay a great player in arbitration. They are not a small market team. They can afford to pay him when he performs.

[jay]

What to do with Polanco though?

That might be a question to worry about in like two years. Develop quality MLB players first. Worry about what to do with and where to put the other prospects later.

[TheLeviathan]

The down side of giving him 6 years and having him decline is much worse than the downside of having to pay a great player in arbitration. They are not a small market team. They can afford to pay him when he performs.

 

This is a good point.  There is a vein in this discussion that portrays the fear of extending Dozier about a fear of spending money.  I'd argue the idea of extending him is the one motivated by a fear of spending money. 

 

I'm all about paying a guy the money he has earned when he earned it (love the Hughes extension), but this?  This is handing a guy unnecessary cash out of fear of what he might have to be paid down the line.  Like jorgen said - we can afford to pay him if he continues to be a stud in four years. 

[jay]

This is handing a guy unnecessary cash out of fear of what he might have to be paid down the line.

Not for me. To me, it's two parts -- first, free up additional resources to do extensions like this with other young players or add external talent in the upcoming years and, second, gain option years for what could likely still be productive seasons (32/33/34?) without having to offer an overpriced, backward looking, overly-long free agent-type contract or extension after arbitration.

[jorgenswest]

What are the odds someone who is very productive ages 26-27 will still be very productive at 32-33? That is the Twins gamble if they go 6 years.

 

Going back to 2007-2008, I took the top 10 productive players ages 26-27 in those two years. That group of 10 players just finished their age 32-33 season.

 

The players

 

Rios, Granderson, Hamilton, Victorino, Phillips, Ross, Doumit, Morneau, Aviles, Swisher

 

The 10 were credited with 72.8 rWAR from ages 26-27 and 26.6 rWAR from 32-33. They dropped 63%.

 

All of the players dropped. Only one 10 retained more than half of their WAR value. Shane Victorino was the only player to average better than 2 WAR per season at age 32-33 with his great 2013 season.

 

The Twins need to get this right. If cost certainty through arbitration is important, extend him through his arb years and age 31. A decision to go beyond that point will keep them in this cycle of mediocrity.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is a good point. There is a vein in this discussion that portrays the fear of extending Dozier about a fear of spending money. I'd argue the idea of extending him is the one motivated by a fear of spending money.

 

I'm all about paying a guy the money he has earned when he earned it (love the Hughes extension), but this? This is handing a guy unnecessary cash out of fear of what he might have to be paid down the line. Like jorgen said - we can afford to pay him if he continues to be a stud in four years.

If Dozier repeats his 2014 campaign in 2015, how much more will it cost the Twins to sign him in 12 months than it would today? $3-5m?

 

Less than or equal to the amount they're paying Pelfrey this season, almost surely.

 

I'm not really against a Dozier extension but I don't really see a point in falling over yourself getting it done right this second.