Article: Minnesota Twins And Brian Dozier Sign 4-Year Extension

[John Bonnes]

The Minnesota Twins announced today that they and second baseman Brian Dozier have signed a 4-year guaranteed contract that will pay Dozier $20 million guaranteed through the 2018 season. The deal buys out Dozier's arbitration years but not any of the years in which he will be a free agent.The contract makes sense from both sides. Dozier gets $20 million up front, as opposed to having to work on year-to-year agreements over the next four years. He also gets a significant bump in salary this year.

 

The Twins take on the risk of Dozier, who had a breakthrough season last year, severely regressing or getting injured. In return, they should see overall savings in future years compared to what Dozier would have received in arbitration over the next four years if he continues to play at a fairly high level.

 

Dozier's .242 batting average last year disguised an outstanding year. His patience at the plate led to a .345 on-base percentage and he powered out 23 home runs, all while playing a middle infield position at an above-average level. His OPS last year was fourth among qualified MLB second baseman, above that of better known names liks Chase Utley and Dustin Pedroia. He's certainly shown no sign of regression this spring, as he is hitting .462.

 

The contract pays him $2 million dollars this year (as opposed to $590,000) and then $3M, $6M and $9M in his three years of arbitration. It is an inexact science to estimate exactly what future arbitration awards would have been, but for any starting player, those values are on the low end. And for player who is an all-star, they could be very low.

 

For instance, Pirates second baseman Neil Walker, who had similar production to that of Dozier last year, is making $8M in his second year of arbitration - and he lost his case. compare that to the $6M that Dozier is now guaranteed. Correction: Walker's 3rd year of arbitration wa $8M, but it still compares to Dozier's 2nd year of arbitration, because both are in their fifth year of service time. Walker was a Super-2 player, so he was able to reach arbitration a year earlier.

 

Plus, the average arbitration awards tend to go up from year to year because they reflect the free agent salaries at the high end, and those values are also increasing significantly under the new collective bargaining agreement.

 

The trick with a lot of these contracts, and particularly with this one, is how long the deal should be. Dozier's case is a little unique in that he is old for a player entering his 3rd year; he's 27 years old. That means he won't become a free agent until he is 31 years old, which is often on the downside of a player's career. So it is of questionable value to guarantee money out that far. Often when a team signs a deal like this, it is to guarantee that they buy out a free agent year or two for a player who will hit free agency in their 20s.

 

This deal ignores that option and strikes a different balance. It runs exactly the same time frame at whcih the player would have been under team control, but it gives enough potential future savings to take on the risk of guaranteeing the money. As with any deal, both sides probably wish it were a little different. Dozier's side likely wishes it was for more money or had another guaranteed year. The Twins side likely wishes they would have made it for a little less money, or had a team option when Dozier reaches free agency. But it looks like a solid, thoughtful agreement for both sides.

 

Click here to view the article

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

finishing a convo from the other thread:

 

Yes - the Twins could trade Dozier in a couple years, though recently they've generally only traded guys that were playing poorly or "didn't fit" the Twins Way (see JJ Hardy). Dozier has been playing well and seems to be a front office favorite.

 

My guess is that he will not be traded if he maintains this level of play (and the front office stays the same). He's more likely to be traded for next to nothing following a slump.

 

[jay]

The highest likelihood is that this contract is a 15-40% discount (capturing some regression on the low end and progression on the high end).

 

That seems plenty sufficient from the Twins side to lock in a few years and Dozier gets the guarantee that he's financially set for life.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The highest likelihood is that this contract is a 15-40% discount (capturing some regression on the low end and progression on the high end).

That seems plenty sufficient from the Twins side to lock in a few years and Dozier gets the guarantee that he's financially set for life.

Agreed. While this deal makes Dozier slightly more tradable, I doubt that was even a consideration for the Twins. This is the time to start locking up core players for a return to relevance. Having Dozier signed at a reasonable rate for four years makes it just that much easier to manage payroll over the next four years.

[Todd_L]

Why not wait a year and see if Dozier can duplicate his production?  They could have just as easily made a similar deal next year at this time with a whole lot more information and with little downside. It just seems to continue the trend of the organization buying high on players after their career years.  Granted, this is not a huge mistake as the money is not unreasonable.  It just seems to be another in a long line of missteps by the Front Office. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Why not wait a year and see if Dozier can duplicate his production?  They could have just as easily made a similar deal next year at this time with a whole lot more information and with little downside. It just seems to continue the trend of the organization buying high on players after their career years.  

Career year is a bit misleading... Dozier was close to a 4 WAR player in 2013 and a tick over 5 WAR in 2014. He's had over 1100 plate appearances of consistent performance.

 

And we're talking a yearly rate that is less than Mike Pelfrey will receive this season and less than what Kevin Correia received last season. The upside of this contract is pretty solid and the downside isn't enough money to really worry about... Roughly 1/20th of payroll averaged over four seasons.

 

I think this deal is pretty solid on clubhouse goodwill alone. The Twins just showed that they are willing to hand over money to solid young players that perform on the baseball diamond. That has to motivate guys like Arcia, Santana, Vargas, etc. in some capacity.

[Cap'n Piranha]

This is a really good deal for both sides. Dozier leaves money on the table, but guarantees himself 20m. The twins save themselves money, and have Dozier as an even more attractive trade option should they choose to go that route.

[jimmer]

 

Agreed. While this deal makes Dozier slightly more tradable, I doubt that was even a consideration for the Twins. This is the time to start locking up core players for a return to relevance. Having Dozier signed at a reasonable rate for four years makes it just that much easier to manage payroll over the next four years.

I mentioned trade due to the MI prospects we have coming up.

 

You know, kind of how we traded Span when we had a young Revere and Hicks waiting...

Edited March 24, 2015 by jimmer

[Seth Stohs]

Yeah, there is minimal risk in this deal for the T wins. Of course, there is the injury risk, but that's possible in every deal. If it had been a 6 year deal, I'd definitely understand the concern. I would have liked to have seen one more year or one less year, but there's not much concern here. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I mentioned trade due to the MI prospects we have coming up.

 

You know, kind of how we traded Span when we had a young Revere and Hicks waiting...

Oh, for sure. I wouldn't rule out a trade by any means, just pointing out that it probably didn't even enter the Twins' thought process when signing the deal.

[kab21]

It's too bad they couldn't tack on an option year at 12-15M but it's hard not to like this from the Twins side.  It's also much, much less than people were predicting for his arb years.

[ashbury]

 

I mentioned trade due to the MI prospects we have coming up.

 

You know, kind of how we traded Span when we had a young Revere and Hicks waiting...

Or trading AJ when Mauer came up. There's no guarantee it'll be a logjam in the middle infield in a couple of years, but if Polanco and Michael look like our DP combination of the future, being ready to make a big trade is important and maybe this extension helps. And if there is no logjam but Dozier is performing, hey, fine. It does look to me like the team is taking on more risk than Dozier is, but that's because I'm discounting much possibility he'd be a 10+Million player in arbitration. He's good but we've been so starved for a major league average player in the infield that I think our perspective has gotten skewed.

[BrianTrottier]

 

Why not wait a year and see if Dozier can duplicate his production?  They could have just as easily made a similar deal next year at this time with a whole lot more information and with little downside. It just seems to continue the trend of the organization buying high on players after their career years.  Granted, this is not a huge mistake as the money is not unreasonable.  It just seems to be another in a long line of missteps by the Front Office. 

 

I guess I thought that he already duplicated (and improved upon) his production last year from 2013. There's always risk when signing a player to a contract, but I think Dozier is a much better known entity than a lot of people here give him credit for.

[John Bonnes]

Why not wait a year and see if Dozier can duplicate his production?  They could have just as easily made a similar deal next year at this time with a whole lot more information and with little downside. It just seems to continue the trend of the organization buying high on players after their career years.  Granted, this is not a huge mistake as the money is not unreasonable.  It just seems to be another in a long line of missteps by the Front Office.

 

The easy answer is they have a LOT less leverage. At this time next year, assuming Dozier has a year similar to last, he's making close to $4M in guaranteed money for 2016 and already has a lifetime of security locked up. He isnt willing to give nearly as much as a discount on years two and three, if a deal even happens. In fact, I can' see a deal working out unless it inlcludes free agency years.

[John Bonnes]

Also some notes from the press conference and stuff after:

 

The question about Polanco was raised a couple times after the conference. Rob Antony's response is that Polanco is no guarantee - remember, they thought Dozier was going to be a shorstop, so things don't always work out the way they think they will.

 

And, of course, that's where the fact that there is no no-trade clause is important, too. This contract, assuming Dozier continues to perform, could be an asset instead of a liability in trade discussions.

 

 

Also, talking to Damon Lapa, Dozier's agent, it sounds like hitting free agency as a 31-year-old was VERY important to them. Any attempt to delay that was going to require some big adjustments to the deal to include that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Also, talking to Damon Lapa, Dozier's agent, it sounds like hitting free agency as a 31-year-old was VERY important to them. Any attempt to delay that was going to require some big adjustments to the deal to include that.

Interesting. So I was right about that part of the deal. Four years at $20m seemed a touch on the low side to me after Dozier racked up 9 WAR in two seasons.

 

It makes sense that they wanted the guaranteed money to set Brian up for life while still getting a shot at huge free agency money in his early 30s. Sacrifice a couple of million now - while still getting $20m - for a shot at $50m+ down the road.

[jay]

 

They could have just as easily made a similar deal next year at this time with a whole lot more information and with little downside.

 

No, they couldn't.  If Dozier puts up a third straight season like he has, tack on another handful of millions if you're hoping for the same end date. 

 

And, take a look for good comparables that waited until they reached arb to sign an extension solely through arb.  Good luck.  The value for the player in offering a discount evaporates...

[amjgt]

 

It's too bad they couldn't tack on an option year at 12-15M but it's hard not to like this from the Twins side.  It's also much, much less than people were predicting for his arb years.

 

If we turn down an option year, does that remove the opportunity for us to get draft pick compensation should he leave in free agency?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If we turn down an option year, does that remove the opportunity for us to get draft pick compensation should he leave in free agency?

The only way to get draft pick compensation is to offer a player a ~$15m qualifying offer (the number varies slightly by year, it's an average of top-paid players) and have them turn it down.

[nicksaviking]

 

If we turn down an option year, does that remove the opportunity for us to get draft pick compensation should he leave in free agency?

 

Technically they still could I believe but it wouldn't make any sense if the option was $12-15M considering the going QO rate at this time is already higher than $15M.  So basically the Twins would turn down that $15M option, then go ahead and offer him a $16M QO, which would clearly be a sham aimed at getting that comp pick.

[jimmer]

 

Oh, for sure. I wouldn't rule out a trade by any means, just pointing out that it probably didn't even enter the Twins' thought process when signing the deal.

If it didn't, I would be disappointed. Not that I want him gone, because I don't, but that they didn't consider how well they had set up a trade situation if they wanted to pursue it.  

 

I have pretty much zero doubt he'll be well worth what he gets in the next four years.

[amjgt]

 

The only way to get draft pick compensation is to offer a player ~$15m for a single season contract (the number varies slightly by year, it's an average of top-paid players) and have them turn it down.

 

Right, but can will still make that $15M offer if we turn down an option year?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Technically they still could I believe but it wouldn't make any sense if the option was $12-15M considering the going QO rate at this time is already higher than $15M.  So basically the Twins would turn down that $15M option, then go ahead and offer him a $16M QO, which would clearly be a sham aimed at getting that comp pick.

Not to mention that it wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense. Pretty much every team option comes with a $1-2m decline cost, which the team has to eat... And there's no reason to decline an option if you actually want the player. If the player is good enough to decline a ~$15m qualifying offer because he's going to get more on the open market, you want that player on your team.

[amjgt]

 

Technically they still could I believe but it wouldn't make any sense if the option was $12-15M considering the going QO rate at this time is already higher than $15M.  So basically the Twins would turn down that $15M option, then go ahead and offer him a $16M QO, which would clearly be a sham aimed at getting that comp pick.

 

I think it would be obvious what we are doing, but also smart, and hardy a sham.

 

This is all moot, in this case, because there isn't an option year, I was just trying to understand the system more clearly.

 

For the sake of argument, if you couldn't do a QO if you turn down an option, that would be a very good reason not to offer a (team) option year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If it didn't, I would be disappointed. Not that I want him gone, because I don't, but that they didn't consider how well they had set up a trade situation if they wanted to pursue it.  

 

I have pretty much zero doubt he'll be well worth what he gets in the next four years.

I don't really think that tradability should enter contract negotiations unless a no-trade clause is on the table. The cleaner one can keep discussions and negotiations, the better. Player A is worth X Dollars to play for our team. Negotiate from that point... If you're worried about tradability, you should have other, more serious, doubts about offering the contract in the first place.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think it would be obvious what we are doing, but also smart, and hardy a sham.

No, it's not really very smart. If a player is so good that he can afford to turn down a qualifying offer, you want that player on your team for the option price every time, if only to trade him early in the season (which will net you more of a sure thing than a comp pick).

[jimmer]

 

I don't really think that tradability should enter contract negotiations unless a no-trade clause is on the table. The cleaner one can keep discussions and negotiations, the better. Player A is worth X Dollars to play for our team. Negotiate from that point... If you're worried about tradability, you should have other, more serious, doubts about offering the contract in the first place.

I hope a GM considers all the players as assets from a business standpoint.  Right offer comes along, you have to seriously consider it even if you never really planed to trade the guy to begin with.  Contracts like that will likely see offers coming if he keeps perfroming the way he is.  He'd be a low cost guy producing at a high rate and worth a good return.

[markos]

 

For instance, Pirates second baseman Neil Walker, who had similar production to that of Dozier last year, is making $8M in his second year of arbitration - and he lost his case. compare that to the $6M that Dozier is now guaranteed.

Walker made $8M in his third (not second) season of arbitration (he was a super-two player).

[Brock Beauchamp]

I hope a GM considers all the players as assets from a business standpoint. Right offer comes along, you have to seriously consider it even if you never really planed to trade the guy to begin with. Contracts like that will likely see offers coming if he keeps perfroming the way he is. He'd be a low cost guy producing at a high rate and worth a good return.

My point is that if you think the player is worth that dollar amount, tradability of the contract is implied. Make a good decision on player value and the rest falls in line.

[amjgt]

 

No, it's not really very smart. If a player is so good that he can afford to turn down a qualifying offer, you want that player on your team for the option price every time, if only to trade him early in the season (which will net you more of a sure thing than a comp pick).

 

In the case of "Age 31 Brian Dozier" he might turn down your QO, not because he's worth more than the 1-year dollar value of that offer, but because he's looking for one more guaranteed payday (say 4 years, $40M).

 

And if you are the Twins, you might not pick up the option because you have other in-house options that you feel will perform near the same level at a much lower cost, but at the same time you think that he will turn down your qualifying offer because he wants a multi-year contract.

 

I get that these are all hypotheticals, but I think that's a scenario that is more likely than you are considering it to be.