Should/Will Twins re-sign Torii Hunter?

[nytwinsfan]

Say it with me, everyone:

 

There's no such thing as a bad one year contract.

 

The Twins could have given Hunter $20m this season and I wouldn't have cared. Overpaying stopgap players is a non-issue. The entire point of signing a stopgap player is that you WANT them to go away after a season or two. If it costs a couple extra million to sign that player so you don't have to deal with the back 1-2 years of a Nolasco-esque contract, that's a GOOD thing.

 

Hunter helped the Twins this season. Yay! The Twins no longer need OF help for 2016 so Hunter leaves. Yay!

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more. One-year contracts can never be as devestating as bad multi-year contracts, but they can always take away from more valuable acquisitions and limit playing time for internal options who might turn out to be good.

[DaveW]

Agreed, stauffer for instance was a bad one year contract, as was Bartlett and Kubel.

 

I'm not sure hunters is "bad" just closer to "meh" then "good"

 

As far as the topic at hand, the only way I would even think to bring him back is to be a bench bat/platoon guy with Arica. And that's only if Plouffe or someone else is traded in the meantime.

 

IMO he should retire, it would suck to see him struggle for a full season.

[Eris]

 

Hunter it's not a good player any more. How is that even debatable right now?

 

That part is correct.  Depending on which defensive metrics that are used hunter is the 7th (UZR/150) or 11th (DRS) ranked outfielder on the Twins.  He should not be taking future playing time away from Buxton or Kepler or maybe even Shane Robinson.

 

There is a different part of this discussion which is about the importance of values and leadership in an organization.  From this perspective, Hunter has brought value to the Twins.  There are many examples in baseball of acquisitions made based on character and leadership.  Examples include Don Baylor, Raul Ibanez and Jim Thome.

 

Mariano Riveria indicated that he would take the hard working Pedroia over the the very talented but lackadaisical Robinson Cano on his team.(http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/10889846/mariano-rivera-dustin-pedroia-preferable-second-base-robinson-cano).  The Yankees made little effort to sign Cano as free agent.

 

Hunter has value as a leader for the Twins.  I would like to see this contribution continue preferably as a coach.  Would I trade Max Kepler to make room for Tori Hunter on the roster?  Absolutely not.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more. One-year contracts can never be as devestating as bad multi-year contracts, but they can always take away from more valuable acquisitions and limit playing time for internal options who might turn out to be good.

The Twins played that game two seasons in a row to devastatingly bad results.

 

In April of 2015, Torii was the only Twins OF who was guaranteed at least replacement level play over a full season (Arcia couldn't and can't stay on the field).

 

Signing a one year player as a bridge to Rosario, Hicks, Arcia, and Buxton wasn't only the prudent move, Ryan should have been run out of town if he started 2015 with an incomplete outfield for the third consecutive season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed, stauffer for instance was a bad one year contract, as was Bartlett and Kubel.

I'm not sure hunters is "bad" just closer to "meh" then "good"

As far as the topic at hand, the only way I would even think to bring him back is to be a bench bat/platoon guy with Arica. And that's only if Plouffe or someone else is traded in the meantime.

IMO he should retire, it would suck to see him struggle for a full season.

Stauffer's contract was bad because it let Ryan off the hook to go find another reliever.

 

Tim Stauffer pitched 15.0 innings for the 2015 Twins. Had Ryan picked up another reliever who wasn't Blaine Boyer, Stauffer would have been a footnote on the season. Pitched a few innings, was released and we all forget he was ever on the team.

 

Teams shouldn't hesitate to waive a one-year player, which is why a one-year deal shouldn't ever hurt a team to the extent we complain about it.

[nytwinsfan]

 

The Twins played that game two seasons in a row to devastatingly bad results.

 

In April of 2015, Torii was the only Twins OF who was guaranteed at least replacement level play over a full season (Arcia couldn't and can't stay on the field).

 

Signing a one year player as a bridge to Rosario, Hicks, Arcia, and Buxton wasn't only the prudent move, Ryan should have been run out of town if he started 2015 with an incomplete outfield for the third consecutive season.

Ok, well this thread was about signing Hunter next year, not this past year. And your comment literally said there is no such thing as a bad one-year contract, not that some one-year contracts are good, or this past year's contract with Hunter was good (or even just not bad). Next year, a one-year signing of Hunter would be "bad."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Ok, well this thread was about signing Hunter next year, not this past year. And your comment literally said there is no such thing as a bad one-year contract, not that some one-year contracts are good, or this past year's contract with Hunter was good (or even just not bad). Next year, a one-year signing of Hunter would be "bad."

It depends on what they planned to do with Hunter.

 

If they sign him and hand him a starter role, that's facepalm-worthy.

 

If they sign him and give him the fourth OF spot so he can work with Buxton next season, I can live with that. I'm not sure I'd like it but I could live with it.

 

The thing about "there's no such thing as a bad one-year deal" is that it implies sanity from the signing team. Yes, it's possible to sign a bad one-year deal. For example, giving Barry Bonds $50m and putting him at SS. That's a bad deal because it's completely insane.

 

But a normal one-year deal? Nah, those aren't bad because the signing team shouldn't hesitate to jettison the player if things go wrong.

[nytwinsfan]

 

It depends on what they planned to do with Hunter.

 

If they sign him and hand him a starter role, that's facepalm-worthy.

 

If they sign him and give him the fourth OF spot so he can work with Buxton next season, I can live with that. I'm not sure I'd like it but I could live with it.

 

The thing about "there's no such thing as a bad one-year deal" is that it implies sanity from the signing team. Yes, it's possible to sign a bad one-year deal. For example, giving Barry Bonds $50m and putting him at SS. That's a bad deal because it's completely insane.

 

But a normal one-year deal? Nah, those aren't bad because the signing team shouldn't hesitate to jettison the player if things go wrong.

I don't think it is worth taking up a roster spot next season (nor $5-10 million, but that actually matters less to me) for Hunter to play mentor to Buxton. If they could bring back Hunter as a coach, even if he cost $2-5 million, then fine. But we need that roster spot for people like Kepler, Polanco, Vargas, Arcia, or Santana.  Good grief. That would be a BAD one-year contract, although to be fair to your point, I think that it would also be insane for them to do that.

[DocBauer]

Unless it is agreed on in advance that Torii won't be an everyday player, it just doesn't make sense to keep him around next year. Unless there is a trade, there will be five outfield options for the three positions--Arcia, Buxton, Hicks, Kepler, and Rosario. The oldest of these guys is Hicks and he's 25. There could be some DH time, but the Twins already have Sano/Plouffe/Mauer for the infield corners and DH. I imagine Kepler could benefit from playing some AAA and perhaps Buxton, too, but by midseason or earlier, all of those guy should be getting big league at-bats.

 

Hunter has been of some value on the field this year and he probably helped the club in the clubhouse. I just don't see signing Hunter for another year, taking away at-bats from the future.

I think this kind of nails it.

 

Hunter HAS HELPED the offense this season, though he has been slumping as of late. I truly believe Hunter HAS HELPED the clubhouse and the young players around him. No secret wisdom or formula, he's just a highly successful, former all-star player who has shown the kids you can work hard, need to work hard, here is another example of how to do it...but, has also stressed to them to have fun when you play, and relax. I think it's an important message, and not only a little different than the ones they get from the coaches, but also from a different source. You know, the extra voice theory.

 

Yes they overpaid. But don't dismiss his contributions to the team.

 

Back? He's been slumping, as stated. The daily lineup has been phasing him out. I think this speaks volumes as to what will happen. Were he LH I could see it as a PH, occassional DH, and someone who could play a spot a day a week if necessary without spiking himself. I think there's room and need on next year's club for "that guy" whoever he may be.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't think it is worth taking up a roster spot next season (nor $5-10 million, but that actually matters less to me) for Hunter to play mentor to Buxton. If they could bring back Hunter as a coach, even if he cost $2-5 million, then fine. But we need that roster spot for people like Kepler, Polanco, Vargas, Arcia, or Santana. Good grief. That would be a BAD one-year contract, although to be fair to your point, I think that it would also be insane for them to do that.

I agree that it's a bad idea but only because of Arcia. The rest of those guys don't play OF and/or should play every day. The Twins shouldn't - and probably won't - call up Max Kepler so he can get 200 sporadic PAs in 2016. If a guy gets injured, then you call up Max and let him play everyday. The fourth OF role shouldn't be handed to a guy with his upside.

[nytwinsfan]

 

I agree that it's a bad idea but only because of Arcia. The rest of those guys don't play OF and/or should play every day. The Twins shouldn't - and probably won't - call up Max Kepler so he can get 200 sporadic PAs in 2016. If a guy gets injured, then you call up Max and let him play everyday. The fourth OF role shouldn't be handed to a guy with his upside.

Arcia is a mess right now. It isn't just a small slump. Sorry, but it isn't. I'm not ready to give up on him, but the idea that he is closer to contributing to this team than Kepler right now is absolutely insane. And if and when Arcia is ready to contribute, it will be as DH, not OF. There is no reason for him to ever play OF for the Twins again, except in an emergency.  I know you disagree with this, but that's my strong belief. I also think the Twins FO mostly sees it the same way I do, thankfully.

 

I do mostly agree that Kepler should be playing every day, or almost every day, but I think a 4 man outfield with Hicks sitting against the best RHP and Kepler/Rosario sitting against the best LHP, and/or Kepler getting 1 or 2 starts a week at DH/1B would work great. I acknowledge that unlike the above, the FO probably isn't with me on this, since they really don't like platooning. It is a shame however. Because what ends up happening is Hicks flailing against RHP like Kluber or Escobar or Nunez starting at DH. Neither of those things should ever be happening, and if that means Kepler, Rosario, and Hicks have to sit once a week, and that slightly slows their development for a year or part of a year, I think it is far more than worth it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Arcia is a mess right now. It isn't just a small slump. Sorry, but it isn't. I'm not ready to give up on him, but the idea that he is closer to contributing to this team than Kepler right now is absolutely insane. And if and when Arcia is ready to contribute, it will be as DH, not OF. There is no reason for him to ever play OF for the Twins again, except in an emergency.  I know you disagree with this, but that's my strong belief. I also think the Twins FO mostly sees it the same way I do, thankfully.

 

I do mostly agree that Kepler should be playing every day, or almost every day, but I think a 4 man outfield with Hicks sitting against the best RHP and Kepler/Rosario sitting against the best LHP, and/or Kepler getting 1 or 2 starts a week at DH/1B would work great. I acknowledge that unlike the above, the FO probably isn't with me on this, since they really don't like platooning. It is a shame however. Because what ends up happening is Hicks flailing against RHP like Kluber or Escobar or Nunez starting at DH. Neither of those things should ever be happening, and if that means Kepler, Rosario, and Hicks have to sit once a week, and that slightly slows their development for a year or part of a year, I think it is far more than worth it.

It boils down to strategy. I think Arcia's struggles are worrisome but the reality of the situation is that he has well over a season of MLB PAs and is a slightly above league average hitter. He's still just 24 years old.

 

If I ran the Twins, I'd look into moving Hicks, Rosario, or Kepler this offseason in an attempt to shore up the SS or C position. Whoever brings the best return gets traded.

 

If a trade doesn't happen, the reason I'd replace Hunter with Arcia is because he's not as good a prospect as Kepler. The Twins should be less concerned with Arcia's development than they are Kepler... Which is why Max should play every day in Rochester if need be and why Oswaldo can ride the pine with the Minnesota squad.

[Kwak]

 

Say it with me, everyone:

There's no such thing as a bad one year contract.

The Twins could have given Hunter $20m this season and I wouldn't have cared. Overpaying stopgap players is a non-issue. The entire point of signing a stopgap player is that you WANT them to go away after a season or two. If it costs a couple extra million to sign that player so you don't have to deal with the back 1-2 years of a Nolasco-esque contract, that's a GOOD thing.

Hunter helped the Twins this season. Yay! The Twins no longer need OF help for 2016 so Hunter leaves. Yay!

Strongly disagree.  Money isn't unlimited.  Example:  Hunter is signed for a far more typical $5MM.    The "savings" would have been used elsewhere--like the bullpen, perhaps a back-up catcher (likely both!).

Or, last year--with Morales.  They 'shot' their mid-season budget on him--and are still bandaging their foot.  Maybe the present does "like" Hunter--but some one-year contracts go to people that are destructive, especially if the largesse of his contract is part of the problem.  Blanket statements like "no such thing..." are to be avoided.

[Jham]

If the Twins don't trade high on Hicks, Rosario, Kepler, or even Buxton we've really missed the boat.  You don't sign Hunter to replace or hold back Buxton, Arcia, etc. etc..  You sign him to replace Shane Robinson.  A poster seriously suggested that Robinson is a better player than Hunter.  Shane Robinson.  This is getting pretty out of hand.  

 

Hunter would be by far better than any bench option we could have had this year including Arcia and Vargas.  Hunter is also a significantly better, more experienced, and more intangibled player than Shane Robinson.  I know, there's no measurable for intangibles.  Worst case scenario, Hunter has to start for awhile until we get a better option in.  We've pretty much learned he can be good in stretches, but he's 40 and he wears down.  

 

If we rolled with Buxton, Hicks/Arcia, and Hunter in right for 2 months until Kepler was ready, I'd be cool with that.  If we flip Rosario for a catcher, I'd be all in on that too.  If we let Hunter retire a Royal while Shane Robinson dujor remains our bench buy...  I'm not sure I'm cool with that.  And I've defended Robinson pretty staunchly this year.

 

 

[SwainZag]

 

If the Twins don't trade high on Hicks, Rosario, Kepler, or even Buxton we've really missed the boat.  You don't sign Hunter to replace or hold back Buxton, Arcia, etc. etc..  You sign him to replace Shane Robinson.  A poster seriously suggested that Robinson is a better player than Hunter.  Shane Robinson.  This is getting pretty out of hand.  

 

Hunter would be by far better than any bench option we could have had this year including Arcia and Vargas.  Hunter is also a significantly better, more experienced, and more intangibled player than Shane Robinson.  I know, there's no measurable for intangibles.  Worst case scenario, Hunter has to start for awhile until we get a better option in.  We've pretty much learned he can be good in stretches, but he's 40 and he wears down.  

 

If we rolled with Buxton, Hicks/Arcia, and Hunter in right for 2 months until Kepler was ready, I'd be cool with that.  If we flip Rosario for a catcher, I'd be all in on that too.  If we let Hunter retire a Royal while Shane Robinson dujor remains our bench buy...  I'm not sure I'm cool with that.  And I've defended Robinson pretty staunchly this year.

 

I really don't see how NOT trading young depth is missing the boat.  Hicks is finally starting to look like a MLB player, Rosario has shown glimpses as a rookie but nothing over whelming.  Meanwhile Buxton has played in 11 games and Kepler has 0 AB above AA ball.  With Arcia struggling in the minors, unless you are completely blown away from an offer than fills other holes, it seems like a mistake to deal from the group.  

 

My view on Hunter is......the Twins OF didn't look good coming into the season and an extra bat was needed.  He helped the team early on, but lately has really shown his age. At this point, I don't see how you give him another year the way he has played.

[kab21]

 

The Arcia thing is not just about playing ability. His numbers were not that bad this year, and then he got hurt. First they jerked him out of RF. was he good there, no. But why would anyone think moving him around would help, and his arm plays better there than Hunters. There is something else going on. He went down for re-hab, and then suddenly it was announced that re-hab does not include a ticket back? That was a new and relatively player specific program it seems. Even when he hit, he did not come back. I would not be at all surprised if he figures that this year is lost. Next year he is either in MN, or somewhere else. It ain't gonna be Rochester, and he knows that.

I don't understand the angst.  Arcia lost his starting spot to Rosario.  He wasn't doing that great before his injury and then demotion and another player was outplaying him.  It had nothing to do with Hunter. 

 

Hunter had a role on this year's team but is less necessary next season with Rosario and Hicks claiming starting roles and Buxton and Kepler in AAA pushing for MLB roster spots.  Next year's situation is completely different than last year's when Hunter was needed.

[Jham]

 

I really don't see how NOT trading young depth is missing the boat.  Hicks is finally starting to look like a MLB player, Rosario has shown glimpses as a rookie but nothing over whelming.  Meanwhile Buxton has played in 11 games and Kepler has 0 AB above AA ball.  With Arcia struggling in the minors, unless you are completely blown away from an offer than fills other holes, it seems like a mistake to deal from the group.  

 

My view on Hunter is......the Twins OF didn't look good coming into the season and an extra bat was needed.  He helped the team early on, but lately has really shown his age. At this point, I don't see how you give him another year the way he has played.

 

I'll explain my side.  We have not only depth, but young depth in the outfield.  We have no depth at catcher.  We might not even have a suitable starter at C or SS, and still need an ace.  

 

If you have a better way of improving the roster, I'm all ears.  Where we currently stand, and where I think we should go next season, I'm more interested in improving the 25 man vs. the 40 man.  I'm more interested in making a deep playoff run vs. stockpiling guys of similar value. Kepler has had one tremendous year in AA.  He seems to get it as a hitter, and isn't simply "toolsie" like Joe Benson was.  Rosario, Hicks, Arcia have all shown real ability in stretches.  I'm not sure if any shined the way Santana did last year.  The team can't afford to take a step backward next year like Santana did this year.  I think we can sign depth (like Hunter) cheaper and with less commitment than we can sign an upgrade at  catcher, shortstop, or top of the rotation. 

 

 

[drjim]

 

Strongly disagree.  Money isn't unlimited.  Example:  Hunter is signed for a far more typical $5MM.    The "savings" would have been used elsewhere--like the bullpen, perhaps a back-up catcher (likely both!).

Or, last year--with Morales.  They 'shot' their mid-season budget on him--and are still bandaging their foot.  Maybe the present does "like" Hunter--but some one-year contracts go to people that are destructive, especially if the largesse of his contract is part of the problem.  Blanket statements like "no such thing..." are to be avoided.

 

I'm not sure the extra $5 mil is what prevented them from getting a backup catcher or additional bullpen guy. More of a difficulty in getting a guy at that price for one year that is worth it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think Hunter as a backup in 2016 is a bad idea, simply because he can't play CF (nor does he have experience in LF) so you'd need a 5th outfielder too.  So that's two guys where you only really need one, essentially doubling the number of "stay fresh" starts they'd be poaching from regulars (at minimum -- I am sure Hunter would take some starts at DH too, and probably more than a regular backup in RF as well).

 

Not that I think he'd agree to a backup role, or that we'd attempt to use him that way, but he wouldn't be a good fit for it regardless.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm not sure the extra $5 mil is what prevented them from getting a backup catcher or additional bullpen guy. More of a difficulty in getting a guy at that price for one year that is worth it.

True, but maybe $5-10 mil committed to Hunter is helping dictate the one-year contract limitation for bullpen guys.  We just gave up prospects to acquire Jepsen at 1.3/6 or so.  I could see a Neshek at 2/12 type being more palatable to this FO with a little short-term cash freed up.

 

In any case, re-signing Hunter in 2016 is a terrible idea for many more reasons than just cash.

[drjim]

 

True, but maybe $5-10 mil committed to Hunter is helping dictate the one-year contract limitation for bullpen guys.  We just gave up prospects to acquire Jepsen at 1.3/6 or so.  I could see a Neshek at 2/12 type being more palatable to this FO with a little short-term cash freed up.

 

In any case, re-signing Hunter in 2016 is a terrible idea for many more reasons than just cash.

 

I think in general they just don't spend on multiyear deals for fa relievers for reasons beyond straight cash.

 

Whether or they bring back Hunter, they are going to spend something on a one year deal for a veteran OF, or perhaps they just keep Robinson.

[Wookiee of the Year]

 

I think Hunter as a backup in 2016 is a bad idea, simply because he can't play CF (nor does he have experience in LF) so you'd need a 5th outfielder too.  So that's two guys where you only really need one, essentially doubling the number of "stay fresh" starts they'd be poaching from regulars (at minimum -- I am sure Hunter would take some starts at DH too, and probably more than a regular backup in RF as well).

 

Not that I think he'd agree to a backup role, or that we'd attempt to use him that way, but he wouldn't be a good fit for it regardless.

Actually, though, that's one of the positives about our likely 2016 outfield--we probably don't need a 4th outfielder who can man CF, because all three starting outfielders will be capable (Buxton, Rosario, Hicks). In that case, I'd actually prefer a bat-first corner guy as our fourth outfielder.

 

Of course, at this point, I don't think we can call Hunter a bat-first guy. I don't know that he offers enough value to even fill that backup role, unless the front office and coaching staff is convinced his drop-off in production is related to overuse, and that he'd look siginficantly better in a reduced role. The safest decision is to look elsewhere.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Actually, though, that's one of the positives about our likely 2016 outfield--we probably don't need a 4th outfielder who can man CF, because all three starting outfielders will be capable (Buxton, Rosario, Hicks). In that case, I'd actually prefer a bat-first corner guy as our fourth outfielder.

 

Of course, at this point, I don't think we can call Hunter a bat-first guy. I don't know that he offers enough value to even fill that backup role, unless the front office and coaching staff is convinced his drop-off in production is related to overuse, and that he'd look siginficantly better in a reduced role. The safest decision is to look elsewhere.

Agreed on both counts.

[stringer bell]

Face it, Torii will want to play if he re-signs. I think it would be good to have someone who is a platoon partner or in Hicks' case, someone to take at-bats from his weaker side. That would be a left handed hitter and hey! Oswaldo Arcia will be out of options. As stated above, there really shouldn't be a need for a glove-first three position outfielder.

 

I think Arcia should be penciled in as a fourth outfielder option. That doesn't leave anything for Hunter. In another thread, I speculated the Twins could look at Lonnie Chisenhall if he's non-tendered because he is earning some stripes as a right fielder and would offer a back-up option for Sano, if Plouffe is traded.

[blindeke]

Kepler + Buxton = No they will not.