Twins tried to extend Rosario, Kepler, Berrios and maybe Buxton

[gunnarthor]

 

Perfectly negative thread - thanx,    

Sorry. I try to keep the positive around here.

[gunnarthor]

 

Why wouldn't lifetime security, more money than you can reasonably spend in a lifetime, be relevant??? Why do you suppose Dozier signed his last contract?? He got lifetime security, in case he was injured. Now any contract that he signs is gravy, taking care of future generations.  Any of these young guys can do the same and STILL become free agents again before they are 30.

Well, Buxton has already made something like 6.6m and that's not counting his endorsement deals with Under Armor and Rawlings. Now obviously taxes and agent fees took out a good chunk of that but hopefully he and his family are safe with money. So Buxton will make just under 600k this year and next year he'll see his first arb raise which will give him seven figures. So he doesn't really have a reason to sign away free agent years unless the Twins are giving him a really solid deal. Same with the others. 

[Twins33]

Why would you have to take Wolfson with a grain of salt? I've always liked him and he usually seems to be in the know...

Hes wrong a lot. Like a whole freaking lot. He misreported a Darvish offer this offseason as well.

 

I don't mind the guy personally, but definitely is wrong a lot. Obviously just because something doesn't happen, doesn't mean he made it up. That's not what I'm saying, but he reminds me of people who throw out FA names and trades like he's a blogger and is just hoping something sticks.

[jorgenswest]

The Twins can afford to pay in arbitration for their performance. The real value is buying a few extra years of control. The players will hit free agency before 30. Players would be wise not to give up those years of control. It is a tough negotiation. Are there any comps in the last year of players under 25 signing long term deals where they pushed back free agency?

[Twins33]

The Twins can afford to pay in arbitration for their performance. The real value is buying a few extra years of control. The players will hit free agency before 30. Players would be wise not to give up those years of control. It is a tough negotiation. Are there any comps in the last year of players under 25 signing long term deals where they pushed back free agency?

Here are the young players who extended and gave up some FA years. Some of these players may have been 25 when signed, but I think most were under. Ignoring the "comps" part of the question and a few of them may be 2016.

 

Kolten Wong: 5/25.5 bought out 2 FA years (one as an option year)

Gregory Polanco 5/35 but could reach 7/60 with performance (would be 1 FA year)

Odubel Herrera 5/30.5 and 2 club options (would be 3 FA years)

Jose Ramirez 4/26 which could turn into 6/50 (1-3 FA years)

Rougned Odor 6/49.5 plus option (2-3 FA years)

Paul DeJong 6/26 (2 FA years)

Scott Kingery (made his MLB debut this year) just got 6/24 (if options used: 3 FA years)

Ketel Marte 5/24 which could become 7/46 (I think 2 FA years if options used)

 

Eugenio Suarez was 26 but he just got 7/66 and I think the Reds get 4-5 FA years

 

Wil Myers was 26 but he got 6/83 plus option year (3 FA years that can turn into 4)

 

Carlos Martinez was 25 and got 5/51 with options. Gives them 2 FA years. Largest deal ever for an arb1 pitcher.

 

That might be all. So seems pretty common to give up approximately 2 FA years.

[bobs]

Don't fret anyone.  This was just the opening tip, the first pitch, the opening kickoff, the first serve.....

[Bill Brown69]

I am glad they tried. If it were my money I may have tried harder but it isn't. I would love it if they would make Kepler and Jose a 10 year/ 100mil offer. For me I would flat line it. In 10 years either player at 10 mil will look extremely team friendly. Rosario? I am not sure he isn't worth more. No way Buck or Sano sign for only 100 mil on a 10 year deal.

[Mike Sixel]

Did they really try if hte offers were laughable?

[yarnivek1972]

Really, what kind of offers had any of them earned after last year?

 

Even at this point, there are an awful lot of questions about all of them.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd rather they take a shot at extending Escobar right now.

[jkcarew]

Futile to speculate on every little instance of negotiation...which is all this is.  There will be dozens of more "tries" with this group before a deal is done or a door is closed.  Player's (agent's) expectations out of the box probably just as "laughable" or "player friendly".  Tweeting for the sake of tweeting, by people who need to tweet.

[Charleo]

 

I am glad they tried. If it were my money I may have tried harder but it isn't. I would love it if they would make Kepler and Jose a 10 year/ 100mil offer. For me I would flat line it. In 10 years either player at 10 mil will look extremely team friendly. Rosario? I am not sure he isn't worth more. No way Buck or Sano sign for only 100 mil on a 10 year deal.

10yrs/$100??  Kepler doesn't deserve it and he would STILL be crazy to accept it.   Berrios would be insane to take it.  $10M a year gets you very little these days player-wise.  No player in the their right mind would lock themselves in through their early 30's at $10M per year with the way salaries are rising (Maybe a role player, but no one would offer that).  We just gave a reliever nearly $10M per year in 2018 dollars.  $10M in 10 years will be bench player money (exaggerating, but you get the idea).

[USAFChief]

 

10yrs/$100??  Kepler doesn't deserve it and he would STILL be crazy to accept it.   Berrios would be insane to take it.  $10M a year gets you very little these days player-wise.  No player in the their right mind would lock themselves in through their early 30's at $10M per year with the way salaries are rising (Maybe a role player, but no one would offer that).  We just gave a reliever nearly $10M per year in 2018 dollars.  $10M in 10 years will be bench player money (exaggerating, but you get the idea).

I think Kepler jumps at that.

 

It's $100M.  Truly "set for life."  

 

Few players earn that kind of money in their MLB career.  Very few.  And that includes players who started their career rated higher than Kepler, and who started their MLB career with better production.

 

There's a very small chance Kepler earns more than $100M in his career, IMO. 

 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

I think Kepler jumps at that.

 

It's $100M.  Truly "set for life."  

 

Few players earn that kind of money in their MLB career.  Very few.  And that includes players who started their career rated higher than Kepler, and who started their MLB career with better production.

 

There's a very small chance Kepler earns more than $100M in his career, IMO. 

Well, he's made about a million after this year and he's super two so he'll get four years of arbitration awards. So, conservatively, without committing to the Twins, he'll make 2, 5, 8, 10 in those four years. So he'll have 25m or so regardless and be a free agent for his age 30 season. If he's a solid starter at that point in his career, he could certainly hope to make another 75m in the next six years without committing now. Taking that deal now would mean he'd take 12.5m/yr for the last six years of his contract. I think he'd pass. But honestly, maybe they aren't that far away at that point. It's a big gamble for the team too. 

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

Well, he's made about a million after this year and he's super two so he'll get four years of arbitration awards. So, conservatively, without committing to the Twins, he'll make 2, 5, 8, 10 in those four years. So he'll have 25m or so regardless and be a free agent for his age 30 season. If he's a solid starter at that point in his career, he could certainly hope to make another 75m in the next six years without committing now. Taking that deal now would mean he'd take 12.5m/yr for the last six years of his contract. I think he'd pass. But honestly, maybe they aren't that far away at that point. It's a big gamble for the team too. 

All of which ignores the real possibility he gets injured, and/or washes out of the league, or never manages to hold onto a starting job.

 

Again...how many players in the history of the game have a 10 year career with consistently escalating salaries?  A very small percentage.

[yarnivek1972]

Well, he's made about a million after this year and he's super two so he'll get four years of arbitration awards. So, conservatively, without committing to the Twins, he'll make 2, 5, 8, 10 in those four years. So he'll have 25m or so regardless and be a free agent for his age 30 season. If he's a solid starter at that point in his career, he could certainly hope to make another 75m in the next six years without committing now. Taking that deal now would mean he'd take 12.5m/yr for the last six years of his contract. I think he'd pass. But honestly, maybe they aren't that far away at that point. It's a big gamble for the team too.

Or, he could never figure out lhp and be a role player in an era when role players are nearly extinct.

[drivlikejehu]

This doesn't worry me given the uncertainty surrounding all of these guys. Risk has to be priced into the offer but it's understandable that the players want to bet on themselves. As they gain some more experience, their value will increasingly come into focus, and negotiations will be easier.

 

In some cases, that clarity will raise the price, in other cases the Twins won't even be interested anymore. But the Twins have no long-term commitments on the books and can afford to pay a little more later rather than take on all the risk now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is complete speculation but I wonder if Dozier's "clubhouse leadership" influenced players rejecting the offers.

 

After all, Brian is known for betting on himself. He did it very successfully back in the day.

 

Of course, it's also possible that the front office simply lowballed everybody. It seems a bit weird that no one took the bait and started negotiations, though... If someone says "I'll give you $30m" and you want $60m, why don't you say "well, up that to $45m and we'll talk"?

 

When it comes to guaranteed money, it seems odd to walk away from the table before even making a counter offer, which is the gist I got from this conversation.

[Jham]

League seems to be following a bell curve. A steep one. The dark side of metrics. Players that move the needle are rare. Elite players are truly rare. Pay like heck for super stars, pay almost nothing for guys near the center of the curve because if they don't take the money, someone else will. Thus the most important commodities in baseball are super stars and prospects. The players in between are just filler.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

League seems to be following a bell curve. A steep one. The dark side of metrics. Players that move the needle are rare. Elite players are truly rare. Pay like heck for super stars, pay almost nothing for guys near the center of the curve because if they don't take the money, someone else will. Thus the most important commodities in baseball are super stars and prospects. The players in between are just filler.

I think basing the future free agent market based on a single offseason where the big players stepped out for obvious financial concerns is a mistake.

 

Maybe baseball regulates itself next offseason and we don't see the absurd contracts we saw in the past but I think it's naive to expect to get a Lance Lynn for $12m or a Logan Morrison for $6.5m every offseason just because they're in the meat of the bell curve.

 

If that happened, that'd be the greatest market inefficiency I've seen in the past couple of decades, even more than Moneyball. You can buy a win for $4-6m at your weakest positions on the roster basically at will, rounding out a bad team into a decent team or a good team into a great team. That's a ridiculous value and surely all 30 teams would realize it and drive up the price of those middling free agents.

[Blackjack]

 

I think the assumption here is that these offers were not as player-friendly as the Dozier deal (i.e. they tacked on a bunch of team option years). Dozier himself probably did decline such a proposal before they eventually came to terms on his deal.

Does anybody really know? Have any numbers been published?

 

My assumption is that these players want to be mega-millionaires, not just multi-millionaires.

[RaoulDuke]

This is maybe a side track but who is the most likely of the young core to be gone? 

 

It seems to me its Sano, this off season aside (nothing came of it), he strikes me as the biggest risk because of his agency/ personality.  

 

Its a good move to lock any of them up, the whole young core coming up for paydays at relatively the same time is going to be very interesting to watch. 

[Jham]

I think basing the future free agent market based on a single offseason where the big players stepped out for obvious financial concerns is a mistake.

 

Maybe baseball regulates itself next offseason and we don't see the absurd contracts we saw in the past but I think it's naive to expect to get a Lance Lynn for $12m or a Logan Morrison for $6.5m every offseason just because they're in the meat of the bell curve.

 

If that happened, that'd be the greatest market inefficiency I've seen in the past couple of decades, even more than Moneyball. You can buy a win for $4-6m at your weakest positions on the roster basically at will, rounding out a bad team into a decent team or a good team into a great team. That's a ridiculous value and surely all 30 teams would realize it and drive up the price of those middling free agents.

Of course, the market always swings like a pendulum. Traditional money ball only works if you're the only using out. The thought of exploiting market inefficiencies still remains viable, however. If the pendulum swings too far toward stars and prospects, then the ability to build a good team through signing really good players becomes easier and the demand for bell curve players will go back up.

 

But the current landscape suggests that the inefficiency is on the fringes by design, intentionally or unintentionally. Prospects are absurdly valuable because rookie deals are so team friendly. Twins fans witnessed this last August when we shipped Jaime Garcia plus $4.5 million (3/4 of a Morrison) to the team that knocked us out of the playoffs for a B prospect.

 

The market for supper stats creates competition which should help efficiency except that only a few teams really participate.

 

But the biggest factors are luxury tax and roster size. Every team is limited to 25 major leaguers. Every team must have a payroll under $200 mil or be penalized. Teams consistently above the threshold benefit from longer contracts which spreads the amount of tax over a larger window vs teams who would either receive no discount or perhaps even be forced to pay in.

 

If i were a gm, I'd save cash and horde prospects. Then break the bank for 1 or 2 stars. I'd front load the contracts and pay the luxury tax thought away. (First time offenders get a low rate. Get back under, and the escalators reset). I'd also have all relievers waive their right to refuse assignment. Thusly we'd be able to effectively roster a couple additional arms. Thus we take advantage of the market inefficiency. Anyway, twins have never been above the threshold. So they get could have perhaps a 10% to 40% or more saving on a Bryce Harper in comparison with a team that's been consistently over.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2018/02/19/the-mysterious-case-of-mlb-icing-out-its-free-agents/

[twinfan]

You can't blame the Twins for trying. I give them that credit. It will be interesting to see what happens after this season. I would think Berrios and Buxton will be in the 10+ million range but not the others. But how much money do you really need?

[gunnarthor]

 

All of which ignores the real possibility he gets injured, and/or washes out of the league, or never manages to hold onto a starting job.

 

Again...how many players in the history of the game have a 10 year career with consistently escalating salaries?  A very small percentage.

Well, sure. Injuries can happen but the Twins have put a pretty big investment into Kepler so I think it's unlikely that they let him wash out this year, so he'll make arbitration. And realistically, it's probably not a great idea for a player to sign contracts on the basis that he might wash out.

 

Kepler's got a lot of money. He's pretty much promised a lot more without committing longterm to the Twins. He has enough of a track record where it's not likely he'll wash out. Worst case, he's the better half of a platoon with good defense and base running. He'll be a free agent after his age 29 season. I wouldn't give those seasons up yet, at least not until I see how next years market is determined.

[ashbury]

Few players earn that kind of money in their MLB career.  Very few.  And that includes players who started their career rated higher than Kepler, and who started their MLB career with better production.

b-r.com has the data on career earnings: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_salaries.shtml

 

$100M at the moment corresponds to approximately #100 of all time, or just past. (The site's salary numbers aren't as well-vetted as their batting/pitching numbers, but I don't know of a better source.)

 

Whether 100 is "few" or not probably depends on perspective.

[Mike Sixel]

We've seen this change in the NFL..... The middle class is dead. Not sure why baseball would be different

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

I'd rather they take a shot at extending Escobar right now.

With Dozier going away after this season, I believe an Escobar extension should be on their minds.

Hard to know what they're thinking.

[yarnivek1972]

I think the next time the CBA comes up roster sizes will increase.

 

It’s time.

 

Would you believe that the roster size has been 25 since 1914? Hard to imagine what they did with all those guys. Teams only needed maybe 8 pitchers all year. The 1914 Senators had 7 pitchers that appeared in more than 5 games.

 

What I think might happen is that teams will have still have 25 for any given game, but perhaps a “taxi squad” of maybe two more players that can be changed daily. Logically, those will be starting pitchers who just pitched. Service time would still be acrued on the taxi squad.

[Vanimal46]

I think the next time the CBA comes up roster sizes will increase.

 

It’s time.

 

Would you believe that the roster size has been 25 since 1914? Hard to imagine what they did with all those guys. Teams only needed maybe 8 pitchers all year. The 1914 Senators had 7 pitchers that appeared in more than 5 games.

 

What I think might happen is that teams will have still have 25 for any given game, but perhaps a “taxi squad” of maybe two more players that can be changed daily. Logically, those will be starting pitchers who just pitched. Service time would still be acrued on the taxi squad.

I agree it's overdue to expand MLB rosters. Your last sentence is what will prevent it from going through.