Article: Twins Sign 2B Jonathan Schoop

[Riverbrian]

 

It's for one year. What does this actually help with?

 

Mike,

 

What if Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal?

 

He's 27 and was surprisingly granted free agency coming off a disaster in Milwaukee.

 

If I'm his Agent.. I'd advise him to do a 1 year deal to get his production back and then work on the pay day the next off season. 

 

If Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal... would you say "I'm sorry only a two year deal is what we are offering"? 

 

 

[killertwinfan]

 

I can't wait to see what Brian Dozier ends up signing a contract for?

My thoughts exactly.  I suppose Dozier won't sign with the Twins no matter what??? I doubt he gets much more, maybe $9M??

[killertwinfan]

At this point we still do not have a starting second baseman.  IF someone is going to bat .200, I would like a glove.  Sure he is worth a trial run but how will you know at the end of spring training?  We could be rolling with Adrianza at this point.  

[Doctor Wu]

 

Oh boy! a 1 year deal.....they really know how to build for the long term!

Yeah, I can relate to the frustration. A 1 year deal certainly doesn't give the team much to plan with. But I see this more of a gap year move, waiting to see if Gordon can get it together by 2020.

[RatherBeGolfing]

Yikes at our middle infield defense between Schoop and Polanco staying at short because of this

[deanlambrecht]

Feels like with this and Torreyes we're still just bottom feeding.  I know we only need a short term solution but still, frustrating.

[Monkeypaws]

 

It's for one year. What does this actually help with?

The upcoming season?

[Moosa105]

Terrible signing and proving once again this is the same old Twins that we are used too. Absolutely no changes to the pitching or bullpen staff.

That’s what the winter meetings are for...

[Mike Sixel]

Mike,

 

What if Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal?

 

He's 27 and was surprisingly granted free agency coming off a disaster in Milwaukee.

 

If I'm his Agent.. I'd advise him to do a 1 year deal to get his production back and then work on the pay day the next off season.

 

If Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal... would you say "I'm sorry only a two year deal is what we are offering"?

Then don't sign him. This does not fix anything meaningful. Or sign him, but trade Gibson. Because they aren't doing anything meaningful.

[Riverbrian]

Then don't sign him. This does not fix anything meaningful. Or sign him, but trade Gibson. Because they aren't doing anything meaningful.

I recognize the inherent risk based on his woeful Brewers performance last year but if you are looking a player trying to repair himself and if successful... that production for a year is meaningful.

 

But if you feel different that’s ok

[Squirrel]

If Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal... would you say "I'm sorry only a two year deal is what we are offering"?

Yes. Unless you’ve already determined you aren’t going to compete and are looking for potential bounce-back players to sell at the deadline.

[Riverbrian]

Yes. Unless you’ve already determined you aren’t going to compete and are looking for potential bounce-back players to sell at the deadline.

I’m not sure I understand the importance.

 

Everything depends on a bounce back.

 

If he bounces back and the team is in contention. Thumbs up.

 

If he bounces back and the team isn’t in contention you trade him for prospects and stock the shelves. Thumbs Up.

 

If he doesn’t bounce back... you are happy it is just a one year deal. Thumbs Up.

 

What is the downside I’m missing?

[Squirrel]

I’m not sure I understand the importance.

Everything depends on a bounce back.

If he bounces back and the team is in contention. Thumbs up.

If he bounces back and the team isn’t in contention you trade him for prospects and stock the shelves. Thumbs Up.

If he doesn’t bounce back... you are happy it is just a one year deal. Thumbs Up.

What is the downside I’m missing?

They aren’t planning for the future. They aren’t getting the best out there. Didn’t the FO themselves say that last year was a mistake having too many one year contracts on the team, that it made for a very noncohesive clubhouse? It’s a ‘We’re standing pat’ kind of move. This is not improvement. When there are better options out there, that we could have for more than a year, and we’re not making those moves, speaks volumes to me. It’s half-assed, imo.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I thought I read that the FO felt that the one year veterans were not good for the team and team chemistry. One foot out the door as the season starts.....

 

I think a lot of that had to do with players being unhappy when they wanted a long term deal and signed for 1 year due to an abnormally slow FA market...

 

In this case, the player wanted a 1 year deal and seems pretty incentivized to setup his FA pay day. I don't think this concern applies here. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I actually like this signing. Given the org depth in the MI, the only long term signing I would have gotten behind is a positional flexibility guy like Marwin. This is a low risk, decent sized reward type signing. Plus, if they content, they can pick up a draft pick when he leaves if he's part of that contention... The guy posted some of the worst numbers of his career last year, and even with that, his career has been pretty decent for a 2B. I think a bounce back is a pretty realistic gamble. 

 

Now that said, this is a fine move in a vacuum. We needed help here and filled it... what happens next is what I'm more curious about. What will they to to improve pitching? I think they have to do something there.

[cmoss84]

I was getting really nervous that these would be our only moves of the off-season...

 

...but then I heard that the off-season had barely began and will extend through it's normal time period! What a relief! Maybe relief pitchers will be coming soon! More relief! 

 

Breathe people. Long off-season. Be critical and judgmental AFTER we sign (or don't sign) free agents.  

 

*To me, Cron and Schoop are nice pieces to the puzzle. Are there more to follow? I'd bet on it! Just how big they will be, we will find out!

Edited December 7, 2018 by cmoss84

[ashbury]

They aren’t planning for the future.

That doesn't seem plausible. It seems to me instead that their plan for the future doesn't involve being very competitive in 2019. That disappoints me greatly, as I was hoping to take a step forward toward serious contention this coming year while not mortgaging the future. The rebuild (never termed as such by the team) began in earnest after the 2012 season; it's been a long time, with 2017 being mostly a dead-cat bounce.

 

As I stated probably a month ago, I was one of those who wouldn't be filing an off-season plan - the reason being that I could not construct one that I was confident in moving the needle for 2019. But I was hoping our front office, armed with better analytics than the back-of-the-envelope ones I can muster, would see a way. Apparently they reached the same conclusion I did. To repeat, disappointing.

 

Schoop's an OK signing. The "plan" for contention in 2019 seems to be that several rolls of the dice might coincide.

[Vanimal46]

I was getting really nervous that these would be our only moves of the off-season...

 

...but then I heard that the off-season had barely began and will extend through it's normal time period! What a relief! Maybe relief pitchers will be coming soon! More relief!

 

Breathe people. Long off-season. Be critical and judgmental AFTER we sign (or don't sign) free agents.

Well that would take away the Daily aspect of Twins Daily, no? Let's shut down all comments until March 1.

[USAFChief]

 

That doesn't seem plausible. It seems to me instead that their plan for the future doesn't involve being very competitive in 2019. That disappoints me greatly, as I was hoping to take a step forward toward serious contention this coming year while not mortgaging the future. The rebuild (never termed as such by the team) began in earnest after the 2012 season; it's been a long time, with 2017 being mostly a dead-cat bounce.

 

As I stated probably a month ago, I was one of those who wouldn't be filing an off-season plan - the reason being that I could not construct one that I was confident in moving the needle for 2019. But I was hoping our front office, armed with better analytics than the back-of-the-envelope ones I can muster, would see a way. Apparently they reached the same conclusion I did. To repeat, disappointing.

 

Schoop's an OK signing. The "plan" for contention in 2019 seems to be that several rolls of the dice might coincide.

If the plan for 2019 doesn't involve being competitive, why sign Schoop?  Just give the job to Gordon.

 

 

[cmoss84]

 

Well that would take away the Daily aspect of Twins Daily, no? Let's shut down all comments until March 1.

Sorry-should have been more specific...I love all the individual discussions about the individual transactions. What gets me is when people say we have failed this off-season...when there is still much more to come!

[ashbury]

If the plan for 2019 doesn't involve being competitive, why sign Schoop?  Just give the job to Gordon.

I saw all I care to see of Gordon in one game in Pawtucket. Let him prove his glove and bat, both, at AAA before handing him anything.

[USAFChief]

 

I saw all I care to see of Gordon in one game in Pawtucket. Let him prove his glove and bat, both, at AAA before handing him anything.

I have no faith in Gordon either. None.

 

But that's not the point. If the plan isn't to compete, why sign Schoop?

 

I don't think that's the plan.

[Riverbrian]

They aren’t planning for the future. They aren’t getting the best out there. Didn’t the FO themselves say that last year was a mistake having too many one year contracts on the team, that it made for a very noncohesive clubhouse? It’s a ‘We’re standing pat’ kind of move. This is not improvement. When there are better options out there, that we could have for more than a year, and we’re not making those moves, speaks volumes to me. It’s half-assed, imo.

Myself... I basically ignored the one year contract comment because people come in all shapes and sizes. Over the history of this game plenty of one year contracts have worked great. Yes some were bad but it isn’t locked down certain either way.

 

Closing the door on them because it didn’t work out with one or two of them would be a freightening over reaction and end up being a self imposed speed bump to keeping all avenues open.

 

It's not the contract Its the individual players themselves that determine if it was a good acquisition.

 

Now if you think we could have done better than Schoop. That is valid and I get the concern but one or two years doesn’t worry me. I’d prefer the one year if it’s someone who needs a bounce back.

[laloesch]

 

Agreed. I’m so sick of these deals. Looks like we’re riding on Buxton and Sano to have mvp years. Even if they did we don’t have enough to compete. Maybe more will happen but I’m not counting on it. We’ll just wait until Lewis and Kirilloff come up as they will be the saviors. Then we’ll wait 5 years for them to develop only to be busts. In that time we’ll have had a few more top 5 picks. Wait for them to come up only to be busts. Maybe one or two of these guys pan out but nothing that would constitute a solid core and before we know it we’re the Royals or Pirates from the 90’s to the 2000’s. Call me in 30 years when this team is good again. Jeez. When are we gonna try to go for something. I’d rather have a good year or two and then a few bad instead of waiting for these prospects. All I hear about is prospects. When are we gonna have real Mlb ball players? That’s what I want. I want to have a reason to watch a twins game. We waited for how long for the current group? How’s that going? I hope they prove me wrong. I’m taking the opinion the rest of the country has always had. That being the Twins are and always will be a joke and will not accomplish anything until they start putting Mlb players on the field instead of prospects.

 

I like the deal. I like that there is no pressure on either side to commit long term.  Maybe at the end of 2019 the FO could change it's mind and meet with Schoop who will have had a full season to play his butt off in Minnesota and earn a big paycheck.  Well see were we end up. 

 

On your final point i agree but we also had a bunch of players drop the ball last season. Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Dozier, Morrison all played like absolute horse **** most of the season and polanco getting suspended 80 games didn't help matters either. The young talent blew it last season along with a bad bullpen.

[ashbury]

I have no faith in Gordon either. None.

 

But that's not the point. If the plan isn't to compete, why sign Schoop?

 

I don't think that's the plan.

"Compete" is one of those fuzzy terms. It looks to me that the FO isn't planning on tanking, nor risking tanking by committing to kids who aren't ready.

 

I didn't wordsmith much there, but on re-reading I see hedged phrases like "very competitive", "serious contention", and "rolls of the dice" in what I said. That serves to somewhat define the muddled middle ground I view the FO as occupying this off-season.

[KirbyDome89]

They could've gone after Iglesias and improved both MI spots defensively by shifting Polanco to 2B. That would free up Gordon (not that he was off the table without Jorge at 2B) to be moved in a trade for some pitching. 

 

That's the most disappointing thing about the Schoop signing for me. They had a chance to make improvement across the infield with one signing. 

[Vanimal46]

Can I comment as a fan... One year deals are lame because it gives me zero incentive to invest in their success. If the player bounces back, do we really think the Twins are going to win the bid again for their rights?

 

Since Falvey and Levine took over there have been way too many players who signed and left the organization. I can't keep up with it anymore.

[Squirrel]

Myself... I basically ignored the one year contract comment because people come in all shapes and sizes. Over the history of this game plenty of one year contracts have worked great. Yes some were bad but it isn’t locked down certain either way.

 

Closing the door on them because it didn’t work out with one or two of them would be a freightening over reaction and end up being a self imposed speed bump to keeping all avenues open.

 

It's not the contract Its the individual players themselves that determine if it was a good acquisition.

 

Now if you think we could have done better than Schoop. That is valid and I get the concern but one or two years doesn’t worry me. I’d prefer the one year if it’s someone who needs a bounce back.

I think both.

[Riverbrian]

I think both.

Yeah but you multi-task

[Riverbrian]

If the plan for 2019 doesn't involve being competitive, why sign Schoop? Just give the job to Gordon.

Service Time.

 

I know the minute I talk about service time being a factor, I get a string of responses back saying that it doesn’t matter but to the front offices... it does and it’s why the one year deal is important.

 

Gordon isnt ready and by the time he is ready... we could be 3 years deep into his service time letting him fail at the MLB level. They have 3 years to make a decision on Gordon. He might be ready this year... he might ready in 2021 or never ready. Signing Schoop or whoever to a one year deal provides an exit if Gordon establishes himself filling in for injury.

 

Giving Gordon the job and saying “Ok Learn” would be the same mistake they made with Hicks.