Would you have gone 5 years and $80M for Anibal Sanchez?

[Seth Stohs]

Earlier Nick asked if you would go 2 years and $30 million on RHP Ryan Dempster, who apparently signed with the Boston Red Sox for 2 years and $26 million.

 

It sounds as though the Cubs and RHP Anibal Sanchez are nearing a 5 year, $75 million deal. So, the similar question for the forum is: Would you have signed Anibal Sanchez for 5 years and 80 million? They theory, of course, is that the Twins would have had to overpay a little bit to have "won" the Sanchez derby.

 

I would have liked the deal at 5 years and $75 million, so I would be good with 5 years and $80 million just because he is very good, and unlike most free agents, he is still young and so the five years on him wouldn't scare me quite as much as a 3 year deal on some 33 year old.

[joeboo_22]

I wouldn't touch Dempster for anything close to that, but Sanchez unless there is something else either in the medical reports or just personal history, seems like a good deal. I would take this deal over the Correia signing any day of the week.

[AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS]

I wouldn't touch Dempster for anything close to that, but Sanchez unless there is something else either in the medical reports or just personal history, seems like a good deal. I would take this deal over the Correia signing any day of the week.

 

Exactly, Dempster can be a workhorse of any rotation but he definitely was not worth that contract, and its likely he will get lit up in the AL EAST. I like Sanchez a lot, but i think he is a solid # 2 pitcher and thats a nice deal for him.

[Willihammer]

Heck I would be alright giving him 6/90 like he asked for originally

[johnnydakota]

uuhhmmmm dam skippy, but we need to remember who is captining this ship

Sanchez would be a piece to the puzzle and would contribute after the rebuilding stag..

[DaveW]

The good news with dempster and Sanchez is neither one got an absurd salary, which means we should be able to get marcum or Jackson at a half way decent rate

[Riverbrian]

Heck I would be alright giving him 6/90 like he asked for originally

 

Me 2... I'd go 6/90 just to bring him and hopefully have him around when Meyer and Mays arrive.

[edavis0308]

If all years have the same salary.. that contract is going to look like a steal in the back half.. assuming he doesn't completely fall off a cliff.

[johnnydakota]

The good news with dempster and Sanchez is neither one got an absurd salary, which means we should be able to get marcum or Jackson at a half way decent rate

 

Hahahahaha ok, acept the fact Correia was it and the rest of the money will go towards payroll slashing bonuses for the front office.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Sanchez - yes

Demster - no way.

[gunnarthor]

Sure. He's probably worth it and would have been around for the finished rebuild.

[minn55441]

Sanchez - yes

Demster - no way.

 

My thoughts exactly. We not only need help in 2013 but in the years to follow. With Demsters age, he isn't going to be around when we need him. Not only in terms of the contract, but also with his age he won't be pitching at the level we need in 2015 and beyond.

 

Buy quality or youth and hopefully both in the same contract.

[70charger]

I would consider it because he's young, and with a longer-term deal, he would be more than just a bridge to the next set of pitching prospects; instead, he could actually provide some veteran leadership while Meyer and May get acquainted with the league (heck, even Gibson, Hendriks, and possibly even Wimmers too).

[johnnydakota]

Apperently Sanchez is still in play ,should the twins jump in with an offer of 5/80,and a opt out after 3 years?

[kryptik]

In a heartbeat for Sanchez.

[RedBull34]

I didn't like the Dempster contract but I wouldn't mind the Twins doing this, although I think that maybe they could have tried to get him at 6/90 or even 6/85.

[minn55441]

It's not my money, so yes make him an offer he can't turn down. We will be overpaying, but that is what the market is dictating the price is for a quality starting pitcher. Kind of like paying $3 a gallon for gas the first time, it seemed like we were being robbed every time we filled up. Now it looks like a bargain.

 

This is a very disappointing off season if we don't add anyone better than Correia.

[ashbury]

My snap reaction was yes I would sign Sanchez. Then I tried to think about how Terry Ryan sees it, in terms of risk. Sign him to 5 years, then the last year of the contract you'll be paying him (say) $15M or $16M in 2017. This is right in the heart of the new window of competitiveness, right? Will that $16M be part of the winning formula? Or will it be a boat-anchor preventing you from making a deal to push this juggernaut team to a second straight title?

 

Well, roll the clock back 5 years to 2007. Not that all of these pitchers were available to sign at the time, but let's focus on who was completing his 28-year-old season, just as Sanchez is now. Limit it to guys who clearly were established starters. These 28-year-olds were:

 

Carlos Silva

Johan Santana

Gil Meche

John Lackey

Jeremy Guthrie

Mark Buehrle

Erik Bedard

 

Isn't this kind of a Murderer's Row of pitchers who teams actually *did* make an investment in? And with the exception of Buehrle, aren't they the ones that, 5 years later, fans of their current teams wail and gnash their teeth over?

 

Now put yourself in Ryan's shoes. Are you really going to pull the trigger on Sanchez for 5 years?

 

As I said above, I would. And this quick little bit of research reaffirms my reminder to myself, that when Terry Ryan and I disagree about something, take another good hard look.

[minn55441]

Just saw this on CBS sports

Unlike Josh Hamilton, Anibal Sanchez is giving his old team the last shot at his services. After being offered a reported $75 million over five years by the Cubs, Sanchez gave the Tigers one more chance to match the offer, CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman reports.

Detroit had been offering a four-year deal to Sanchez, but in reaction to the offer from the Cubs, the team will likely have to offer five years in order to keep him.

 

I wonder if he is giving anyone else a shot still?

[TopGunn#22]

I'd go 5 yrs. 80 mil or 6 yrs. 90 mil. Please reference the thread with the idea floated about trading Morneau and Willingham to Texas. This would be part of the rebuild. With the pitching staff we would have for this year, fronted by Sanchez, and the young talent in the pipeline, the Twins could surprise some people in 2013 but would be a force to be reckoned with in 2014 and beyond. You spend for QUALITY. Sanchez is quality.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

I am of the opinion that no pitchers are worthe the money and length. As good as they can be, there is just as much risk that they will burn out, blow a ligament, or just stop pitching well. 3 years max.

[kab21]

I would have no problem if the Twins went to 5/80 or even 6/90. I think they will have a difficult time spending their available payroll during the next several seasons. There's a good chance that Sanchez could be solid for most of the contract and it seems like there will be a lot of inflation in baseball salaries soon.

[Top Gun]

I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

[johnnydakota]

I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

 

Which makes them an asset, unlike Correia

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would say no to Anibal Sanchez at that contract.

 

We all hate that the Twins are cheap, but I think we secretly like that they are frugal. I like the fact that when they have a hole/opening on the team, they don't immediately go into the free agent market and start bidding on whatever is available at that position. I think that's how the worst MLB contracts come about -- obviously some huge money deals like Zito and Soriano, but also some lower-level free agent duds too: Gary Matthews, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Silva, Jacque Jones, etc. I have a hard time believing that those guys were truly desired at those prices - but impatient teams with immediate needs boosted their market considerably. Put another way, the Twins never wake up really regretting a free agent tryst from the night before.

 

The problem for the Twins is that they are so averse to signing free agents, they won't sign anybody, or they self-impose a spending cap (which appears to be $5 million for free agent starters) which effectively precludes them from signing anybody decent. They need to identify guys they really want, and if those guys hit free agency and the Twins have a need for them, they need to bid fairly aggressively. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but Mark Buehrle is the most obvious example that comes to mind: that would have been about three times the largest "true" free agent Twins contract ever (Willingham, I think), but Buehrle is the Grecian ideal of a Twins pitcher if such a thing exists: good control, incredibly consistent and durable, great defense, quiet, low-profile, etc. And the Twins were already looking at some potentially long-term rotation holes last offseason. It could have been a match made in heaven if the Twins had ANY kind of a smart strategy at actually acquiring good players on the free agent market.

 

So basically, yeah, if Sanchez isn't anything special to the Twins (and it doesn't appear that he should be), I fully endorse NOT breaking the bank to get him now. Although the other part of this is, if there isn't a special guy like Buehrle available, and you still have a need, you need to be aggressive trading (which TR has been this offseason) and also more aggressive on short-term deals for GOOD lower-tier pitchers (Brandon McCarthy, possibly Dempster, maybe even Scott Baker, but definitely NOT Kevin Correia). Willingham actually fits this mold on the offensive side of the ledger -- he isn't a superstar, and in many ways is not a stereotypical Twins type of player, but he's good, and the contract just isn't big enough to ever be really regrettable. At minimum, they need to make a move like that on the pitching side of the ledger -- it will likely cost more, but it should still fit the market. But I'm afraid it will be another year, at least, before they realize this.

[Mike Sixel]

I do not secretly like that they are frugal.

[kab21]

There's getting good value for your money and there's being a miser. I don't have any problem with trying to get good value but I think FA is evolving and salaries are going to inflate and teams are going to be taking a lot of players off the market in what looks like big deals. It's possible that the Twins go into next offseason with <50M (possibly <40M) committed and very few options to spend it on then also. At some point you have to spend the money.

[Twins Twerp]

I openly like that they are frugal IF they now keep there studs for big money. Even then you see some bad deals with long deals ie Morneau. But with new stadium revenue imagine how the last four years would have been with hunter and santana

 

And punto

[Kwak]

Just saw this on CBS sports

Unlike Josh Hamilton, Anibal Sanchez is giving his old team the last shot at his services. After being offered a reported $75 million over five years by the Cubs, Sanchez gave the Tigers one more chance to match the offer, CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman reports.

Detroit had been offering a four-year deal to Sanchez, but in reaction to the offer from the Cubs, the team will likely have to offer five years in order to keep him.

 

I wonder if he is giving anyone else a shot still?

 

Losing teams have to pay the premium. Sanchez's loyalty indicates that players really do prefer to play on a winner.

As for offering him the 5/80--as long as it doesn't cost a draft pick, yes. If a draft choice is forfeited, then no.

[glunn]

Whatever his value, I would add 10% for the benefit of keeping him from Detroit. And I agree that a premium need to be paid to attract good players to the Astros of the AL.