Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The assumption he will sign for "somewhere between 5/80 and 6/125" is a bold assumption.  If he thinks he can get 6/125, there are plenty of players that are not signing for a dollar less.  We also need to acknowledge there are a lot of players who start out with absolutely wild salary demands.  Free agency is the opportunity for all the highest revenue teams to bid on your services.  There are lots of players who are not budging without the benefit of that process so to assume they can convinced to forego free agency is a wild assumption.

6/125 represents a hypothetical I'm assuming Mike threw out as a means to test the "pay him want he wants," perspective. My point was there's likely somewhere between an extreme ask and a lowball offer where the Twins can have a real conversation/shot at signing Berrios. He's gambling either way. I have a hard time picturing a competent agent advising him to ignore solid offers if that's what the Twins are putting in front of him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, spycake said:

So I'd guess the McCullers deal is the baseline, but wouldn't be shocked if Berrios wanted 5/100 right now, or something like 6/110 including his likely 2022 arb salary.

Agreed. If I were Jose Berrios, I would expect more than the talented but oft-injured McCullers - and I think the market would concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dman said:

If he will do do it for 5/80 I am on board especially given what they got out of Happ and Shoemaker for 10m this year.  He is young durable and with slight improvement a potential All-Star type player or just under for the next four years.  He takes good care of his body and takes the ball every 5th day.  Why not do what you can to keep him especially with good pitching in short supply.  With Maeda messed up he might be the one decent pitcher we can rely on next year and hopefully once the other guys come up we can fill out that rotation with more home grown guys.  Unless the ask is absolutely unreasonable they should extend him IMO.

I agree, we have a very good core of players. It'd be a shame trade them away at probably discounted rates and flood our 40 man roster and end up losing a ton of prospects for nothing.

We need to sign both Berrios and Buxton and make a run at another '65 or even '87 season. In order to do that we need to do some drastic changes otherwise we'll have another 2021 season. You can't keep on making the same decisions and expect a different result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won’t be able to sign him to a fair or reasonable contract. They will need to pay a premium on that fair deal. Berrios’ motivation to sign is the same for any pitcher. Pitchers risk injury that can keep them out of baseball for long stretches. Berrios will have motivation to sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

6/125 represents a hypothetical I'm assuming Mike threw out as a means to test the "pay him want he wants," perspective. My point was there's likely somewhere between an extreme ask and a lowball offer where the Twins can have a real conversation/shot at signing Berrios. He's gambling either way. I have a hard time picturing a competent agent advising him not to ignore solid offers if that's what the Twins are putting in front of him. 

That seems reasonable.  I just expect that some players are not willing to leave any money at all on the table.  Engaging the free agency process without questions is more likely to present the highest possible offer.  And, as I have said previously, many players, especially of this profile (good but not elite) have demonstrated they believe they are worth much more than they actually get in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

That seems reasonable.  I just expect that some players are not willing to leave any money at all on the table.  Engaging the free agency process without questions is more likely to present the highest possible offer.  And, as I have said previously, many players, especially of this profile (good but not elite) have demonstrated they believe they are worth much more than they actually get in free agency.

Of course, I'd imagine most don't and it's completely understandable. Yep, there's undoubtedly risk involved in waiting 1.5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

I don't think I suggested that as a number, or any number for that matter. 

Your original post specifically mentioned "$12-15m AAV". And you said you doubted he'd find $17m AAV on the open market.

 

Then you suggested 5/$80 from the Twins. Here's a direct quote from you:

 

"Giving Jose Berrios something like $80M over the next five years isn’t going to stop any opportunity to engage those arms either"

 

Hence the comment(s) about 5/$80

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

It's all well and good to say we don't want a rebuild, but I'm pretty sure one is coming.  The Twins have at most 5 pitchers that can be counted on to be full year contributors next year (Maeda, Berrios, Ober, Rogers, and Duffey).  With a 13 man staff, where you need at least 5-6 solid options in the bullpen, that means the Twins need to find at least 5-6 arms this offseason; if any of the above get injured, or regress (can't be counted out, especially for Ober and Duffey), that number goes up.  We can hope that Duran, Winder, Balazovic, and a couple of relievers can make the jump from the minors, but can you really feel good about your playoff chances if you're counting heavily on 4-5 rookies?  There also won't be a ton of money to spend, because while you're clearing about $43M with Cruz, Pineda, Simmons, Happ, and Shoemaker moving on, all of those guys need to be replaced, and Berrios, Buxton, and Garver will get raises.  To truly feel good about competing, I think the Twins would need to spend around $70M a year in new contracts for 2022, and that's just not going to happen.

Accordingly, the only thing that makes sense is to completely tear down, to try and shorten the imminent rebuild from 4-5 years to 2-3.  Trade Cruz, Berrios, Buxton, and Rogers for sure--those guys should net you 4-6 Top 100 guys.  If you find takers for Simmons, Sano, Donaldson, Duffey, Robles, or Pineda, trade them as well.  Play Gordon every day in center or short to see where he best sticks.  Let Rooker DH every day to see how he handles the bigs.  Call up every reliever from AAA/AA you can to see if any of them show flashes.  Get Miranda up towards the end of the year as well.  With any luck, you'll find a couple of keepers from that group, have a farm system with 6-8 Top 100 guys, some high draft picks, and loads of cash to use starting in 2023 to build onto a core of Kiriloff/Larnach/Arraez/Jeffers/Duran/Balazovic/others.

I am on the precipice but leaning your direction.  If they could get two very solid prospects back one being an elite pitcher in return for Berrios that works out they save that 18 to 20 mil per year and they give their young pitching staff time to develop in 2022.  We are making some dangerous assumptions that our young pitchers ARE going to work out.

I agree with you that there are so many holes in the pitching staff it seems hard to believe they could cover them all even if they hang onto Jose.  It is a gamble but rebuilds always are.  The main thing is they have to get the right players back in return to make it all work.  They have to find a team willing to give up a lot of prospect capital to make it worth it and I don't think it is going to be as easy as we think but who knows?   

I do agree that the young pitching is behind the young hitting making this second wave rebuild out of sync. resetting it by trading for younger hitters and pitchers to come up together could help even that out. If they can and or do trade away a good portion of the team at the deadline it should give the pitchers the development time they need to learn what they need to do to be successful and then we can see where things are at and try to fill in some hole via FA.  The whole plan though hinges on the young pitching working out.  If it doesn't a short rebuild becomes a long one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, roger said:

I don't want to think about what could happen with Buxton.  We don't trade him and he won't sign an extension this winter.  The 2022 season doesn't happen and Buxton is a free agent a year from this November.  He signs with Team X, say the Yankees and goes on to play 155 games in 2023, hitting around .290 with 35 home runs, 120 runs scored, 40 doubles, 100 RBI and 40 stolen bases...while picking up his second platinum glove and first MVP.  You know that's what is going to happen?

No, I don't.  He could just as easily end up being the same guy who is always hurt and breaks down further and never does anything.  This mentality gets so old.  Focusing on the one guy that ended up being great and ignoring the hundreds of other players that never do anything of significance is self defeating.  Sometimes those things happen.  More often than not, they play out and nobody regrets a thing.

This is coming from a guy who loves watching him play.  He's my favorite player on the team, by far.  Living in fear of failure is a sure fire way to fail.  Let the Yankees take the financial risk.  If it backfires, it backfires.  It's not as though buxton hasn't been given ample opportunity to stay in the field.

Apologies if this comes across as aggressive.  That is not my intention.  I just get so tired of Ortiz-itis.  It's past time to get past it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The Dodgers will clear the contract of David Price next year, as well as Turner, Kershaw, Jansen, and Kazmir.  That's also $111M, and they'll again have to replace those guys,...

This is totally a sidebar to the main discussion, but are the Dodgers seriously actually paying Scott Kazmir (who, since he last played for them, has been out of affiliated baseball, rejoined a different MLB team, and been cut from that team) right now? Ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, whosafraidofluigirussolo said:

This is totally a sidebar to the main discussion, but are the Dodgers seriously actually paying Scott Kazmir (who, since he last played for them, has been out of affiliated baseball, rejoined a different MLB team, and been cut from that team) right now? Ha.

According to Spotrac, indeed they are $8M in deferred salary. In even funnier deferred salary arrangements, the Red Sox are paying Dustin Pedrioa and MANNY RAMIREZ $2M+ a year through 2028 and 2026, respectively.  That means the Red Sox won't have Manny off their books until 18 years after he stopped playing for them.  It's the best deal ever (in a world where Bobby Bonilla doesn't exist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I agree, we have a very good core of players. It'd be a shame trade them away at probably discounted rates and flood our 40 man roster and end up losing a ton of prospects for nothing.

We need to sign both Berrios and Buxton and make a run at another '65 or even '87 season. In order to do that we need to do some drastic changes otherwise we'll have another 2021 season. You can't keep on making the same decisions and expect a different result.

We have a very good core of players, but need to make drastic changes to avoid being one of the 5 worst teams in baseball?  I posit that if you have a very good core of players, you will not be a 100 loss team, and if you are a 100 loss team, you don't have a very good core of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whosafraidofluigirussolo said:

This is totally a sidebar to the main discussion, but are the Dodgers seriously actually paying Scott Kazmir (who, since he last played for them, has been out of affiliated baseball, rejoined a different MLB team, and been cut from that team) right now? Ha.

It is kind of misleading. Kazmir’s contract ended after 2018 but it had deferred money. It was a $16 mil AAV deal but they only had to pay him $8 mil per year at the time, and the other $8 mil in a future year. Actually reduced the cost / luxury tax impact of the contract for the team (since they could effectively invest that $8 mil and collect interest on it before they had to pay him, and MLB calculates the luxury tax hit on the present-day value rather than the actual dollars).

The Kazmir contract certainly didn’t work out well for the Dodgers, but it wasn’t crazy and it’s hard to argue too much with their overall results since 2016..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

That seems reasonable.  I just expect that some players are not willing to leave any money at all on the table.  Engaging the free agency process without questions is more likely to present the highest possible offer.  And, as I have said previously, many players, especially of this profile (good but not elite) have demonstrated they believe they are worth much more than they actually get in free agency.

This is what the Twins are up against right now.  There are only two reasons for a player to sign a long-term contract before their initial foray into free agency.

  1. They're in the high minors, and signing an MLB deal immediately starts their service time clock, and ensures they never have to deal with arbitration or minimum salaries
  2. It's a hedge against injury/performance decline/non-materialization

Point 1 obviously doesn't apply to Berrios, and point 2 appears not to either, as Berrios seems completely confident that he will remain a 2ish type pitcher (maybe a 1 in his/his agent's mind), and suffer no major injuries.  As such, you can't just give him the deal he thinks he'll get in free agency, as by agreeing to that, Berrios is walking away from any and all potential upside (say the Yankees giving him $28M a year to keep him away from the Red Sox.  Or the Angels being tired of second-fiddle in their market, and going over the top on the Dodgers.  Or Seattle/Houston/St Louis/Atlanta getting involved).  If Berrios thinks he can get 6/150 in 2 years, you probably have to give him 6/168 or 7/175 right now, otherwise he may as well wait and see if some other team is desperate for a starter and offers him 5/150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spycake said:

It is kind of misleading. Kazmir’s contract ended after 2018 but it had deferred money. It was a $16 mil AAV deal but they only had to pay him $8 mil per year at the time, and the other $8 mil in a future year. Actually reduced the cost / luxury tax impact of the contract for the team (since they could effectively invest that $8 mil and collect interest on it before they had to pay him, and MLB calculates the luxury tax hit on the present-day value rather than the actual dollars).

The Kazmir contract certainly didn’t work out well for the Dodgers, but it wasn’t crazy and it’s hard to argue too much with their overall results since 2016..

Depending on the parameters, deferred money can actually work pretty well for both sides.  The team gets cash freed up they can use to avoid the luxury tax/sign another player/invest towards future payrolls.

The player extends their cash flow further into the future, and if they get enough money added on in the future, could come out better as well (A million today is better than a million 5 years from now, but there's a decent chance that $300k a year over 6 years is better than a million today).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

According to Spotrac, indeed they are $8M in deferred salary. In even funnier deferred salary arrangements, the Red Sox are paying Dustin Pedrioa and MANNY RAMIREZ $2M+ a year through 2028 and 2026, respectively.  That means the Red Sox won't have Manny off their books until 18 years after he stopped playing for them.  It's the best deal ever (in a world where Bobby Bonilla doesn't exist).

The Red Sox got a tangible benefit out of those deals, though. They got to pay less to very good players and lower their luxury tax hit in many contending seasons (and turned it into a few championships).

What makes the Bonilla deal so insane is that there was no on-field benefit. Bonilla was cooked (the Mets were actually releasing him when they came up with the deferred salary deal) and there wasn’t even any luxury tax implications that I am aware of. Of course, we know now it was because the Mets owner was involved in some Ponzi scheme, which explains why it wasn’t rational!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spycake said:

The Red Sox got a tangible benefit out of those deals, though. They got to pay less to very good players and lower their luxury tax hit in many contending seasons (and turned it into a few championships).

What makes the Bonilla deal so insane is that there was no on-field benefit. Bonilla was cooked (the Mets were actually releasing him when they came up with the deferred salary deal) and there wasn’t even any luxury tax implications that I am aware of. Of course, we know now it was because the Mets owner was involved in some Ponzi scheme, which explains why it wasn’t rational!

The Sox definitely got benefits, I just think it's pretty awesome to get $2m a year from an employer for multiple years, even when they haven't been your employer for almost 2 decades.

To your point, I have to wonder if the Angels have thought about doing this with some of the albatrosses on their payroll, or even with Trout.  I assume they have, but perhaps they haven't been creative enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

This is what the Twins are up against right now.  There are only two reasons for a player to sign a long-term contract before their initial foray into free agency.

  1. They're in the high minors, and signing an MLB deal immediately starts their service time clock, and ensures they never have to deal with arbitration or minimum salaries
  2. It's a hedge against injury/performance decline/non-materialization

Point 1 obviously doesn't apply to Berrios, and point 2 appears not to either, as Berrios seems completely confident that he will remain a 2ish type pitcher (maybe a 1 in his/his agent's mind), and suffer no major injuries.  As such, you can't just give him the deal he thinks he'll get in free agency, as by agreeing to that, Berrios is walking away from any and all potential upside (say the Yankees giving him $28M a year to keep him away from the Red Sox.  Or the Angels being tired of second-fiddle in their market, and going over the top on the Dodgers.  Or Seattle/Houston/St Louis/Atlanta getting involved).  If Berrios thinks he can get 6/150 in 2 years, you probably have to give him 6/168 or 7/175 right now, otherwise he may as well wait and see if some other team is desperate for a starter and offers him 5/150.

Yes.  The reality is that the large markets have a very significant advantage in free agency.  It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the CBA.  Teams have caught on to prospect value so even the larger market teams are far more reluctant to part with prospects.  They are not paying for rentals.  Somehow the league needs to promote parity and the players are going to want to somehow loosen free agency terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front office did well in their trades for Odorizzi and Maeda.  They came up with a solid solution to acquiring the services of Pineda.   They came close on Lance Lynn.  Many forget that he was coming off TJ surgery.  It is pretty common for a SP to need 5-10 starts to start getting their control and velo back.  I do think there are ways forward to build out the pitching staff.  
A lot of references on here to Tampa Bay.  One of their strengths has been to find unheralded players on the rise and trade for them or sign them.  Oakland is another team that seems adept at finding such players.  I hope this off-season the FO can play to their similar strengths.   It would appear that their strength is not finding the aging SP with something left in the tank.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wizard11 said:

They came close on Lance Lynn.  Many forget that he was coming off TJ surgery.  It is pretty common for a SP to need 5-10 starts to start getting their control and velo back.

I think your timeline is off by a year. Lynn pitched the full 2017 season for the Cardinals, before signing with the Twins in 2018. (His season missed to TJ surgery was 2016.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Isn't the comp to look at Zack Wheeler? Yes, Wheeler was a bit older, but from a career perspective there's a lot of similarities: very good pitchers, never great. Belief that there's still another level to unlock for them, similar ERA+. Wheeler got 5 for $115M. I'm sure Berrios is thinking "I;m younger than this guy, I'm better than this guy, I'm never hurt...I should get 5 for $125, minimum."

Is he wrong? It's an interesting question. All it takes is one.

I'd lock up Berrios on 5 for $85M in a heartbeat, and I think the Twins would too. I think he's said no. The number will have to be over $100M for him to even consider it, because I'm sure he can get that on the open market and he's shown he's more than willing to bet on himself. and it's paid off for him.

We are not talking AAV of $15-17M for Berrios on an extension. We're talking $20-25M if we actually want to sign him.

I'm all in on that. When I was younger, they used to say pitching was 70% of baseball.

Pay him the 20-25M/yr and let’s build around him. with a solid ERA and WHIP and a 7-2 record. With 5 Berrios' that would be a 35-10 record so far!

The Orioles were like that in 1980 with Palmer, Flanagan, D. Martinez, S. McGregor, Steve Stone (25-7 in 1980). That’s the kind of staff the Twins should be striving for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The point was that they got a return very soon after the trade.  They were not going to compete for a couple years regardless of ifthe kept Sale which is why they traded him.  I don't believe the it's realistic to believe the Twins will compete next year.  This board has been wildly optimistic for as long as I have been here.  To suggest the Twins won't compete for 4 or 5 years if they trade Berrios makes no sense.  The Twins competing or not will be a product of many other things.  I do believe we are positioned to rebound in a shorter period of time than the Whitesox but the pitching prospects will need to transition between now and the end of 2022.  2023 and forward .

It's kind of this simple ... The Twins can invest the money Berrios is demanding in any number of ways.  If he is demanding an over pay, then that money could be spent to make the team better than they would be with Berrios.  Plus, IF they can get a top prospect, there is a reasonable chance the team will be significantly better over the next several years as a result.  People act as if we are automatically worse.  Basically, we break even or get somewhat better by investing elsewhere instead of overpaying for Berrios if the prospect we get washes out.  What if the prospect is as good or better.  Obviously, the team is much better of in that scenario  by trading him and investing elsewhere. 

Comparing the White Sox history to the Twins situation makes no sense:

The White Sox traded Chris Sale before the 2017 season, when he was probably the most dominant SP in the American League. The White Sox received three players. Two of them were monster prospects. Moncada was ranked #1 and Kopech was ranked #16 by FanGraphs heading into 2017. 

The Sox also traded Adam Eaton to Washington that same offseason. He had just had a career year capping off three very good consecutive seasons. The Nats overpaid. Giolito was ranked #19 and Reynaldo Lopez was ranked #28 by FanGraphs . 

That's four players ranked as top 30 prospects from two offseason trades. That will "jump start" - the original comment that caused me to respond - a team. Do you think Berrios will bring back either of those hauls? A TD writer just wrote that he didn't think Berrios would be worth a top 100 player in return (I'm more optimistic).

Yes, Berrios could get hurt. But until now, he's been very durable. The prospects the Twins might get for him could wash out or get hurt too. That's baseball. 

If Berrios wants to wait for free agency, they should probably trade him. But don't expect the return to bring the results that came to Chicago from their trades. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not rocket science or brain surgery. If it's under $25M per year you got to sign him. If he wants more than that then you've got to let him walk or at least try to trade before he walks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dbminn said:

Comparing the White Sox history to the Twins situation makes no sense:

The White Sox traded Chris Sale before the 2017 season, when he was probably the most dominant SP in the American League. The White Sox received three players. Two of them were monster prospects. Moncada was ranked #1 and Kopech was ranked #16 by FanGraphs heading into 2017. 

The Sox also traded Adam Eaton to Washington that same offseason. He had just had a career year capping off three very good consecutive seasons. The Nats overpaid. Giolito was ranked #19 and Reynaldo Lopez was ranked #28 by FanGraphs . 

That's four players ranked as top 30 prospects from two offseason trades. That will "jump start" - the original comment that caused me to respond - a team. Do you think Berrios will bring back either of those hauls? A TD writer just wrote that he didn't think Berrios would be worth a top 100 player in return (I'm more optimistic).

Yes, Berrios could get hurt. But until now, he's been very durable. The prospects the Twins might get for him could wash out or get hurt too. That's baseball. 

If Berrios wants to wait for free agency, they should probably trade him. But don't expect the return to bring the results that came to Chicago from their trades. 

 

 

It was not meant to be a comp.  It's a concept directed at the comments that some here made that it's incompetent to trade away good players.  Of course Sale was a superior asset.  That's not even remotely the point.  The point is that Buxton and Berrios are players that SHOULD bring a good return and I prefaced the scenarios I laid out with IF we got impact prospects the years of 2023 and beyond were very likely better than if we kept them.  I believe he brings a top 40-75 prospect.  Keep him if not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be okay if the Twins gave him a Wheeler contract. Too much more than that would probably not be great. 
 

The way I see it, the Twins will probably need 3 SP and 3 RP next year. Two can be filled internally (Ober and Cano?) but the rest they may have to look at FA. If they have the same success rate as this past offseason then they aren’t going anywhere next year either. I can get behind trading Berrios, if needed, though I like him. Better that than him walking for nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...