Buyer Beware: Ranking the Twins’ Worst Contracts

[Cody Christie]

Every offseason, teams sign long-term deals that lock up players well past their prime. Looking at the current Twins roster, here’s how the team’s worst contracts rank.

Image courtesy of Matt Blewett-USA TODAY Sports

It’s the holiday season, and many shoppers are attempting to find the best deals on the season’s hottest items (Twins Daily even has a gift guide). Teams across baseball are trying to cross items off their own wish lists, but shopping for free agents is sometimes riskier than going for the almost-free big screen on Black Friday. Players are paid on past performance, and some fail to repeat that performance as age and other factors start to play a role. 

Last week at The Athletic, Cody Stavenhagen ranked baseball’s worst contracts based on what is owed to the player and the expected performance from that player. Some of the worst contracts include Javier Báez, Kris Bryant, and Anthony Rendon. The Twins have their own buyer’s remorse with some of the team’s long-term deals.

4. Christian Vazquez, C
Original deal: Three years, $30 million
2024: $10 million
2025: $10 million
The Twins had a need at catcher last season, following a poor year from Ryan Jeffers and the departure of Gary Sánchez. The front office quickly targeted Vázquez and signed him to a three-year pact. Trade rumors have surfaced this offseason that have the Twins shipping out veteran players to free up payroll space, but the team would probably need to eat some of the $20 million he is owed over the next two seasons. On Wednesday, Nick discussed Vazquez's value to the Twins, especially with a younger starting staff. According to FanGraphs, Vázquez was worth $7.6 million last season, even though his 65 OPS+ was his lowest total since 2018. The Twins also utilize a two-catcher rotation, which would be less feasible without Vázquez. It doesn't make sense for a team cutting payroll to trade Vázquez when his value is near its lowest point, and they would have to pay down his contract. 

3. Randy Dobnak, SP
Original deal: Five years, $9.25 million
2024: $2.25 million
2025: $3 million
Dobnak’s extension was a strange contract from the moment it was announced, in March 2021. He was coming off a spring training in which he showcased an improved slider that looked like a strikeout weapon. Minnesota bought out his pre-arbitration and arbitration years, and obtained club options on his first three would-be free-agent years. It gave the Twins some cost certainty, but it looks like a poor deal in retrospect. Dobnak is no longer on the 40-man roster, after spending multiple seasons dealing with a finger issue. Last season, he made 31 appearances (26 starts) at Triple-A with a 5.13 ERA, a 1.65 WHIP, and 8.2 K/9. His contract isn’t going to break the bank, but it also wasn’t a move the team was forced to make at the time.

2. Byron Buxton, DH
Original deal: Seven years, $100 million
2024: $15 million
2025: $15 million
2026: $15 million
2027: $15 million
2028: $15 million
Buxton’s deal didn’t look bad when he signed it, but it has aged poorly over the last year. The Twins signed him as their everyday center fielder, and his damaged knees have limited him to DH duties. From 2021 to 2022, Buxton was worth over $30 million per season, even when averaging 76 games per season. Minnesota can hope that Buxton will return to the outfield at some point, but that's far from certain after not he didn't play a single defensive inning at the big-league level in 2023. His bat will have to carry him through the remainder of his contract, and he’s shown the ability to be one of baseball’s best hitters when he is healthy. In his career, there have only been two full seasons where he has been worth less than $15 million, so there is hope he will bounce back next year.

1. Carlos Correa, SS
Original deal: Six years, $200 million
2024: $36 million
2025: $36 million
2026: $31.5 million
2027: $30.5 million
2028: $30 million
Correa was named an honorable mention in the original piece at The Athletic because he was only worth 1.4 rWAR in 2023. Twins fans are well aware of Correa’s struggles this season as he dealt with plantar fasciitis. Minnesota hopes Correa can use the offseason to put his injury behind him and return to performing at his previous level. Last week, I wrote about Correa’s first season since signing his big contract and how he impacts the club’s future payroll decisions. Correa and Buxton are tied to the team’s roster through 2028, and nearly $50 million per season is being paid to these two players. Contracts that initially look bad can rebound and look reasonable, especially if Buxton and Correa can return to performing at an All-Star level. 

Free-agent deals rarely work out in the team’s favor. Clubs pay a premium for the contract's early years and suffer the consequences of declining performance in the back half of the deal. This trend is becoming even more pervasive with big-market teams, as they sign players to 10- to 12-year contracts to spread the money out and avoid paying more in luxury tax. Minnesota isn’t going to approach the luxury tax, so it is even more critical that the front office is spending money wisely on the free market. 

Do you agree with these rankings? Should Buxton rank higher than Correa? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion.

View full article

[Parfigliano]

Buxton worst contract

[Cory Engelhardt]

None of these are contracts that should stop the team in any way from improving the team this year or for the next 5 or so. Vazquez and Buxton both make what a back end starter makes on the open market, Dobnak is basically a rounding error on a spreadsheet, and Correa without plantar fasciitis is a damn good player. If Correa never plays again, that’s one thing. But the team is in a good spot with a majority of their roster earning close to the minimum as well. 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Each of these 4 contracts was reasonable at the time the contracts were signed. I was happy about each one and I am comfortable with each one still.  Josh Donaldson was an example of a  bad contract.

[Eris]

I have not understood why Christian Vázquez’s contract is considered bad. Granted his offensive production was expected to be better, but he delivered 1 fWAR, which is about the average free agent cost/WAR. 

[DJL44]

31 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

None of these are contracts that should stop the team in any way from improving the team this year or for the next 5 or so.

This is correct. I get so tired of seeing people's take that every single free agent contract makes the player "overpaid". The percentage of revenue that goes to the players has been falling for over a decade and the value of MLB teams has been increasing faster than inflation for even longer. It's long overdue to make the MLB minimum salary $1M.

[Major League Ready]

Let's not count Correa and Buxton out just yet.  Correa went from a career wRC+ 125 to 96.  Should we believe it's over for him at age 29 or did he just have a bad year.  The most recent news on Buxton is also encouraging.   These two represent roughly one-third of the team's payroll capacity so it is crucial they perform.  There is no way of getting around how detrimental it is to get virtually no productivity from two players representing roughly 1/3 of total spending capacity.   

You can't spend it twice.  If they had the $48M, they could sign any SP they wanted and have plenty left over for a high leverage RP.   Therefore, to say it won't impact the team's ability to improve defies any form of logic.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

45 minutes ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

None of these are contracts that should stop the team in any way from improving the team this year or for the next 5 or so. Vazquez and Buxton both make what a back end starter makes on the open market, Dobnak is basically a rounding error on a spreadsheet, and Correa without plantar fasciitis is a damn good player. If Correa never plays again, that’s one thing. But the team is in a good spot with a majority of their roster earning close to the minimum as well. 

This is where I’m at too. Vázquez is a miss, but a small one. Dobnak is couch cushion money. Correa still provided 1.4 WAR with plantar fasciitis and there’s no reason to believe he’s unraveling health wise.

Buxton to me is the only real miss, but is that really a miss? He signed a low base, high incentive contract because of his injury history. If he had a strong health history, that contract would have been much closer to Correa territory, and that would have colored the forward look on Buxton’s contract much more unfavorable.

i think what we learned from the article is the Twins haven’t made many mistakes 

[rv78]

I am shocked that this is being discussed here. There are only a small handful of people that will agree with the headline and the names attached to it. I am one of them and have been saying so since Buxton's extension and the signing of Correa. The values that are tied to a player based on WAR or some other variable effect making decision are only valuable if that player can sustain it for the length of their contract. If Buxton was worth $30M from 2020 to 2021 it was largely driven by the 61 games he played in 2021 and hit .306 with a .358 OBP and an OPS over 1. Taking into consideration his lack of actual playing time and previous seasons of his career, 2021 was an anomaly much like Kepler's 2019 season. I've never understood how a player that can't hit or can't stay healthy and provide production to help a team succeed really provides any value at all when what they really do is keep that team from being successful. Maybe a better indicator of a players true value is how much they hurt a team or hold a team back when they don't perform as expected. Is that 1/2 a season of Buxton being worth $30M really what he is worth or is it the zero value he provides when he isn't playing in the other 100 games that year?

[ziggy]

I realize this is a projection article but it's too early to say these are bad contracts. Injuries have in a big way impacted 3 of the 4 players mentioned and Vasquez's contract is todays going rate for a good veteran catcher. After  watching Gary Sanchez wail away for a full year I like Vasquez behind the plate for the same money.

[Whitey333]

Buxton has been a bust for most of his 8 year "career:"  Giving him a 7 hear 100 million was a steal for him.  Not bad for a guy who has only played 1 full season out of 8.  Now we are hearing he is healed and ready to play this next year.  How many times have we heard that over the years??  Extending him that long for that much after the injury riddled career he's had is absolutely ridiculous.

[Karbo]

Too small of a sample size for Correa to be judged, especially when the injury is factored in. Buxton is not a DH, and unless they find a fix for his knee should consider retirement. Too small of a sample size on Vazquez, but his defense helps boost his value a lot. Dobnak was a mistake plane and simple. A 1 year wonder.

[Nashvilletwin]

Let’s remove Dobnak from the discussion and focus on the other three.

When those three deals were signed, it fair to say they were reasonable, if not attractive, to the Twins (both financially and strategically, i.e. some players might be worth more to some teams for whatever reasons).

However, that’s not the point of this article.  The point is where are those three contracts today. Each probably retains some “strategic” value to the Twins, albeit less than when signed.

Financially?  Well, there is a fairly efficient market for talent in MLB.  What would the “market” say about each of these three today, right now?  Could each be signed for more or less over remaining years of their respective contracts?   That’s the point of the article.

Lots of comments today rightly point out that there is still time left on these deals and performances could rebound.  Fair.  But those possibilities would be built into the current “market” price.

So is the current market price higher or lower for those three deals?  It appears the point of the article is that, for the Twins, these three would be the most under water versus current market prices. That’s not unreasonable.

The good news, of course, it’s we probably only have three of these and, yes, performance may rebound.  Right? Need to look no further than Kepler - he looks like a steal today and six months ago that certainly was not the case.

[Coach Wheels]

I don't think any of these contracts are "bad" contracts. While Coreea's contract is a lot of money annually, he played almost every day last year, hurt. His offensive production was down but defensively and leadership-wise, he was exactly who they wanted him to be. Dobnak was a dumb contract, doubt we ever see him in the majors but, again, the money in today's game is small potatoes.

In 2024, if spending $150 million on payroll is a bridge too far for Twins ownership, then I'll have to be content with winning the AL Central and not advancing past the ALDS. Texas, New York, Toronto, and probably Houston will all spend closer to $200 million and that $50 million difference will matter for talent and depth.

[TopGunn#22]

I agree that none of these contracts is a backbreaker.  And they are only "problems" in so far as the Pohlad family allows them to be.  Correa plays.  he didn't hit in 2023 but I could see a rebound in 2024.  He also brings intangibles that good teams need.  Buxton seemed like a win-win for player and team at the time.  What can we truly expect from Buxton in 2024 and beyond?  None of us has a clue and that's the mystery wrapped in an enigma that is Byron Buxton.  It's $15 million a year.  That's "difficult" but it sure as heck isn't a Kris Bryant/Giancarlo Stanton disaster.

Vasquez is a minor problem for an older catcher extremely good at handling a pitching staff and calling a game.  And his problem contract is helped by the emergence of Jeffers being what the Twins hoped he'd be.  Cory E. put it best when he said Dobnak is nothing more than a rounding error on a spreadsheet.

So if this is a "problem" in any way, it's only a problem in that the Pohlad's allow it to be.  They could easily handle a $150 million dollar payroll for 2024 but choose to treat it as an issue.  There will be some sort of TV/Media deal.  Their pockets are deep enough to trade for Corbin Burnes and give him a contract to keep him.  But they choose not to.  Their pockets are deep enough to put in the high bid for Yoshi Yamamoto and add a 25 year old #1 or #2 at the top of the rotation to pair with Lopez.  They will choose not to.  Because it's the Pohlad way.    

[terrydactyls]

47 minutes ago, Karbo said:

 Dobnak was a mistake plane and simple. A 1 year wonder.

What kind of plane?  Cesna, Airbus, 777?

[Cory Engelhardt]

16 minutes ago, TopGunn#22 said:

I agree that none of these contracts is a backbreaker.  And they are only "problems" in so far as the Pohlad family allows them to be.  Correa plays.  he didn't hit in 2023 but I could see a rebound in 2024.  He also brings intangibles that good teams need.  Buxton seemed like a win-win for player and team at the time.  What can we truly expect from Buxton in 2024 and beyond?  None of us has a clue and that's the mystery wrapped in an enigma that is Byron Buxton.  It's $15 million a year.  That's "difficult" but it sure as heck isn't a Kris Bryant/Giancarlo Stanton disaster.

Vasquez is a minor problem for an older catcher extremely good at handling a pitching staff and calling a game.  And his problem contract is helped by the emergence of Jeffers being what the Twins hoped he'd be.  Cory E. put it best when he said Dobnak is nothing more than a rounding error on a spreadsheet.

So if this is a "problem" in any way, it's only a problem in that the Pohlad's allow it to be.  They could easily handle a $150 million dollar payroll for 2024 but choose to treat it as an issue.  There will be some sort of TV/Media deal.  Their pockets are deep enough to trade for Corbin Burnes and give him a contract to keep him.  But they choose not to.  Their pockets are deep enough to put in the high bid for Yoshi Yamamoto and add a 25 year old #1 or #2 at the top of the rotation to pair with Lopez.  They will choose not to.  Because it's the Pohlad way.    

We don’t know that they won’t choose to add and extend someone like Burnes though (or at least add and plan on giving the qo 11 months from now.) We are all just guessing at this point based on quotes regarding payroll. I can’t say they won’t add someone like Burnes or Glasnow, but we have to let this offseason play out right?

Arguably, the trade package going out for a player with 1 year team control (especially a name player) should be less in terms of prospects compared to someone with multiple years of team control. So adding someone like Burnes or Glasnow, just for one year, shouldn’t be cost prohibitive, and would also cost less in terms of prospects. With how much pitching they have that will start the year at Wichita, this path makes a world of sense to me for 2024.

[terrydactyls]

Just now, Cory Engelhardt said:

 but we have to let this offseason play out right?

NO NO NO!!!

That's not the Twins Daily way of doing things!  😁😁

(Is there a sarcasm emoji?)

[DJL44]

38 minutes ago, Coach Wheels said:

In 2024, if spending $150 million on payroll is a bridge too far for Twins ownership, then I'll have to be content with winning the AL Central and not advancing past the ALDS. Texas, New York, Toronto, and probably Houston will all spend closer to $200 million and that $50 million difference will matter for talent and depth.

Actually those teams will spend closer to $250M and the difference will be that the Twins want a payroll at about half of the top 10 spenders. That will force the Twins to buy talent with prospects and make the rebuilding seasons between contending windows worse or settle for never really building a team that can be expected to win in the playoffs. Consistent mediocrity or boom/bust - that's the choice. They can't be consistently excellent with a payroll in the bottom third.

[Blyleven2011]

Funny how the players mentioned in the article are all from the falvey / Levine  era ...

Terry Ryan must have been a genius then at handing out multi-year contracts  ...

Hughes , Nolasco  , peltry  ...

 

Now think about the worst twins contract signed , for me ot was DONALDSON  , why ? , because we didn't need him after a great 2019 offensive year , what we needed at the time was pitching ...

Worst acquisition  for the Twins  , plain and simple  ...

 

[Karbo]

39 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

What kind of plane?  Cesna, Airbus, 777?

too early but probably a crashed plane

[mikelink45]

Reverse the order.  Ballplayers are inconsistent commodities so the ranking will shift.  If Buxton cannot play CF this year his contract goes to the top of the list.  The Twins are actually in good shape compared to many teams.  Players like the three you listed and Corbin, Stanton, Rodon, Yelich, Bumgarner, Sale, and Strasburg are the kind the really hurt.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, TopGunn#22 said:

I agree that none of these contracts is a backbreaker.  And they are only "problems" in so far as the Pohlad family allows them to be.  Correa plays.  he didn't hit in 2023 but I could see a rebound in 2024.  He also brings intangibles that good teams need.  Buxton seemed like a win-win for player and team at the time.  What can we truly expect from Buxton in 2024 and beyond?  None of us has a clue and that's the mystery wrapped in an enigma that is Byron Buxton.  It's $15 million a year.  That's "difficult" but it sure as heck isn't a Kris Bryant/Giancarlo Stanton disaster.

Vasquez is a minor problem for an older catcher extremely good at handling a pitching staff and calling a game.  And his problem contract is helped by the emergence of Jeffers being what the Twins hoped he'd be.  Cory E. put it best when he said Dobnak is nothing more than a rounding error on a spreadsheet.

So if this is a "problem" in any way, it's only a problem in that the Pohlad's allow it to be.  They could easily handle a $150 million dollar payroll for 2024 but choose to treat it as an issue.  There will be some sort of TV/Media deal.  Their pockets are deep enough to trade for Corbin Burnes and give him a contract to keep him.  But they choose not to.  Their pockets are deep enough to put in the high bid for Yoshi Yamamoto and add a 25 year old #1 or #2 at the top of the rotation to pair with Lopez.  They will choose not to.  Because it's the Pohlad way.    

We hear insistently that the problem is the Pohlads are cheap.  Yet, those who post this NEVER offer any form of proof that the Pohlads spend a smaller percentage of team revenue than other teams.  Nor do they show any sources that project the Twin's to make more money than the other teams or even the same amount of money. 

I looked up one year, 2022.  I was lazy and just did the teams with +/- 10% of the twins revenue.   However, I have done this for several other years in the past and as far as I can tell these rants are the product of an unwillingness to actually get informed before drawing a conclusion and/or complaining.

TEAM                                   REV          Payroll   % of REV

 

[GNess]

So much is recency bias with these four. I think the Dobnak contract was the least wise of the four. MLB star level players such as Correa warrant high-end contracts. It is noted that the "Pohlad Way" doesn't allow for big spending - well they spent big on Correa and folks complain about that.

Have it both ways much?

[saviking]

What I've been saying all year ... Thanks for daring to say it. You got all four right 

[ashbury]

For the 3 current contracts named that are on the 40-man, we don't know yet. 

Acquiring top tier players who have any choice in the matter will always seem "not cost effective" because the collective bargaining agreement makes it that way.  Multiple teams will bid up anyone perceived as above average, creating the classic s-shaped curve (here, money spent on the horizontal axis, value on the vertical).

I'll go along with others that Donaldson's contract was bad for the Twins, because it cost them significant resources in trade to simply get out from under it.  Buxton's contract has simply cost money, so far; the terms of the contract were meant to protect against injury but "oh, I can only DH today" for weeks on end proved to be a loophole, and if that persists through the life of the contract I'll change my view. Correa and Vazquez, I foresee them delivering more value than they have so far, so the jury's out.

Dobnak is looking like a failure of player evaluation, with the finger injury being merely what triggered it.  It bothers me more than it should, because the contract is the least consequential of those named.

[JD-TWINS]

Mostly, really solid comments here. The Revenue per team & associated payroll is very interesting. TWINS spend twice the % of Baltimore - Pittsburgh -  Cleveland…….they are truly CHEAP organizations!

Anyway, the only really bad contract at this point is Buxton’s, since he’s not been playing and there’s some doubt that he will going forward.

Dobnack is “a rounding error” as stated above, CC will be back to contributing status, Vazquez is the risk for signing an aging vet - he’s not far from average & a plus defensively.

Nothing here to stop us from having an ability to spend another $30M if we trade away Polanco’s $10.5M. That would get us to solid - competitive club!

[mikelink45]

I had to look at this from another direction since there are too many ways to evaluate this so - cost benefit - using baseball reference:

Correa $36 - 1.4 WAR - $25m per war points

Dobnak - $2.5 - 0 War - no return

Vazquez - $10m - -0.3 WAR - a negative return

Buxton - $15m - 0.8 WAR - $18.75 per war point.

[rv78]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

We hear insistently that the problem is the Pohlads are cheap.  Yet, those who post this NEVER offer any form of proof that the Pohlads spend a smaller percentage of team revenue than other teams. 

Spending by percentage of revenue is only one way to look at being "cheap". Since the Pohlads are loaded with cash they could spend any amount of cash and get any player in todays market. It would take them to spend money they made from other sources outside of baseball to do that. Will they? Highly unlikely. That's what some people feel, makes them cheap. So, they could, but won't. In the grand scheme of things they could buy their way to a Championship or at the very least increase the odds of it happening tremendously. In the process you excite the fan base, draw more fans to games, increase sales of team paraphernalia and make even more money. But they won't... so yes, they are cheap. 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, rv78 said:

Spending by percentage of revenue is only one way to look at being "cheap". Since the Pohlads are loaded with cash they could spend any amount of cash and get any player in todays market. It would take them to spend money they made from other sources outside of baseball to do that. Will they? Highly unlikely. That's what some people feel, makes them cheap. So, they could, but won't. In the grand scheme of things they could buy their way to a Championship or at the very least increase the odds of it happening tremendously. In the process you excite the fan base, draw more fans to games, increase sales of team paraphernalia and make even more money. But they won't... so yes, they are cheap. 

Every owner has other sources of income.  That's why they are owners.  How many of them have ever in the history of the game intentionally operated at a loss.  There has been one, Peter Seidler.  Of course, he never spent lavishly either until he knew his time on earth was coming to an end. 

We expect players who earn multi-generational wealth over the course of a 10-15 year to act in a manner to get every penny they can from this game.  Asking an owner to make nothing for a year or two would be one thing but expecting them to lose money is naive and entitled.  If they are going to take tens of millions out of their own pocket, I would hope they would donate that money to a much more worthy cause than POTENTIALLY winning a couple more baseball games.  

Let's be fair and measure the Pohlads against all other owners in terms of how much of what they take in are they willing to spend on payroll.  Just once, I would like to see one of the people who constantly whine about payroll support their position with some sort of evidence like we would in assessing the performance of any player.