The Pros and Cons of the Twins Extending Top Prospect Vahn Lackey

[bean5302]

6 hours ago, Western SD Fan said:

A huge difference between the examples that OP has given vs Lackey is when those players were given said extensions.  Players like Pratt, Griffin, and Emerson all signed these extensions when they were in AAA with the expectation of being brought up to the majors during the 2026 season.  Emerson, for example, was drafted in 2023 making his debut this year in 2026.  The quickest of this group to be moved through the system from draft to MLB was Konnor Griffin, who was drafted in 2024.  At best, you're looking at having this conversation next offseason.  Likely, you're having this conversation in the 2028-2029 offseason.  I don't mind the idea of signing Lackey early in his career, but in this case, it's likely too early in the process at this moment.

Exactly. No pre-AAA, MLB ready player has ever been extended because it burns options, reduces team control, and comes with enormous risk for little savings. There's no benefit to the team for doing it at all. Practicing this strategy would cripple every single MLB franchise. Even the Dodgers would be crippled by this strategy.

Even add on the fact this is extra, extra, extra stupid because of the likelihood of a lockout. If Lackey was extended, he couldn't even continue to develop in the minors because he'd have to be on the 40 man and part of the MLB CBA. 

[Woof Bronzer]

18 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Really?

Okay, so lets get serious about when Lackey likely arrives. Probably not next year. Maybe 2028 so you're going to pay him $1MM, add him to the 40 man roster (you have to do this) instead of $50,000 to play MiLB, and you lose a roster spot, an option, and a year of control. That all assumes Lackey has no developmental hiccups, no significant injuries, everything goes almost perfect.

If Lackey were to have season ending injury, now the Twins would lose TWO options and TWO years of control while paying Lackey millions to rehab and play MiLB.

On top of that, it all assumes Lackey is good at the MLB level, which is far from guaranteed. If Lackey never performs, an extension will mean covering his guaranteed salary for at least 7 years.

You could make all the same arguments for the players the Brewers extended early.  They extended a 21 year old SS with 2 years or minor league experience, and that kid was absolutely lights out in the World Series.  They are paying him like $8m/year until he's 28.  Could it go wrong?  Sure.  Right now it looks like an absolute stroke of genius.  This is the kind of thing the Twins absolutely need to be doing.  Will it work out every time? No.  But at some point you need to trust in your development and your organization.

We need to stop being so afraid of everything.  Instead of insisting on what could go wrong, why not look at what could go right.

And if it goes wrong...that sucks, but so what?  The Twins are literally paying Correa $10m to not play for them.  They paid Vasquez $10m for 3 years to be terrible.  They gave Caratini $7.5m to be pretty average.   Extending Lackey is a risk, spending money on subpar catchers consigns you to being subpar at the position. I'd much rather take the risk on Lackey at like $8m/year than spend more money on catchers we know aren't very good or paying players not to be here.

[Woof Bronzer]

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Stupid decisions cripple franchises. But, by all means, advocate for making stupid decisions just because.

Can you provide of an example when early extending a prospect crippled the franchise?  I literally can't find a single one.  

[Trov]

I see no way they do this.  Even more so this off-season.  With the CBA in question and what it looks like that will have a big impact on future FA decisions.  Why sign a guy under old rules when there is a possible the rules will change? 

You also have a guy that has not played a full season of pro ball.  We see guys have big rookie years and we start talking about how much we will count on them in the future, only to DFA them like 2 years later before they are even arb years.  Three recent names come to mind.  

Then there are other prospects we have talked about in past to do this with, Lewis being main one, now we are talking about non-tendering maybe.  If we signed him to a huge deal years ago we would be talking about how bad of a mistake that was. 

We have not had a player in recent years that we have looked back and said dang I wish we would have offered a big deal as a rookie or near that because now they are walking.  If you can name just 1 in last 20 years I would be surprised. The closest that would come to mined would be Berrios, but he really has been a number 3 to 4 starter at best since we traded him, with Bailey Ober putting up a higher bWAR than him. 

[Road trip]

Maybe next year after Lackey has had time at AA, possibly a bit of time at AAA, and the MLB labor situation is resolved.

In the unlikely event that Lackey does a "Wynegar" next year and makes it to the majors and performs well and it becomes too late to extend him cheap...  well, that's a really good problem to have.

[twinsfansd]

I don't believe they can sign him to an extension until they put him on the major league roster. Then they will have to burn option years, etc not to mention taking up a valuable spot on the 40-man roster. Things to think about.