Article: Glen Perkins Signs Extension With Twins

[alarp33]

Maybe because they believe in him and think that they just paid $22.175 M for Glen Perkins for 4 years whereas Detroit paid $20M for 2 years of Joe Nathan ($19M plus $1M buyout).

 

While Nathan's pedigree may be better, Perkins is 8 1/2 years younger than Nathan. Obviously the Twins have had a chance to compare both.

 

Apparently Perkins approached the team about re-working an extension. Overall years and dollars seem pretty reasonable. Of course there is risk to the team. But if Perkins performs well, he has also accepted risk because he undoubtedly could have gotten more money down the road.

 

That's what mutually agreed upon deals are all about.

 

Yes, they just paid him 22m for 4 years. They already had him signed for 3 years and 12 million! What they really did was pay him 10 million for 2017 with not knowing at all what will happen with him over the next 3 years

[cmathewson]

I don't know what there is to complain about. They're spending money for talent. What's not to like?

[Halsey Hall]

I'm shocked!!! Just totally shocked!

[Dman]

I like Perkins a lot, but I'm not a huge fan of the extension.

 

The Twins already had him under control through the 2016 season for about $12.5M. Roughly $4M for the next two seasons and a $4.5M club option for the 2016 season.

 

 

So they essentially just added close to $10M in new money for a reliever and his age 34 season.

 

The 2018 club option is nice, but I just don't see much upside in this move. If everything works out they get him for about $16M+ for those two additional seasons.

 

So best case scenario, they paid market value. Guess we just hope for best case scenario.

 

My conspiracy theory is that when the Twins first signed Perkins for the closer role they didn't know if he could cut it so the contract was workable for both the setup and closer role. At the time I don't think the Twins thought he would be an All Star closer. The extension eases some of the under payment for Perkins talent. If he remains the quality closer he is then 8 Million per year is still a hometown discount. Extending also pretty much gets Perkins away from trade talk and he wants to be in Minnesota. We should be happy he wants to be here. I think this was just the right thing to do.

[DaveW]

Relief pitchers (especially those with no history of injury-knocks on wood...twice) age a lot better than other players. Additionally 34 for any player is hardly that old, while it is no longer their "peak" you typically don't see such severe declines in players across the board until 36,37,38,39. For RP the decline is even less and less, Rivera, Nathan, Hawkins, Hoffman, etc are some of the most recent examples of guys who pitched just fine into their late 30's and early 40's.

 

Is there risk? Yeah I guess...but they are basically getting a very good (dare I say elite?) closer locked up on a deal that is pretty close to what they handed Blackburn.

 

Win Win Win Win Win Win Win.

 

As far as the trade chip thing goes: Now they can have another trade chip if one of the closer prospects they have in the minors is legit, just trade that guy away. Or don't, and build a truly elite bullpen from the 7th inning on.

[ashbury]

Is this not a perfect chance to do exactly what some of us have been calling for them to do and frontload the deal? Give him the 12.5 million this year, and then you've only got to pay 3 mil per year the rest of the way.

 

It's not on the scale you suggest, but you could view the renegotiation of 2014-16 as shifting to more front-loading than if they were to wait to negotiate 2017-18 at something more in the neighborhood of $10M a year. Well, less back-loading, let's call it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I don't get the complaints. Perkins is still a really affordable pitcher. He's been closing at an all star level for several years now, and if another team wants him, they are still going to be paying for him. Personally, I would have traded him (strictly from the business angle), but he's a classy guy who is one of the faces of the franchise. This is hardly a bad move.

[zchrz]

I like this move, Perk is a great story and has turned into a great closer. Reading Souhan's article about him and Mauer talking about playing out their whole careers, and winning a ring, with their hometown club was pretty cool. There was a time I wanted them to just cut ties with Perkins and move on, I was very wrong.

[DJL44]

So best case scenario, they paid market value. Guess we just hope for best case scenario.

 

They paid 2014 market value for 2017 and get an under-market option for 2018. 2017 market value will almost certainly be higher.

 

Perkins is a very effective LH reliever. He might pitch until he's 40 like Dan Plesac and Darren Oliver. Eddie Guardado was effective until age 35.

[John Bonnes]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php/2742-Glen-Perkins-Signs-Extension-With-Twins

[biggentleben]

Excellent move for the Twins. Local guy, effective in his job, and now signed cheap into the point where his 40 saves don't constitute 70% of the team's wins in a season.

[Thrylos]

was not gonna do that, but what the hey... That's what Glen Perkins is thinking about that extension (from yesterday) :

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/13155692973_5d4bfb0cfe_z.jpg

[Heimer]

As a twins fan........ .... No

As a Minnesota fan.... Yes

[diehardtwinsfan]

They paid 2014 market value for 2017 and get an under-market option for 2018. 2017 market value will almost certainly be higher.

 

Perkins is a very effective LH reliever. He might pitch until he's 40 like Dan Plesac and Darren Oliver. Eddie Guardado was effective until age 35.

 

I'd still argue it's cheap. 6M for an elite closer is a bargain.

[DuluthFan]

For those upset about the no trade issue, consider the 10/5 rule regarding trading veterans. A ten year veteran, the last five with the same team, has the right to refuse a trade. This is similar to the trade language that was worked into the Mauer deal. Perkins needs 2(?) more years to reach the 10/5 plateau.

 

Edit: After looking at the Twins Daily roster/payroll page, 2017 would be Perkins' 10th season. It effectively makes his option year a non trade season.

[JP3700]

The contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8M of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5M.

 

Here are possible scenarios:

1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
   
2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
   
3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.
   

 

Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

 

Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

 

Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.

[drunksam]

Personally, I love it. As a fan of Minnesota athletes, it eases the disappointment of Decker signing with a New York team.

[DaveW]

Here are possible scenarios:

1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
   
2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
   
3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.
   

 

Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

 

Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

 

Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.

 

1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"

2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.

3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

 

Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:

1. Talented

2. Loyal

3. Team player

4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)

 

Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)

[SweetOne69]

Teams don't do x until suddenly one does, gains a competitive advantage, and then the rest of the teams play catch up. Besides, I'm not sure that one home town guy wanting to make sure he plays his entire career for his favorite team and willing to take less money than he'd probably get if he was to play out his contract to make sure it happens sets a huge precedent.

 

The CBA prevents teams from doing this. A player's salary can only decrease 20% from one year to the next.

[JP3700]

1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"

2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.

3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

 

 

 

1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.

2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.

3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.

 

Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:

1. Talented

2. Loyal

3. Team player

4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)

 

I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.

 

Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)

 

Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

 

At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.

[Bark's Lounge]

This is a win win for the Twins and Perkins. Fair price for a Top notch relief pitcher, who is by no means past his prime.

 

I am happy for Glen. He is living the dream. Playing Major League baseball in the metropolitan area he grew up in, playing for the team he grew up cheering for, and getting paid well to do so.

 

As a fan of the Twins, I appreciate his loyalty and his ambition to initiate this extension.

[alarp33]

the contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8m of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5m.

 

Here are possible scenarios:

1. he suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14m+ that you didn't need to.
   
2. he declines through age and injury then you have given him $10m more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
   
3. he continues to be very good and you've paid him $16m+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.
   

 

only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an aav of $8m+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8m this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

 

Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16m extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16m to sign another elite fa reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

 

Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.

 

amen

[alarp33]

1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.

2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.

3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.

 

 

 

I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.

 

 

 

Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

 

At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.

 

Exactly. You seem to be the only person here who has grasped that this was completely unnecessary. Explore it after 2014 or 2015 if both parties want too. It's not going to be a killer contract even if he does fall off a cliff, but so so unnecessary

[Otto von Ballpark]

The CBA prevents teams from doing this. A player's salary can only decrease 20% from one year to the next.

This is not exactly true. The 20% rule only applies to arbitration. Extensions and free agents can agree to whatever salaries they want.

[Dman]

Exactly. You seem to be the only person here who has grasped that this was completely unnecessary. Explore it after 2014 or 2015 if both parties want too. It's not going to be a killer contract even if he does fall off a cliff, but so so unnecessary

 

I think that is why you have to look beyond the numbers for this to make sense. He worked with the Twins on his initial contract and gave them a favorable salary because he wanted to be here. He is an All Star closer and makes less than half what several premier closer's make. The Twins needed to do something to bring his monetary value more in line with his value to the team and the market.

 

This is more about mutual respect than a cold hard deal about team control. I applaud the Twins for being human beings and fair about this rather than just cold hard business. It is far too rare that we see organizations do the right thing. That is why this deal makes sense IMO.

[alarp33]

I think that is why you have to look beyond the numbers for this to make sense. He worked with the Twins on his initial contract and gave them a favorable salary because he wanted to be here. He is an All Star closer and makes less than half what several premier closer's make. The Twins needed to do something to bring his monetary value more in line with his value to the team and the market.

 

This is more about mutual respect than a cold hard deal about team control. I applaud the Twins for being human beings and fair about this rather than just cold hard business. It is far too rare that we see organizations do the right thing. That is why this deal makes sense IMO.

 

Why exactly did they need to bring his monetary value closer to his market value? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but where exactly would you draw the line? Hughes is making around $8million a year, if he wins Cy Young this year would you propose ripping up the final 2 years of deal and giving him 5 years for $110 million? If Perkins would have lost the closer job last year due to performance, it would only be fair that he reduce the remaining years of his deal?

 

Signing a player to a longer term deal involves risk from both sides, the player is risking that they could out perform the deal and undervalue themselves, the team is risking guaranteed money for a player that could get hurt or underperform.

 

Perkins and the Twins knew of these risks in 2012 when they agreed to contract. That extension looked pretty good in hindsight for the Twins, sometimes the extensions don't work out as well (Blackburn).

[Shane Wahl]

This is a pretty cheap deal for a guy who in the post Mariano and soon post Nathan era, might be a top five closer. I really commend the Twins and Perkins for doing this. It also serves to give structure to the bullpen . . . not all of these potential fireballers coming up provide some very deep setup capability for 2015 and beyond.

[twinsnorth49]

Hughes is making around $8million a year, if he wins Cy Young this year would you propose ripping up the final 2 years of deal and giving him 5 years for $110 million?

 

No, but if he won the CY Young I would certainly be thinking about extending him. The difference being Perkins has proven he can do it for years, for Hughes that would be an anomaly.

 

If Perkins would have lost the closer job last year due to performance, it would only be fair that he reduce the remaining years of his deal?

 

No, the last deal Perkins signed was mainly as a set up guy with some contingency pay if he became the closer. If he lost the closer job it still would have been pretty fair to both sides.

 

Signing a player to a longer term deal involves risk from both sides, the player is risking that they could out perform the deal and undervalue themselves, the team is risking guaranteed money for a player that could get hurt or underperform.

 

What's your point here? Never sign a long term deal in any circumstances on either side of the equation? This is nothing more than the inherent risk of doing business, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and just as often it works out both ways. In this case it's a pretty good educated guess for the Twins that it works in their favor.

 

All the Twins have really done is lock up a player they feel will continue to have value for them for an additional two years at a pretty decent price in the long term. If he doesn't stay healthy or under performs that's the price of doing business. If he continues on his present trajectory they secured him for an additional two years for far cheaper than they would have in his contract year.

[Trautmann13]

This is such a good thing for TwinsTerritory that it is not even funny. Having another hometown guy to be a face of the franchise is great. Perk is such a kind guy to all the media and fans and is proving his worth over the last few years. I don't even care about the money, I feel having an elite closer is more important than most think and having one until '17 with Glen's status is simply great. Also I love how they didn't do this in a year or two, this shows that respect and love the organization shares with him. Great move for both parties.

[kab21]

With the amount of unspent money the Twins have this should be considered a non-issue. And it's not even a lot of money. Yes, they could have brought in a Jamey Carroll type veteran for this kind of money but this sends a nice message to players (Twins and potential FA's) that the FO will take care of you.