Who Says No? Brian Dozier Edition

Of course there's risk both ways.  Point is, you don't land a team-friendly extension for multiple-time All-Stars.  There's little room to go up from there and you're probably MORE likely to overpay.  One could probably argue the point that it might be too late already.

 

You've never really been a Dozier fan, as I recall.  He'll likely have a down year or injury at some point, as most players do, and I just hope that isn't used as ammunition to prove that point.  I don't see much in his game that isn't sustainable.  The BB% might fall back some, but the defense is there and his stroke fits TF well to match up with his pretty average FB/HR%.

His OPS is largely HR driven and that has proven streaky. I like the way Dozier plays but is he so good we should rush into an extension years before we need to? What's best case scenario? We save a few million?

I guess I don't see that outweighing the risk. I'd advocate that for an elite talent. A good talent? No thanks.

I understand the argument against doing it, but the best case is more like $20M + significantly higher trade value than a few million.  

 

Seager was in the same draft class as Dozier and is a similar age.  He just signed for $100M to go through '21.  MLBTR projected Seager's arb years ('15-'17) at $27-30M and roughly $18M/year for the four free agent years that were bought out.  Seth has projected Dozier's arb years ('16-'18) at $23-27M here.  So, we're assuming Dozier is slightly less valuable than Seager, which seems about right.

 

Let's change the years to make the two more directly comparable.  Tack on another year to Seth's offer and you're at, let's say, 7/$55M to get through '21 (just like Seager).  If the Twins decide to wait a year and Dozier puts up another year identical to 2014, that gets him even closer to Seager territory.  I think he'd be looking for more like 6/$75 to get through '21 at that point.

 

So, if the difference between extending this year and next year is $20M with just a repeat performance in 2015, let's also consider $20M of downside... and it's extremely hard to envision Dozier not being worth $35M over the next 7 years.  There's certainly risk there, but it's attractive risk in my eyes.

First, I'd argue the longer the deal the less valuable he'll be in trade.  Span had value because it was a short deal that wouldn't hang over your head for long.  Signing Dozier to such an extension would, for all intents and purposes, make him untradeable for at least the bulk of the deal.

Second, I'd also quibble with your conclusion at the end that you can subtract that 20M and suggest we're buying Dozier for 5M a year.  It doesn't work that way - the 75 to 55 comparison is fine, the point about 5/35 is just erroneous and misleading.  

Brian Dozier has accomplished one season in which he was an above average major league baseball player and that one season was very erratic.  If a repeated 2014 bumps his arb. cost by an average of 1-2M for the next few years I can handle that and talk extension at the end of the year when we have more data on what he'll be. 

If you want more reasons to consider that, please look at the ten players Dozier's career is most similar to thus far:

Dale Sveum (962)

Bobby Crosby (957)

Danny Espinosa (953)

Damian Jackson (952)

Ted Lepcio (950)

Tim Teufel (949)

Bernie Allen (948)

Don Zimmer (945)

Gary Alexander (941)

Andre Rodgers (940)

Yeah, Bobby Crosby and Danny Espinosa aren't guys I want to toss 60M at because we're happy with 1.5 seasons of baseball.

Sveum played only a some games at 2b. After he missed a season with injury he was never the same player, either.

Dozier has had 2 years above average play at 2b. Even being inconsistent will make you an above average 2b.

Neither is enough to say sign Dozier to a long term contract. 28 and how many years of team control versus the life expectancy of a MI remaining good without chemical preservatives?

I was just using baseball reference for those 10 comparisons.  I also didn't highlight him for the injury reasons, Espinosa and Crosby do remind me a lot of Dozier on the other hand.

But let's be clear - Dozier has been above average for only 1.5 years.  He was pretty bad to start 2013 but then came out of nowhere in June and August of that year.  I'm not sure why that deserves 50+ million when your hand is far from being forced.

That wasn't the intent. The Twins obviously can't get Dozier for $5M/yr. If the Twins can save (for those touchy about that word, replace it with "spend elsewhere") $20M with an extension now, what does spending $20M too much look like? I think you've actually highlighted that dropping $20M from 7/$55 sounds so improbable, making the upside greater than the downside.

 

No baseball player is ever "consistent" enough though. The guy has been healthy and put up back to back above average seasons by adjusting after a tough rookie year. That's a feat on its' own.

 

But hey, again, I get the argument for not doing it. I just don't want folks to think there's no difference or harm in waiting if that's the easy answer most people are giving.

Saving 20M over 6 years is pretty close to what I said - " a couple million a year".  Does it matter?  Sure and if we were talking about Santana repeating 2014 for the next two years I'd hop on board in a heartbeat for this type of deal.  But your position assumes he continues to be above average and his arb. prices increase to reflect that, but that scenario is hardly a given.  So while the Arb. prices MIGHT get bigger you are guaranteed the price on him gets bigger if you extend him.  Production or not and I don't see the need to guarantee him that much money when the team has so much control over him left. 

Also, Dozier has had one above average year, not two.  He was average in 2013 and above average in 2014.  We'd be paying 50-60 million in guaranteed money for what amounts to 1.5 seasons of good play for a guy who didn't have an elite prospect status.  I think I can safely say I'd never be comfortable with that situation going forward regardless of who the player is or how they profile.

To be fair, I think you've added the "a year" portion year. The key value I think you're missing here is extra years of control at less than free agency costs. That's why teams are doing these deals.

 

Seager wasn't a top prospect either -- 7/$100M after 3 years. Gyorko was slightly more well regarded, but not a top 50 prospect either -- 5/$35 after ONE year. That's fine to not want the Twins to do it, but there's risk and downside to that as well.

I wouldn't have done either of those deals either and in general I think the trend towards these contracts is a fad that is going to die off quickly when teams start realizing how infrequent it is that you get even a decent return on your investment.

Declining from all star, 3 to 4 WAR player.....he would still have value. It isn't like he drops off the planet, probably.

Declining from all star, 3 to 4 WAR player.....he would still have value. It isn't like he drops off the planet, probably.

Except that's exactly what happens to many players like Dozier.

Really, at 31 or 32 you think he will be worthless?

Really, at 31 or 32 you think he will be worthless?

We are less than two years removed from him being a sub 600 OPS player and an afterthought. So, yeah, he could be.

Could be? sure, every player could  be bad....if you never sign anyone because they could be bad, you never sign anyone, ever. I don't anticipate that is a recipe for long term success. 

Do you think he will be?

Could be? sure, every player could  be bad....if you never sign anyone because they could be bad, you never sign anyone, ever. I don't anticipate that is a recipe for long term success. 

 

Do you think he will be?

I think 2.5 years of data to make a decision is WAY better than 1.5. That's when I'd like to answer that question and I think the Twins would be wise to do the same.