Berardino: Twins close to extension with Dozier

[PseudoSABR]

Mike Berardino is reporting the Twins are close to an extension.  Steve Adams over at mlbtr provides more context.

[gunnarthor]

Man, I think I'm actually against this.  The Twins have control of him for another 4 years, through his age 31 season.  No need  to extend him now.

[DutchFarmer]

Man, I think I'm actually against this.  The Twins have control of him for another 4 years, through his age 31 season.  No need  to extend him now.

 

Both sides could be doing it for cost certainty. Arbitration obviously can get quite expensive for the twins with outperformance and, on the flip side of the coin, injuries/regression could cost Dozier in arb. So maybe they are doing an extension with possible club and/or player options just for that certainty. 

[Seth Stohs]

If there is anyone who would be able to handle a multi-year deal, it's Dozier. I'd be curious of the terms before making any strong statements for or against the deal. We've written about it a lot here. There are good reasons to, and there are good reasons not to. 

 

For him, I hope they get something done. If not, he'll get more (possibly) in the long run. The risk would be nearly entirely on the Twins, the longer the deal.

[iTwins]

I'll echo Seth's point. Until I see the terms, it's hard to take a stance for or against the (supposed) deal.

 

With four years of team control, I wouldn't be in a hurry to offer an extension if I was in Terry Ryan's chair, but if both sides see value in the deal - what's the harm?

[Willihammer]

I suspect they'll leverage a raise in 2015 to bring down the price/years at the back. I'd wager something like 2.5-5-7-10-option

[PseudoSABR]

Cost certainty can also make Dozier a more attractive trade candidate down the road, ala Span.

[TheLeviathan]

Not a fan unless the contract is ridiculously lopsided in the Twins' favor.  And since I doubt that's the case - I'm not a fan.

[gunnarthor]

I suspect they'll leverage a raise in 2015 to bring down the price/years at the back. I'd wager something like 2.5-5-7-10-option

 

 

Cost certainty can also make Dozier a more attractive trade candidate down the road, ala Span.

Both are good points.  Until we know, I shouldn't complain.

[sorney]

I'd rather the players get the money than the owners, but man, this just seems like a bad move. Best case scenario, he puts up MVP #'s for 4 years, and the Twins lose money going to arb...but that would suggest they are actually winning games too...whatever, I guess.  Not my money, I just don't want the *50% of our revenues will be for payroll* and having a useless contract on hand preventing the team from improving

[jimmer]

Just because he's being extended doesn't mean they will keep him.  They didn't keep Span. Seems a whole lot of worrying for nothing.  

[James]

I have a feeling that this is an extension to buy out the arb years and maybe one of the first free agent years, but I kind of doubt that last part.

 

Anyway, they can talk all they want.  Who knows, nothing at all may happen.  I have a feeling there aren't going to be any losers in this situation.  It will probably be something pretty fair for both the Twins and Dozier.  

[TheLeviathan]

Just because he's being extended doesn't mean they will keep him.  They didn't keep Span. Seems a whole lot of worrying for nothing.  

 

Span outplayed his contract, in part because the one he signed was ridiculously team friendly.  

 

The assumption that he will have better trade value is built on the assumption that he'll be worth at least as much, if not more, than the dollars given to him.  That's an awfully big assumption and, therefore, an awfully big risk to take for a guy that wouldn't see FA for a very, very long time and at a time he'll be past his prime anyway.

 

To put it simply, the risk/reward here is very lopsided towards risk.

[tobi0040]

Just because he's being extended doesn't mean they will keep him.  They didn't keep Span. Seems a whole lot of worrying for nothing.  

 

While I agree it doesn't mean we will keep him, the Span comp doesn't make a ton of sense to me.  Span had three years left when we traded him and we had little hope of being good during that time period.  With a Dozier contract and the prospects we have, that should not be the case.

[jimmer]

Span outplayed his contract, in part because the one he signed was ridiculously team friendly.  

 

The assumption that he will have better trade value is built on the assumption that he'll be worth at least as much, if not more, than the dollars given to him.  That's an awfully big assumption and, therefore, an awfully big risk to take for a guy that wouldn't see FA for a very, very long time and at a time he'll be past his prime anyway.

 

To put it simply, the risk/reward here is very lopsided towards risk.

Why don't we wait to see what Dozier's contract is first. Could very well be team friendly as well.  Not sure we need to worry too much about the money for awhile. The kids so many are expecting to be superstars aren't due for raises for a long time.  Like the three that haven't even made it to the majors yet.

[TheLeviathan]

Why don't we wait to see what Dozier's contract is first. Could very well be team friendly as well. 

 

If it is, then that mitigates the risk significantly and I'm on board.  As a general principle, however, I think extensions with this much team control left are bad ideas.  

[tobi0040]

If it is, then that mitigates the risk significantly and I'm on board.  As a general principle, however, I think extensions with this much team control left are bad ideas.  

 

I am more sold on the why do the deal when you have this much control stance (assuming we are in the 6/45 or more range).  But I have to say, I feel like 45M spread over the next six years for an above average 2B should not hurt this team.  He has a long way to regress in order for him to simply be an average 2B, and this team is going to have a ridiculous numbers of players under control for the next 5-7 years.  

 

I am also glad to see the Twins shelling out money for premier talent.  I would rather have this extreme than the old extreme, keep him year to year then trade him at the last minute and get no value back.

[jimmer]

Dozier was worth almost 40M the last two years combined (slightly more than what Span has been worth over the same time period) and Dozier only turns 28 this season.

[Linus]

I would only do it if it was a pretty team friendly deal and it potentially enhanced his trade value.  I get the extensions when they buy out part of the player's prime but we have team control of him through his age 31 season - which will be the perfect time to deal him and let some other team overpay for his decline years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not entirely against an extension for Dozier but right now, I don't really see the point in it, either.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'll wait to see the terms.  The Span deal ended up pretty sweet, even though he never consistently replicated the production (mainly hitting) of his first two seasons and even sustained a concussion along the way.  Locking up him at reasonable prices through age 30, with an age 31 option, helped us deal him for a top pitching prospect.

 

Even if you are not sold on Dozier's bat yet (or what shape his offensive production will ultimately take), he's got similar baserunning, defensive, and positional value as Span, so it would be hard for him not to be worth just about any reasonable extension through age 31 (plus perhaps an age 32 option?).

 

Span had one less year of service time than Dozier now, so I don't expect quite the same discount, although neither was arbitration eligible yet which seems the most important point (both had big incentive to lock in to something).

[Otto von Ballpark]

From MLBTR:

 

 

both Jason Kipnis and Matt Carpenter agreed to extensions in the $52MM range over six-year terms last spring when they were in Dozier’s same service class.

 

That would be a little high for Dozier.  Both of those guys were coming off better offensive seasons (146 and 129 wRC+, as compared to Dozier's 118), and generally better WAR seasons too (although Fangraphs doesn't seem to like Kipnis's 2013 as much a B-Ref).

 

Not that other aspects of Dozier's game don't have value, but he hasn't demonstrated an offensive ceiling quite as high as those two comparables.

[jimmer]

Dozier's last two years combined was worth 39M.  If the Twins can get him for 6 years at 52M, they should do it. He could very well exceed the value in his first 4 years.

[HitInAPinch]

Dozier has progressed some over the past 3 seasons but looking at his BA and K's, I'm wondering how much more can we expect?   I'd [quietly] put him on the trading block to see what other teams think of him.  If there's a team out there that likes him, I'd trade and give Polanco and others a shot at the job. 

 

Terry Ryan seems stuck in a pattern of constantly trying to patch the pitching staff with long-ish contracts for mediocre pitchers and extending players to the end of their playing days.  And, yes, I would have traded both Hrbek and Puckett at their peak.

[TheLeviathan]

Dozier's last two years combined was worth 39M.  If the Twins can get him for 6 years at 52M, they should do it. He could very well exceed the value in his first 4 years.

 

I think it would be helpful not to use those kinds of hypothetical numbers.  You're arguing that last year Dozier would have fairly been paid 20M.  There are 20 players in all of baseball being paid that much, that would seem to indicate your numbers are a bit wonky.

 

Dozier will be 32 when the team has to face a decision with him.  Anything other than a steal of an extension (6 and 52 is not even remotely a steal for him) is a bad idea.  Way too fraught with risk.

[jimmer]

I think it would be helpful not to use those kinds of hypothetical numbers.  You're arguing that last year Dozier would have fairly been paid 20M.  There are 20 players in all of baseball being paid that much, that would seem to indicate your numbers are a bit wonky.

 

Dozier will be 32 when the team has to face a decision with him.  Anything other than a steal of an extension (6 and 52 is not even remotely a steal for him) is a bad idea.  Way too fraught with risk.

my numbers are based on what is paid in free agency for the amount of WAR he's produced. So I will continue to use those values when talking about contract extensions and/or free agent contracts.

[TheLeviathan]

my numbers are based on what is paid in free agency for the amount of WAR he's produced. So I will continue to use those values when talking about contract extensions and/or free agent contracts.

 

Dozier isn't a free agent on the open market.  Do players like Dozier make 20M in arbitration?  If not, perhaps the comparison is flawed.

[tobi0040]

I think it would be helpful not to use those kinds of hypothetical numbers.  You're arguing that last year Dozier would have fairly been paid 20M.  There are 20 players in all of baseball being paid that much, that would seem to indicate your numbers are a bit wonky.

 

Dozier will be 32 when the team has to face a decision with him.  Anything other than a steal of an extension (6 and 52 is not even remotely a steal for him) is a bad idea.  Way too fraught with risk.

 

I think what is partially to blame for the wonky results is you are comparing all players in baseball to sample set that excludes any player under 28 or so (or almost all of them).   It is very rare that a player in his rookie deal, arbitration, or first team friendly deal sniffs $20M a year. 

 

That begs your point though, why pay him if you don't have to

[TheLeviathan]

I think what is partially to blame for the wonky results is you are comparing all players in baseball to sample set that excludes any player under 28 or so (or almost all of them).   It is very rare that a player in his rookie deal, arbitration, or first team friendly deal sniffs $20M a year. 

 

Precisely, so suggesting that it is "fair" to give a guy a deal based on some abstract idea of his worth seems kind of silly when, in reality, no one in Dozier's situation makes anywhere near that amount.

 

The better question is, who does Dozier compare to and what do they get paid in their situation?  To spycake's point, Dozier is not on the same level as Kipnis, so paying him that much would be an overpayment, not a bargain.

[tobi0040]

Looking at the forest through the trees, you have to wonder what the impact on guys like Sano, Buxton, and Meyer are when they see players get paid before they needed to be, versus going year to year.  Johan Santana and Torii Hunter seemed to, at times bring a negative attitude into the clubhouse about how cheap the organization is. Both made comment after comment about wanting extensions.  Torii at one point said "we didn't have enough yen" for a Japanese free agent. That negativity has to impact younger players and potential free agents.

 

so, I guess I would probably not do it.  But this amount of money should not impact any decisions we make and how we build a team.  The guy is good enough to be a good player on a good team, and I think the move has some fringe benefits like I just mentioned. So it is hard for me to get really upset about it. It seems hypocritical for me to sit and complain for years and years about how cheap the organization is, then say they paid a really good player $45M too soon.