Article: Who Says No? Trevor Plouffe Edition

[jorgenswest]

Reading through the two discussions, I think I have settled in on a position which isn't consistent with some of my earlier statements. You have helped to change my thinking.

 

Plouffe and Dozier are very similar cases. They both hit arb1 during there age 29 season and the Twins don't lose team control until age 32. Neither is so great that the Twins couldn't afford any 1 year arb award they may earn. The Twins will be able to pay them what they earn.

 

The two most mentioned comps in Seager and Walker differ in one very important attribute. They hit arb1 at 27 and team control is lost at age 30. Those 30 and 31 year old seasons are worth protecting. Span would have hit arb 1 earlier also. The Twins extended Span though his age 31 season.

 

It is best for the Twins to go year to year with both. There are no bad one year contracts. One year contracts are the most flexible to trade. There isn't enough savings to be found in extending them.

 

Worst case by not signing. The pair plays really well and it costs the Twins in payroll. It might even amount to the difference of a Correia or Pelfrey level free agent signing.

 

Worst case by signing. They regress towards career norms and the Twins have contracts that are difficult to move.

 

I am convinced the Twins should say no to both.

[stringer bell]

Concur with most of your thoughts above jorgenswest, however, a factual nit to pick: Plouffe was a Super2 Arb last year at age 27 and will FA eligible at 31, and could sign and play for another team at age 31. Dozier will be 28 a year from now when he is eligible for arb and like Plouffe could sign and play for another team at 31 (only six weeks into the season would be his birthday).

[mnfireman]

Gotta have faith in your farm system. Neither Plouffe nor Dozier are superstars and replacements should be available from the system when they hit their FA seasons. Go year to year with both until/unless they show they deserve the big payday.

[jorgenswest]

Baseball Reference must be incorrect about Plouffe's status. They have first free agency as 2018 which is his 32 year old season. 

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/plouftr01.shtml

 

... or maybe it is just a difference in how age is listed (opening day vs. July 1).

 

In any case, the Twins should treat this situation differently than those of Seager, Walker or Span.

[stringer bell]

Jorgenswest, I used actual age at arb and also said that Plouffe could sign and play (about half the season as a 31 year old).  Same with Dozier, now Dozier's BD is in May so he'll only play six weeks of each season at the younger age. 

[jorgenswest]

These aging curves were based on July 1 age. Plouffe fits in as age 32.125 on that date in 2018. Players with later starts like Dozier and Plouffe would fit in the green line. We don't know which players will decline quicker, but as a group decline starts showing up for 5000 PA players after 32 and earlier for players with less plate appearances.

 http://www.hardballtimes.com/wp-content/images/tht/image007.png

The graph below splits the eras. We might argue that players declined later because of current nutrition and working out routines. On the other hand, it has been argued that the 1980-2008 era was one of steroid use and that use allowed players to perform longer and recover from injury quicker.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/wp-content/images/tht/image002.png

As a group, it is better to bet on a player's performance remaining level through 30-31 rather than paying the bulk of an extension in their age 32-33 seasons.

 

Is there something special about Plouffe (or Dozier) that would cause them to be among the minority of players that decline at a later age?

[zchrz]

I don't think they should commit long term to Plouffe, he isn't an ideal fit for this organization going forward if he is one of the mid to bigger salary eaters on the roster. 

 

He has certainly improved a lot and looked like an actual big league 3rd baseman last year, but it would be foolish to block getting the utmost value out of Sano which is at 3rd.

 

Then Plouffe has to become Micheal Cuddyer, can he adjust to the outfield like Cuddy did?  Can he continue to progress with the bat?   That is the gamble you have to take if he doesn't adjust your stuck paying 10+ to Cuddyer lite.

 

I would ride out his arbitration years seeking a trade partner, if that happened sooner than later that would be fine because Escobar is much cheaper, more versatile, and a better defender. 

[h2oface]

As with the other recent articles about Plouffe..... I say keep him, for all the reasons i won't repeat.  Somebody will always need a third baseman.  Right now, the Twins do.

[HitInAPinch]

This thread reflects our reality the last four years: a guy plays competently and we fall all over ourselves to hand them millions for half a decade. Let's let the career play out a bit and assess his value when we aren't awful.

Couldn't agree more.  Dozier and Plouffe are major league average players.  We're celebrating Plouffe playing better defense last year, when honestly, he could only go up. I'd wait until the bitter end before I contemplate extensions for either.  Before they get to see the money, I need to see BA's higher than .242 and .258.

[jorgenswest]

What would the A's do with Plouffe?

[tobi0040]

What would the A's do with Plouffe?

 

I used to think that we would get something good via trade for Plouffe, given the scarcity at 3B.  However, the Josh Donaldson trade has made me change my mind a bit.

 

Donaldson is way better than Plouffe, career OPS + of 125, OPS of .805.  Plouffe's career OPS + is 99, OPS .723.  The A's only received Brett Lawrie and three prospects.  Only only one of which is top 10 in their system at #5 (Barreto according to BA).

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2015-toronto-blue-jays-top-10-prospects-video/

Edited November 29, 2014 by tobi0040

[jorgenswest]

The A's traded number 1 starter Rich Harden for four young players in 2008. Rich Harden was a sell high and the trade was seen by some as a steal for the Cubs. One of the prospects in return on a buy low was Josh Donaldson. He was their number 7 prospect going into 2008 and was having a bad season. He certainly had fallen out of their top 10.

 

Somehow the A's scouts always make these deals work. Will it be Brett Lawrie? Is he traded 5 years from now for another 4 guys? Will it be the 18 year old SS prospect? Do the A's see something in those starting pitching prospects? I don't know. They continue to win by selling high. It works because of the success of their scouting department finding the right guys.

Edited November 29, 2014 by jorgenswest

[tobi0040]

The A's traded number 1 starter Rich Harden for four young players in 2008. Rich Harden was a sell high and the trade was seen by some as a steal for the Cubs. One of the prospects in return on a buy low was Josh Donaldson. He was their number 7 prospect going into 2008 and was having a bad season. He certainly had fallen out of their top 10.

 

Somehow the A's scouts always make these deals work. Will it be Brett Lawrie? Is he traded 5 years from now for another 4 guys? Will it be the 18 year old SS prospect? Do the A's see something in those starting pitching prospects? I don't know. They continue to win by selling high. It works because of the success of their scouting department finding the right guys.

 

I can't argue with that.  They continue, year in and year out to find guys that everyone seems to want three years later.

[jokin]

I used to think that we would get something good via trade for Plouffe, given the scarcity at 3B.  However, the Josh Donaldson trade has made me change my mind a bit.

 

Donaldson is way better than Plouffe, career OPS + of 125, OPS of .805.  Plouffe's career OPS + is 99, OPS .723.  The A's only received Brett Lawrie and three prospects.  Only only one of which is top 10 in their system at #5 (Barreto according to BA).

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2015-toronto-blue-jays-top-10-prospects-video/

 

I think you're shortchanging the haul that the A's got, just a bit.  Nolin was a Top 100 guy in 2013, Graveman was stellar through FIVE levels of play in 2014 (is that some kind of record for promotions?).  And Barreto is likely to join the Top 100 list some time in 2015. 

 

Lowrie has the talent, he was a 1st round draft pick, after all.  Perhaps the A's think they know how to solve his oblique problems.

 

Despite what some have written about the chances for Nolin and Graverman as starters, here's what your BA article said:

 

 

Toronto boasts nearly major league-ready starters in Norris, righthander Kendall Graveman and lefthander Sean Nolin—

 

As others have pointed out, including me, Oakland tends to get more out of the guys they acquire than what was expected, witness Jesse Chavez, who they got off the waiver wire from the Blue Jays, a lot of those guys labelled "back end starters" have a chance to do better in Oakland. Nolin seems like a perfect fit.

Edited November 29, 2014 by jokin

[tobi0040]

I think you're shortchanging the haul that the A's got, just a bit.  Nolin was a Top 100 guy in 2013, Graveman was stellar through FIVE levels of play in 2014 (is that some kind of record for promotions?).  And Barreto is likely to join the Top 100 list some time in 2015. 

 

Lowrie has the talent, he was a 1st round draft pick, after all.  Perhaps the A's think they know how to solve his oblique problems.

 

Despite what some have written about the chances for Nolin and Graverman as starters, here's what your BA article said:

 

 

As others have pointed out, including me, Oakland tends to get more out of the guys they acquire than what was expected, witness Jesse Chavez, who they got off the waiver wire from the Blue Jays, a lot of those guys labelled "back end starters" have a chance to do better in Oakland. Nolin seems like a perfect fit.

 

Sickels had their sytsem at 15 in May and only one of the guys was top 10.  He is likely out of the top 100, just doing a quick 5 x 30 calculation.

 

I could be short changing the move and it may turn out to be good for them.  But it has tempered my expectations for a Plouffe trade.

[Sanjay Wolowitz]

Plouffe is a good, but not great, player.  His defense has really come along, and his bat -- while not perfect -- has been relatively steady the last few years.  If they didn't have Sano or Rosario set to leave Plouffe without a regular position in the very near future, and if the Seager contract hadn't happened yet, then I would consider extending him.

 

However, there's no way any player on the 25 man roster is currently worth a contract like Seager's.  And that's what it might take to retain Plouffe for the long term.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to the Twins approaching Plouffe with a 3-4 year contract offer and a warning that he's going to have to get to (and stay at) near all-star level form in order to keep his spot in the starting lineup.

 

At this point I think the Twins would do well to wait and see how Sano and Rosario do in spring training.  If they look anywhere near ready to go at the MLB level, I would start shopping Plouffe pretty aggressively.  I would want at least a Trevor May-level return for him, and if I couldn't get it then I would have zero problem turning Plouffe into a rich man's Denny Hocking.

[TheLeviathan]

The A's traded number 1 starter Rich Harden for four young players in 2008. Rich Harden was a sell high and the trade was seen by some as a steal for the Cubs. One of the prospects in return on a buy low was Josh Donaldson. He was their number 7 prospect going into 2008 and was having a bad season. He certainly had fallen out of their top 10.

 

Somehow the A's scouts always make these deals work. Will it be Brett Lawrie? Is he traded 5 years from now for another 4 guys? Will it be the 18 year old SS prospect? Do the A's see something in those starting pitching prospects? I don't know. They continue to win by selling high. It works because of the success of their scouting department finding the right guys.

 

You should probably go back and look at this, the trade record isn't as sterling as you think.  That's more of a perceptual bias because Beane is a very talented GM.

 

Just to name one: the Hudson deal was pretty much an utter disaster.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

I think the comparisons to Sandoval and Yeager shows he has value in the market.

 

If the Giants empty the piggy bank to land Lester, I would not be surprised if they come calling. Plouffe is a solid and affordable option with several years of team control.

 

Based on that logic, the the team should avoid a long term deal..

 

On the other hand, if the team sees Plouffe as a versatile and important part of the rebuild, I could see them locking him in soon. Another good season could increase the price tag considerably. Knowing that the team will likely have to open their pocket books for free agents and extensions to prospects down the road, it might make sense to make a deal now. It all depends on how Plouffe fits into their long term plans.

[old nurse]

These aging curves were based on July 1 age. Plouffe fits in as age 32.125 on that date in 2018. Players with later starts like Dozier and Plouffe would fit in the green line. We don't know which players will decline quicker, but as a group decline starts showing up for 5000 PA players after 32 and earlier for players with less plate appearances.

 http://www.hardballtimes.com/wp-content/images/tht/image007.png

The graph below splits the eras. We might argue that players declined later because of current nutrition and working out routines. On the other hand, it has been argued that the 1980-2008 era was one of steroid use and that use allowed players to perform longer and recover from injury quicker.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/wp-content/images/tht/image002.png

As a group, it is better to bet on a player's performance remaining level through 30-31 rather than paying the bulk of an extension in their age 32-33 seasons.

 

Is there something special about Plouffe (or Dozier) that would cause them to be among the minority of players that decline at a later age?

As a guide that is about as accurate as a defensive metric there is decline with age. How much decline is going to vary with each individual. There is nothing definitive about an aging curve. Yes there is an average line there. How wide is the spread of the data plots?  As Plouffe has an injury history, it would be more likely for him to be below the curve. If he trains well, eats well, etc, that could bring him above the curve.  Dozier plays a position that see wear and tear. Again, there are factors that push above or below the line.  What skills age faster? Are those the skills that these guys rely on? Age alone means little.That should be evident from the curves from 2 different eras.

[Mike Sixel]

The age curves are different due to drugs, training year round, and all the other stuff that is about how different peoples' bodies are (and training is) than it was in the old days. The delta in the lines isn't anything about what you are implying in that last bit at all.

 

How else would you predict how well someone would age, other than looking at control charts? Just guess? That's not a good way to run a business.

[old nurse]

The age curves are different due to drugs, training year round, and all the other stuff that is about how different peoples' bodies are (and training is) than it was in the old days. The delta in the lines isn't anything about what you are implying in that last bit at all.

 

How else would you predict how well someone would age, other than looking at control charts? Just guess? That's not a good way to run a business.

Do you do single factor analysis in complex situations?

[Mike Sixel]

No, but that wasn't your point at all. Your point was that the age curves are different, so therefore they don't mean much......that's not what the delta in the two lines is about at all. It is clearly about changes in training and physical make up.

 

My point in the last part was that this is a data point you'd use.

 

Maybe my signature should add "this post might include a discussion on the use of data. That does not imply it is the only piece of data to use".

[Shane Wahl]

The Twins should be interested in *trading* Plouffe, not signing him to some silly long-term contract! I wouldn't trade until deadline.

[old nurse]

No, but that wasn't your point at all. Your point was that the age curves are different, so therefore they don't mean much......that's not what the delta in the two lines is about at all. It is clearly about changes in training and physical make up.

 

My point in the last part was that this is a data point you'd use.

 

Maybe my signature should add "this post might include a discussion on the use of data. That does not imply it is the only piece of data to use".

Yes. The age curves are different. They do not mean much. What an individual does can be far different than the average. Would you say you shouldn't extend an outfielder multiple years past the age of 33? You would say makes sense to do one year at a time for a Josh Willingham in hindsight. Torri Hunter on the other hand. produced multiple years past 33. Age alone doesn't mean much. Similar batters by age to Plouffe at 28 are Dave Hollins and Jose Batista. Their career paths from 28 are very divergent. Average for age means nothing.

[tobi0040]

Yes. The age curves are different. They do not mean much. What an individual does can be far different than the average. Would you say you shouldn't extend an outfielder multiple years past the age of 33? You would say makes sense to do one year at a time for a Josh Willingham in hindsight. Torri Hunter on the other hand. produced multiple years past 33. Age alone doesn't mean much. Similar batters by age to Plouffe at 28 are Dave Hollins and Jose Batista. Their career paths from 28 are very divergent. Average for age means nothing.

 

I think age is a very important data point.  Use that for starters, then add on athleticism, how they keep themselves in shape, and injury history.

 

In the case of Torii versus Willingham, Willingham was always hurt and slow.  It was predictable that he would age quicker and he has been awful defensively.  Torii was paid $90M for his bat, plus defense, and base running at 32.  His total dWAR during those fives years was about 1 win and he stole a total of 60 bases in five years.    His OPS was over .820 once.   Probably averaged about .805 or so.

[old nurse]

I think age is a very important data point.  Use that for starters, then add on athleticism, how they keep themselves in shape, and injury history.

 

In the case of Torii versus Willingham, Willingham was always hurt and slow.  It was predictable that he would age quicker and he has been awful defensively.  Torii was paid $90M for his bat, plus defense, and base running at 32.  His total dWAR during those fives years was about 1 win and he stole a total of 60 bases in five years.    His OPS was over .820 once.   Probably averaged about .805 or so.

What does age start? You look at every other factor and where that person fits on a generic age curve gets thrown out. Parmelee could OPS and play the field pretty much how he has been playing until he is 40. It is not going to happen. If his level of play doesn't improve, he will be out of the league by 30 because there will be somebody cheaper with more upside come along or they were not very good in the first place and got their shot.. From the last few years Twins alone Johnson, Darnell, Thompson Achter, Mastroiani,  Nunez, Fryer, Hermann, Florimon, Thomas, Ramirex, Diaomond, Pedro Hernandez, Martis, Tyler Robertson,  Albers, Walters, Komatsu, Nisihioka, Luke Hughes, DeVries, Matt Maloney, Manhip, Waldrop, Vasquez,  Grey, Burnett,  and Perdoma are all highly unlikely to be in a major league uniform when they are 31. They all count against that age curve. You would be hard pressed to say they were out of the league because their skills declined with age. Their skills did not develop further to keep them on a roster. Valencia, Alexi Casilla, Hicks, Pinto, Shaffer, Parmelee and Escobar could all fit that model.

[jorgenswest]

A difference between Plouffe and Dozier compared to the previously mentioned Span, Seager and Gyorko is the age in which they would hit free agency ending team control.

 

I hope the Twins management has the belief that there is a significant difference between losing a player at age 30 and losing a player at age 32. They extended Span through age 31 with option. They don't need to do that with Dozier and Plouffe. They have those seasons under team control.

 

It doesn't matter the player. No player projects to play better at age 32 than age 30. No random large group of players performs better as a group at age 32 than age 30. Extending contracts so that a big portion of the contract value is during the age 32-33 seasons is going to make them very difficult to trade. Teams signing free agents don't have a choice. They have to pay for the decline. The Twins don't need to pay for the decline of players under team control through the typical peak.

[Willihammer]

If Sano has the glove to stick at 3B, then I think you go year to year with Plouffe and plan on trading him in the next 1-2 years.

 

If Sano doesn't have a 3B glove, then Plouffe is miles away the best 3B in the system, right?

 

Someone mentioned Brandon Phillips (might have been the Dozier thread) as an example of a premature extension for a player who is now in decline. Has anyone looked at the Reds system? I count one middle infielder among the top 10 prospects - some guy named Alex Blandino with a 2017 ETA. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody is challenging Phillips for the starting 2B job this year. Further, if the Reds hadn't locked him up when they did, they'd be paying more AAV to keep him on for longer years, or else gone shopping in FA and paid the market rate for someone else in decline or fast approaching it.

 

On the other hand, maybe a team like the A's were able to part with Donaldson because 5/5 top prospects are infielders, including two 3B's and a SS. Obviously they got Lawrie in return too so they are 4 strong in that dept. But, after Plouffe, the Twins really only have Sano.

 

Point is, if the Twins determine that Sano doesn't have the glove for 3B then they are stuck with Plouffe. Certainly for 2015-2016 and easily could be longer. Might as well lock him up while they can still pay a discounted rate.

 

edit: assuming of course TR continues to rely on the draft and amateur FA for acquiring 3B talent, and not trade.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Willihammer

[Monkeypaws]

I think next season will be boom or, if not bust, at least meh for Trevor. To give him a big deal now would be a heckuva risk imo. He's been improving, like a prospect and former 1st rounder should. I'd love to see him make the Twins regret not doing a big deal this off-season, and just take it to the next level.

 

The Twins can afford to err conservatively at this point, and reap the rewards of a successful 1st rounder who developed into a star later. Sure they might save money signing him now, but if they wait a year and he explodes, they still have a star under team control. 

 

Dammit, that's why Target Field was built, so we wouldn't have to penny pinch the stars in our own fold. I think the nibblenuts mentality has to change; the dough is there.

 

If after the next season Plouffe has peaked or declined, cut the cord; he still seems on the upswing, so I'd go with the flow.

 

Same with Dozier. 

 

This isn't like the NHL where you have a salary cap in effect. There is no moving target here, except an owners willingness to put a winning product on the field.

 

As for selling high, I don't believe in selling productive big leaguers for prospects unless the team is in a winning mode and the heir apparent is MLB ready.

 

There, I'm done.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Willihammer, you nailed it, Sano is a question, until it is answered, stand pat year to year. Unless a trade comes that knocks your socks off, then comes the value part... If the trade is good enough, plan B is Escobar.