Article: Extensions for Dozier and Plouffe?

[jorgenswest]

What do the Twins do about Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier? Extend? Go year to year? Hope to sell high at 30?

 

There has been some great discussion started by Seth on Dozier and Plouffe. Dozier is 27 years old and will become a free agent when he is 31 years old. Until that time the Twins can give him one-year deal, albeit at increasingly expensive contracts if he performs well. Plouffe is 28 years old and will become a free agent at 31 years old, too.

 

There also have been studies that show aging curves in the post steroid era are changing. Fewer players are maintaining their peak seasons into their thirties. There are many studies to read. Here is one by Jeff Zimmerman for Fangraphs.I wondered how players currently around 33 years old have aged. With the help of play index from Baseball Reference, I searched for all players who had seasons with an OPS+ of 100 or better in 2006-7 as 26- or 27-year-olds. There were many others that were below that level but they were probably not in any team consideration for getting an extension.

 

Before getting to the group there is one player who might be included in the group who should be mentioned here, because he is an extreme outlier. He, by age 27, was with his 5th team, having been waived twice and traded for the likes of Justin Huber and Robinson Diaz. After over 1500 plate appearances through age 27 he had an OPS+ of 89. For comparison, Chris Parmelee sits at 96 and he was just released by the Twins. Tony Batista, that one player, has had a performance since age 27 that has been outstanding with his opportunity in Toronto. He didn't make the group because at age 27 Pittsburgh wasn't thinking extension, they were thinking dump.

 

I would like to place a table of data below so you can see all of the players. The new blogging software makes tables very difficult. All 24 of the players in the search can be found in this google sheet.

 

For each player I grouped his performance in three season chunks using ages 25-27, 28-30 and 31-33. I did this so that any single year variation did not stand out. I also used three as it is the norm in many projection systems.

 

There were a few middle infielders in the group including Mike Aviles, Khalil Greene, Brandon Phillips and Dan Uggla. There were some former Twins like Ryan Doumit, Justin Morneau and Jason Kubel. I added Jason Bartlett, but he did not meet the first criteria since his over 100 OPS+ seasons came after 27. His decline at 31-33 is similar to several others.

 

I wondered how many of the players had more plate appearances AND a better OPS+ from 31-33. The answer was none; no one had more plate appearances and a better OPS+ from 31-33 than they did from 25-27. No one.

 

There were, though, two players with a better OPS+ from 31-33. Matt Holliday had an increase of 5% in OPS+ while coming to the plate 5% less than he did from ages 25-27. Shane Victorino had an OPS+ increase of 4% while injuries and platooning dropped his playing time by 17%.

 

Brain Dozier through his age 27 season sits at a career OPS+ of 98 in 1670 plate appearances. Maybe the Twins will get lucky and he will follow a path similar to Brandon Phillips. He only dropped 1% in his age 31-33 seasons while playing time dropped by 6%. From age 28-30, he was up 13% compared to 25-27.

 

Trevor Plouffe through age 28 has an OPS+ of 99.

 

Plouffe and Dozier started at an older age. Does that make a difference? Aging curve studies suggest that it will work against them and later career starts lead to earlier declines. There are several players in the group who started at age 25 or 26. They did not age well. The two that improved debuted at 22 (Victorino) and 24 (Holliday).

 

The decline of players into their early thirties is real. Teams need to plan for it as they make any extension offer. Player with and OPS+ of 125 or better over three years have plenty of room for decline. That isn't the case for Dozier and Plouffe. If the Twins do decide to buy free agent years from either, the Twins must be certain that there is something different in Plouffe and Dozier that will keep them playing at their peak longer than anyone in this group.

 

Click here to view the article

[DocBauer]

I'd do the extension for Dozier, and probably would for Plouffe.

 

1) Even with possible age regression, we're talking 4 or 5 year deals that put each player only in age 31-32 seasons.

 

2) An extension is a protected 2-way street for each party, and neither of these guys becomes a $10M man over night.

 

3) Dozier seems to have made a few adjustments for power but has always hit in his career previously. A few more points on his BA, and his cost could climb very quickly. Same with Plouffe. You take what he did last season overall, offensively and defensively, and you put just a bit more power in his year, power he has flashed before, and his cost also suddenly jumps. Why not look for better cost control now?

 

4) If Sano, and possibly Polanco, can take over or really push for the starting spot this year or next, you still offer cost control for both players in a trade, or to keep with a possible position switch.

[jorgenswest]

Oops...

 

Jose Bautista (not Tony)

[Paul Pleiss]

I'm all for not extending Brian Dozier, he's under team control for a few more years and will likely be into decline before the Twins need to lock him up and buy out any free agent years. Just keep waiting.

 

The only reason I can see for extending Plouffe is to trade him, you turn his salary into a known commodity. Otherwise, what's the use in having Plouffe if you truly believe that Sano is the 3B of the near future? Is he a good enough hitter to be a corner OF guy? I don't think so, and I dont' think his defense would be very pretty either.

 

Let them go year-to-year and pay the arbitrated values, no need to extend. Great piece of writing you did.

[TheLeviathan]

2) An extension is a protected 2-way street for each party, and neither of these guys becomes a $10M man over night.

 

3) Dozier seems to have made a few adjustments for power but has always hit in his career previously. A few more points on his BA, and his cost could climb very quickly. Same with Plouffe. You take what he did last season overall, offensively and defensively, and you put just a bit more power in his year, power he has flashed before, and his cost also suddenly jumps. Why not look for better cost control now?

 

 

The protection in an extension for Dozier is largely for him.  The Twins lose their protection against him falling apart or getting hurt.  

 

Cost certainty is being talked about in these threads as if it is always a good thing.  It's only a good thing in the situation of highly likely escalating cost.  It can be a terrible thing when those costs stop escalating and/or decline.  The Twins have time to see how likely it is Dozier is going to keep escalating and jorgen does an excellent job suggesting here that the comparable players to Brian Dozier indicate he's a player NOT likely to do so.

[nytwinsfan]

I wouldn't extend either, and certainly not Plouffe. I would understand it if they extend Dozier, but I wouldn't. I'd much rather wait a year or two and extend younger players like Arcia or Santana (assuming they continue to perform).  Plouffe and Dozier have probable cheap upgrades in Sano and Polanco on the way.

[stringer bell]

I wouldn't extend either, and certainly not Plouffe. I would understand it if they extend Dozier, but I wouldn't. I'd much rather wait a year or two and extend younger players like Arcia or Santana (assuming they continue to perform).  Plouffe and Dozier have probable cheap upgrades in Sano and Polanco on the way.

I am by no means certain that Polanco is going to be a capable big league player.  Despite his cup of coffee with the Twins last year, I see him as both further away and less certain than Sano. 

 

On the larger question of extending either Plouffe or Dozier (or both), I see no reason to make such a move.  Rewarding them for past and current performance is fine, but it has been pointed out repeatedly that the decline phases of similar players begins during the terms of the suggested extension. 

[strumdatjaguar]

When (maybe "if") Sano is up here, Plouffe's value would be in a trade or as a Super-Sub bench player: Corner Outfield, 3B, DH, maybe even 1B (I think his days as a middle infielder are over).  He has some power and actually has some personality for a clubhouse that needs it.  On a good team, he would be a very valuable bench player or to cover for injured players.

[KGB]

No benefit to extending either player at this time. Hope they wait this out ..

[DuluthFan]

The Twins do not need to extend either of these players right now. Neither of these players are super star players. They both have multiple years of arbitration under team control available. The Twins cannot lose these players to a bidding war. The point of arbitration is cost certainty. The players will get paid similarly to other similar type players. They are not going to break the bank. If they play extremely well next year, they will get a nice raise. If they don't play well, they won't get a big raise. In the cases of Plouffe and Dozier, it is best to go year to year via arbitration.

 

Another point to consider, if you extend these two players, you restrict your ability to make changes to improve a team that has lost 90 games four years in a row. While it may seem like their positions on this team are solid, if an opportunity arises to improve the team by moving them elsewhere, it will be easier to move a one year contract rather than a multi-year deal.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I guess I'm on the other side of this debate, though to be honest, I wouldn't get worked up either way.  We saw with the Span trade how easy it is to get a really good prospect when you have a reasonable contract on a player  Dozier has done this 2 years in a row now, and Plouffe put together a pretty good season last year after teasing us with that Ruthian performance a while back. 

 

I'll be honest in that contract or no contract, I'm not sure I see either player spending much more than a couple years with the Twins.  I'd add that I think both will be trade candidates as early as next season.  Plouffe has Sano chasing him down, and there's some decent 2B options in Rosario, Escobar, and Polanco, all of whom are in the high minors/ML.  You could in theory move one of them to that LF spot at some point, but beyond that, there really won't be room for either long term.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be the key factor in the true value of the contract. 

 

The question at hand is how reasonable it is for the player to reproduce that season and whether or not there is room for improvement.  I think Dozier is a much more sure thing that Plouffe in that regards.  He's done it for 2 years now, and I'd probably lean towards extending him.  Bottom line is if he can continue to do what he's doing, the contract will be tradable.  He's got 1 year at the league minimum followed by 3 seasons of arb.  A 4 year deal with 2 options, or a 5 year deal with 1 is probably what you are talking about, and I'm guessing the total value of that deal would be something like 4/25 with 2 options or 5/35 with one (guessing the value of the options would be in the 8-10M range).  Those are pretty reasonable contracts, and the Twins would have zero problems moving that if Dozier maintains his production.  That would not be the case if they went year to year, as the extra year/options is what really makes that contract valuable.  Given that Dozier has maintained this level of production for 2 seasons, and seems to have the work ethic needed to continue that, I say do it. 

 

As for Plouffe, that' a bit different.  He has more of a "sure thing" chasing him down, and that sure thing (even with contact issues) still was quite impressive in AA in 2013.  He's also only done this for a year, but unlike Dozier, he has some OF experience.  I'd probably wait another year on him and see how things play out.  That's me at least.

[Rosterman]

Both are in a position that if they put together a great 2015, you consider cutting them loose and trading them before they become arbitration expensive. Let THAT be the worry of the other team. Arbitration is fine and all, but you often overpay, or have to over-extend, a player beyond what you really need.

 

Of course, a lot depends on what they see in people like Polanco, Michael, Rosario and, of course, Sano. Nick Gordon is in the pipeline, too, albeit at shortstop. It is a ncie position to be in.

 

But I would, sadly, grade Plouffe as a super utility guy as he hits 30 rather than a regular at third, and a weaker and expensive outfielder than you can find elsewhere. He does not become worth the expense.

 

Dozier hits for power, steals bases, but still strikesout a lot, and not sure if you would consider giving him BIG $$$ over the longterm, either. 

 

You just gotta hope that they don't both tank, especially in the same year. Plouffe is NOT in a "we want you" status right now. Dozier has probably more worth than Trevor, but most teams would like to tackle a supposed cheaper free agent than an arbitration albatross.

[HitInAPinch]

if you truly believe that Sano is the 3B of the near future? Is he a good enough hitter to be a corner OF guy? I don't think so, and I dont' think his defense would be very pretty either.

 

 

With you on Sano.  We need to 1st see how his swing is and if he can get back in the groove at 3B.  Then we need to see how he handles the breaking ball at AAA.

[HitInAPinch]

I'm in the chorus of "Don't sign either to an extension". 

 

Dozier is what he is:  a good fielding 2Ber with some power.  But he's no Bobby Grich.  He's seems to have settled in on sub .250 average and 100+ K's. 

I've seen enough of Plouffe to say no extension either.  I haven't seen the consistency.

 

I'd be using the 25th spot to bring up player for auditions and floating both on waiver wires by mid season.

[USAFChief]

I can't imagine a scenario where either Dozier or Plouffe hit the waiver wire in 2015, much less both.

[stringer bell]

According to ESPN, Dozier had the fifth highest WAR amongst second basemen.  Plouffe was tenth amongst third sackers.  With a serf salary, Dozier is a tremendous bargain.  Meanwhile, Plouffe was underpaid for his value, but not nearly as much as Dozier.  If they both maintain their production, they would continue to be great values.  The waiting replacement for Plouffe has a very high ceiling, but is probably half a season away.  Not now but later, Plouffe is a prime trade candidate. 

 

Dozier would appear to be a Twins' regular for next year and two arb years.  He would be 30 at that point, with one more year prior to free agency.  There is still time to get a an extension done, if Dozier continues to improve his performance. 

[The Wise One]

The  average legth of a baseball career is under 5 years in baseball. For every Carlos Beltran, Matt Holiday or Tim Hudson there are going to be 3-4 players with short careers. The initial success of a player and the subsequent decline once the holes are found in the player's game. So fangraphs may not find the peak in pllayers because the effect of the short time survivor is more than they accounted for. If you are looking at a decline curve for players you would have to look at only those players with a career length greater than average because that is the kind of player you would hope Dozier and Plouffe to be.

[kab21]

Here are the types of extensions that you do for both players that would benefit the Twins.  The key here is that you don't outright buyout the FA year lowering the team risk.

 

Dozier - 2M (before arb), 3.5M, 5.5M, 7M with a 10M option (1st FA year).  4/18 with an option buying out a year of FA.  Dozier gets his first big money of his career a year early and some financial certainty. The Twins get a 1-2+M/yr discount from his likely arb prices and an option for another year of control.  The risk is minimized imo.

 

you could do something similar for Plouffe although he is a year closer to FA. 

 

But there is no reason to pursue extensions that are guaranteeing money into the 5th or even 6th years just to buy out a year or two of FA. 

[Shane Wahl]

There is no way I would extend Plouffe. Dozier should be under consideration for one only after this season.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm glad we all agree that the only thing that makes sense (something like 4/18) would require Brian Dozier to have a lobotomy before agreeing.

 

So, basically, an extension isn't going to happen yet.  (As it should be)

[HitInAPinch]

I can't imagine a scenario where either Dozier or Plouffe hit the waiver wire in 2015, much less both.

 

By 'floating' them on the waiver wire, you can gauge interest in them and pull them back if a team makes a claim.  Good way to check that others value them as much as you do ;-)

[Jstevens15]

I guess I'm on the other side of this debate, though to be honest, I wouldn't get worked up either way.  We saw with the Span trade how easy it is to get a really good prospect when you have a reasonable contract on a player  Dozier has done this 2 years in a row now, and Plouffe put together a pretty good season last year after teasing us with that Ruthian performance a while back. 

 

I'll be honest in that contract or no contract, I'm not sure I see either player spending much more than a couple years with the Twins.  I'd add that I think both will be trade candidates as early as next season.  Plouffe has Sano chasing him down, and there's some decent 2B options in Rosario, Escobar, and Polanco, all of whom are in the high minors/ML.  You could in theory move one of them to that LF spot at some point, but beyond that, there really won't be room for either long term.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be the key factor in the true value of the contract. 

 

The question at hand is how reasonable it is for the player to reproduce that season and whether or not there is room for improvement.  I think Dozier is a much more sure thing that Plouffe in that regards.  He's done it for 2 years now, and I'd probably lean towards extending him.  Bottom line is if he can continue to do what he's doing, the contract will be tradable.  He's got 1 year at the league minimum followed by 3 seasons of arb.  A 4 year deal with 2 options, or a 5 year deal with 1 is probably what you are talking about, and I'm guessing the total value of that deal would be something like 4/25 with 2 options or 5/35 with one (guessing the value of the options would be in the 8-10M range).  Those are pretty reasonable contracts, and the Twins would have zero problems moving that if Dozier maintains his production.  That would not be the case if they went year to year, as the extra year/options is what really makes that contract valuable.  Given that Dozier has maintained this level of production for 2 seasons, and seems to have the work ethic needed to continue that, I say do it. 

 

As for Plouffe, that' a bit different.  He has more of a "sure thing" chasing him down, and that sure thing (even with contact issues) still was quite impressive in AA in 2013.  He's also only done this for a year, but unlike Dozier, he has some OF experience.  I'd probably wait another year on him and see how things play out.  That's me at least.

extending dozier would be more expensive than this. I bet he gets 5/42.5 wit 1 option for 12.. Don't extend is my decision

[Jstevens15]

With you on Sano.  We need to 1st see how his swing is and if he can get back in the groove at 3B.  Then we need to see how he handles the breaking ball at AAA.

the "breaking ball" theory doesn't hit prospects like sano... He can hit anything, that's why he's top 5 prospect in the game

[kab21]

I'm glad we all agree that the only thing that makes sense (something like 4/18) would require Brian Dozier to have a lobotomy before agreeing.

 

So, basically, an extension isn't going to happen yet.  (As it should be)

 

It's not that crazy for Dozier.  He's going to get 500K for the 1st of those 4 contracted years and the first arb year is always way below market value.. Let's call his first arb year 4.5M.  He locks in his final 2 arb years at for 13M (6.5M/yr).  He's leaving money on the table but he also has guaranteed money.  Extensions get expensive when you are actually buying out FA years.