Article: Extension Candidate: Oswaldo Arcia

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If you always wait to KNOW with some CERTAINTY......you aren't really likely to save any money. It's too late by then.

 

It would appear that most posters here are conservative, and would rather go year to year more, until there is more certainty. I disagree. There is value in certainty of what he'll cost. And, as salaries rise, those numbers above will look conservative.

 

If you believe in him, you sign him to a 7 year deal.......or, you go year to year, and spend a TON of money in future years, and maybe lose him.

For me, it's not about "knowing" so much as "this player has the type of floor that could put him out of baseball in 3-4 years".

 

Arcia doesn't have faults, he has some glaring issues that need to be resolved for him to be a long-term fixture at a defensive position. If he doesn't fix one or more of them, he's a platoon bat.

 

Platoon bats don't get extensions.

 

The day Byron Buxton hits Minnesota, I won't know if he'll be a 90 OPS+ player or a 140 OPS+ player... But I'd pursue an extension anyway because Buxton, as an up-the-middle defender, can be of real value whether he hits like Babe Ruth or Nick Punto. Sano, while not a defensive force, should hit enough to be a DH no matter what happens so an extension should be explored there as well. Arcia hasn't shown that he can even hit enough to hold down DH.

 

It's about risk mitigation. Is the floor of this player so low that he could be out of baseball before the contract is done? If yes, then I drag my feet on an extension until that player shows me he can hold a place on an MLB roster.

[tobi0040]

 

If you always wait to KNOW with some CERTAINTY......you aren't really likely to save any money. It's too late by then.

 

It would appear that most posters here are conservative, and would rather go year to year more, until there is more certainty. I disagree. There is value in certainty of what he'll cost. And, as salaries rise, those numbers above will look conservative.

 

If you believe in him, you sign him to a 7 year deal.......or, you go year to year, and spend a TON of money in future years, and maybe lose him.

 

The only certainty at this point is that Arcia has proven to be a very bad defensive outfielder.  And a platoon type player at the plate.  That might catch some off guard.  But a career OPS split of .809/.613 is the definition of a platoon player. And he has struck out in over 30% of his at bats.  He has a ton of upside, no doubt.   But these are undeniable.

 

It is not completely out of the question that four different guys could beat out Arcia for a corner OF spot (Rosario, Sano, Plouffe, Hicks, plus someone not on the radar) .  Or that he proves himself incapable of playing in the field and he is beaten out by Vargas.   So giving him a 5, 6, or 7 year deal seems really, really unneccesary at best.

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by tobi0040

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Even a deal like Jose Tabata isn't as bad as it looks. You take on a risk with money that's similar to what the Twins pay Ricky Nolasco for a season's worth of starts. The flipside of that they Twins get a very team-friendly deal.

 

That's how extensions are supposed to work: Each side is rewarded, while also taking on some risk.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/08/pirates-extend-jose-tabata.html

[tobi0040]

Even a deal like Jose Tabata isn't as bad as it looks. You take on a risk with money that's similar to what the Twins pay Ricky Nolasco for a season's worth of starts. The flipside of that they Twins get a very team-friendly deal.

 

That's how extensions are supposed to work: Each side is rewarded, while also taking on some risk.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/08/pirates-extend-jose-tabata.html

 

On the risk/reward scale, this seems way too far on the risky side. You could be giving a guy with question marks and not a defined role a 5-7 year contract.  That seems completely foolish to me.

 

Most guys that are given the 5-7 year deal early, at a minimum have a defined spot on the team.  That should be an essential ingredient here.  Nobody can honestly say Arcia has that.

Edited March 24, 2015 by tobi0040

[tobi0040]

For me, it's not about "knowing" so much as "this player has the type of floor that could put him out of baseball in 3-4 years".

 

Arcia doesn't have faults, he has some glaring issues that need to be resolved for him to be a long-term fixture at a defensive position. If he doesn't fix one or more of them, he's a platoon bat.

 

Platoon bats don't get extensions.

 

The day Byron Buxton hits Minnesota, I won't know if he'll be a 90 OPS+ player or a 140 OPS+ player... But I'd pursue an extension anyway because Buxton, as an up-the-middle defender, can be of real value whether he hits like Babe Ruth or Nick Punto. Sano, while not a defensive force, should hit enough to be a DH no matter what happens so an extension should be explored there as well. Arcia hasn't shown that he can even hit enough to hold down DH.

 

It's about risk mitigation. Is the floor of this player so low that he could be out of baseball before the contract is done? If yes, then I drag my feet on an extension until that player shows me he can hold a place on an MLB roster.

 

Spot.  On. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, they could include a 2.5m salary in year one, or a signing bonus, or some other incentive. Super 2 status might change the shape of an extension but I doubt that makes or breaks a deal or alters the size/scope of it more than a little.

It's not that Super 2 status itself changes the deal -- it's the length of time until the player's first multi-million dollar payday.  I am sure it varies by player/agent, but that sure seems like the biggest leverage tool for these guys.

 

Dozier is like nine months away from that payday (6 months game action).  At this point, anything short of a life-threatening injury probably wasn't stopping him from getting tendered a contract in December for $2.5+ mil.

 

Span was two years away.  A bit less leverage, so his deal included an option year.

 

You are suggesting extending Arcia when he is, what, 5 months away (3 months game action)?

 

Obviously you can get option years added to any contract, but you have to pay more in the guaranteed years to do so.  Arcia's not accepting Dozier's dollars plus options unless he is either feeling magnanimous (not impossible, but I have no idea), or he simply doesn't play/project as well as Dozier (probably the case right now, and probably reason NOT to sign him to such a contract).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Even a deal like Jose Tabata isn't as bad as it looks. You take on a risk with money that's similar to what the Twins pay Ricky Nolasco for a season's worth of starts. The flipside of that they Twins get a very team-friendly deal.

That's how extensions are supposed to work: Each side is rewarded, while also taking on some risk.


http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/08/pirates-extend-jose-tabata.html

And like Span, Jose Tabata was 2 seasons away (actually 2 seasons plus, as he signed midseason) from any kind of multi-million dollar MLB payday.

[Willihammer]

For me, it's not about "knowing" so much as "this player has the type of floor that could put him out of baseball in 3-4 years".

 

Arcia doesn't have faults, he has some glaring issues that need to be resolved for him to be a long-term fixture at a defensive position. If he doesn't fix one or more of them, he's a platoon bat.

 

Platoon bats don't get extensions.

 

The day Byron Buxton hits Minnesota, I won't know if he'll be a 90 OPS+ player or a 140 OPS+ player... But I'd pursue an extension anyway because Buxton, as an up-the-middle defender, can be of real value whether he hits like Babe Ruth or Nick Punto. Sano, while not a defensive force, should hit enough to be a DH no matter what happens so an extension should be explored there as well. Arcia hasn't shown that he can even hit enough to hold down DH.

 

It's about risk mitigation. Is the floor of this player so low that he could be out of baseball before the contract is done? If yes, then I drag my feet on an extension until that player shows me he can hold a place on an MLB roster.

Pretty much every player is going to show a weak side in a platoon. Since there are more RH pitchers than LH pitchers, and since there is more RH power leaguewide and in the Twins system, its preferable the batter be LH and stronger against RHPs. That combination makes a player less likely to get pigeonholed as a part time player, not more likely, and doesn't preclude him getting an extension (eg. Justin Morneau).

 

Arcia's floor as a LH hitting DH is no lower than a field-only up the middle player IMO. The Twins have found those types on the waiver wire or in small trades easily, eg. Florimon, Fuld.

 

Risk is a necessary component for the team to have upside. The best extensions ever signed were extremely risky. Reducing the risk moves the price closer to FA amounts, eg. the Mauer extension.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

On the risk/reward scale, this seems way too far on the risky side. You could be giving a guy with question marks and not a defined role a 5-7 year contract.  That seems completely foolish to me.

 

Most guys that are given the 5-7 year deal early, at a minimum have a defined spot on the team.  That should be an essential ingredient here.  Nobody can honestly say Arcia has that.

Tabata's contract is a bit of an outlier, but I absolutely would have signed Arcia for 6/15 (adjust for 4 years baseball inflation if you like) plus 3 option years, at any point in his career to date since he reached MLB.  That money is nothing.  The White Sox paid Dayan Viciedo that much over 6 years, and he spent almost half that time in the minors and generally sucked in the majors.  And it didn't really hurt the White Sox at all.

 

Problem is, most players don't sign contracts quite like that, and even less so at the point Arcia is at in his career.

[tobi0040]

 

Pretty much every player is going to show a weak side in a platoon. Since there are more RH pitchers than LH pitchers, and since there is more RH power leaguewide and in the Twins system, its preferable the batter be LH and stronger against RHPs. That combination makes a player less likely to get pigeonholed as a part time player, not more likely, and doesn't preclude him getting an extension (eg. Justin Morneau).

Arcia's floor as a LH hitting DH is no lower than a field-only up the middle player IMO. The Twins have found those types on the waiver wire or in small trades easily, eg. Florimon, Fuld.

Risk is a necessary component for the team to have upside. The best extensions ever signed were extremely risky. Reducing the risk moves the price closer to FA amounts, eg. the Mauer extension.

 

Not every player shows a platoon split of a .613 OPS against one side. The Twins on any given night would have a better chance to win with almost anyone off the bench starting in LF for Arcia against lefties.  Escobar, for one would be better offensively and defensively.

 

[Willihammer]

Not every player shows a platoon split of a .613 OPS against one side. The Twins on any given night would have a better chance to win with almost anyone off the bench starting in LF for Arcia against lefties.  Escobar, for one would be better offensively and defensively.

Platoon splits won't stabilize for another 350 PAs or so, which again, waiting til that point reduce the unkowns and therefore the upside for the team.

 

And maybe the Twins are happy to pay the cost of waiting, I don't know. On the other hand, if their talent evaluators feel they have a firm grasp on Arcia's true talent, his weaknesses and his strengths, then the sooner they extend him the better.

 

edit: Unless that evaluation is: Arcia is playing over his head.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Willihammer

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Pretty much every player is going to show a weak side in a platoon. Since there are more RH pitchers than LH pitchers, and since there is more RH power leaguewide and in the Twins system, its preferable the batter be LH and stronger against RHPs. That combination makes a player less likely to get pigeonholed as a part time player, not more likely, and doesn't preclude him getting an extension (eg. Justin Morneau).

Lefty hitters often struggle against southpaw pitchers, yes... But Arcia doesn't just struggle. He's absolutely horrid against lefties. He has a .266 OBP against them and a .613 OPS. Morneau's career OPS against lefties is .100 OPS higher.

 

Morneau was also a much better hitter against all pitchers, which makes it easier to stomach mediocrity against same-handed pitching. During his breakout season of 2004, his OPS against lefties was:

 

.240 .289 .427 .716

 

Arcia's 2014 OPS against lefties (same age):

 

.198 .261 .313 .574

 

There's "good hitter but mediocre against lefties", which is pretty common among good lefty hitters. Then there's "OMG cover your eyes, this guy is facing a lefty". Morneau was the former, Arcia is currently the latter.

[tobi0040]

 

Platoon splits won't stabilize for another 350 PAs or so, which again, waiting til that point reduce the unkowns and therefore the upside for the team.

And maybe the Twins are happy to pay the cost of waiting, I don't know. On the other hand, if their talent evaluators feel they have a firm grasp on Arcia's true talent, his weaknesses and his strengths, then the sooner they extend him the better.

edit: Unless that evaluation is: Arcia is playing over his head.

 

He has a 196 basis point split thus far between his right and left OPS.

 

Here are his minor league differential in OPS:

 

2013 - 206 basis points

2012 - 210 basis points

2011 - 174 basis points

 

Maybe they just won't stabilize?

[tobi0040]

 

Lefty hitters often struggle against southpaw pitchers, yes... But Arcia doesn't just struggle. He's absolutely horrid against lefties. He has a .266 OBP against them and a .613 OPS. Morneau's career OPS against lefties is .100 OPS higher.

 

Morneau was also a much better hitter, full stop. During his breakout season of 2004, his OPS against lefties was:

 

.240 .289 .427 .716

 

Arcia's 2014 OPS against lefties (same age):

 

.198 .261 .313 .574

 

There's "good hitter but mediocre against lefties", which is pretty common among good lefty hitters. Then there's "OMG cover your eyes, this guy is facing a lefty". Morneau was the former, Arcia is currently the latter.

 

As far as early extensions go, I think the Twins should be done for this year after the Dozier one and I was on the fence there given the control they had through his prime.

 

But if I was forced to extend guys, Arcia would not be even near the top of the list.  Buxton and Sano, 1 and 2*.  Barring what happens next year, I could see Gibson being more of a priority.  If Sano does not stick at 3B, Plouffe would be a much higher priority to me.

 

*To explain the hypocrisy between my hesitation because Arcia does not have a defined position and the perception that Sano does not as well.  Sano is not a lock at 3B, but he is a lock somewhere.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He has a 196 basis point split thus far between his right and left OPS.

 

Here are his minor league differential in OPS:

 

2013 - 206 basis points

2012 - 210 basis points

2011 - 174 basis points

 

Maybe they just won't stabilize?

Not in love with OPS differential because it ignores the overall quality of the hitter.

 

Many seasons, Morneau had a 200 point differential... But nobody cared because he OPSed over .900 against righties (the strong side of the platoon) and .700 against lefties (basically, he held his own). Overall, that's a damned fine hitter who will post around a 120 OPS+ every season. It's also a hitter that can't be completely marginalized in late innings because he can't hit a lefty to save his life.

 

If Arcia can replicate that, we'd all be thrilled... But he'd need to become a much better hitter overall to do it.

[Willihammer]

I'm not in love with OPS because it doesn't account for the changes in run and stadium environment that's occured in the last 10 years.

 

There's also the fact that 250 PAs is not a reliably large sample to conclude much about a player's splits against same sided pitching. As I said, that won't become reliable until around the 600 PA mark.

 

Having said that, I'll go ahead anyway

 

wRC+

 

Morneau vs. LHP

2003 (age 22): -7 (27 PA)

2004 (age 23): 81 (229 PA

 

Arcia vs LHP, ages 22-23 seasons

2013-2014: 69 (259 PAs)

 

Looks like a wash to me.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Willihammer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Lefty hitters often struggle against southpaw pitchers, yes... But Arcia doesn't just struggle. He's absolutely horrid against lefties. He has a .266 OBP against them and a .613 OPS. Morneau's career OPS against lefties is .100 OPS higher.

 

Morneau was also a much better hitter against all pitchers, which makes it easier to stomach mediocrity against same-handed pitching. During his breakout season of 2004, his OPS against lefties was:

 

.240 .289 .427 .716

 

Arcia's 2014 OPS against lefties (same age):

 

.198 .261 .313 .574

 

There's "good hitter but mediocre against lefties", which is pretty common among good lefty hitters. Then there's "OMG cover your eyes, this guy is facing a lefty". Morneau was the former, Arcia is currently the latter.

In fairness, the league OPS for LHB vs LHP in Morneau's time was generally 60-70 points higher than today.  In his .716 "breakout" season of 2004, the MLB average was .739!

 

Morneau was below league average in 3 of his first ~4 seasons (thru 2007).  Didn't hit them at a league average level until he turned 25 in 2006, and then reverted to below average again in 2007, before showing more sustained improvement beginning in 2008.

 

That said, Morneau was a very different type of hitter than Arcia.  At this point, I would not trust Arcia to improve against LHP, nor would I trust him to sustain enough success against RHP to make him a viable full-timer long-term.  Unless the extension terms were extremely team-friendly, I would not extend.

[Willihammer]

I mean, Morneau signed his 6/80 extension prior to the 2008 season. That was a huge extension in its day. By the time Arcia reaches that point in his service clock (2017, for argument's sake), accounting for 10% inflation, you're looking at a price tag of 156 million.

 

Obviously Arcia probably won't win the MVP as Morneau did, but there is a cost to waiting for concrete answers to these questions. A huge one, potentially.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In fairness, the league OPS for LHB vs LHP in Morneau's time was generally 60-70 points higher than today.  In his .716 "breakout" season of 2004, the MLB average was .739!

Absolutely. The league has declined in offense. My point was that at the same age, Morneau was not hopeless against lefties. Below average, yes... But not so far from average that he had no hope of ever getting there.

 

Ultimately, he become an average hitter against lefties, which is pretty good for a LHB. 

[nicksaviking]

 

Obviously Arcia probably won't win the MVP as Morneau did,

 

I can only assume you're trying a bit of reverse psychology on the Gods. 

[Seth Stohs]

This story being posted by Jeremy on the same day as Brian Dozier signs his four-year extension is very interesting. These comments have been very interesting as well.

 

I read comments like the Twins needing to wait one more year and see if Arcia can take off. Well, if he takes off, the contract will be about double what it would be right now. There are some who say that the Twins were not wise in signing Dozier after his very good season in 2014, but then want the Twins to wait for Arcia to have a strong season before committing. 

 

Truth be told, there has to be a leap of faith on all of this and some projection. If the Twins brass thinks that Arcia can be a 30+ home run guy and cut the Ks down and walk a little more and not be completely lost on defense, they should do it right now. 

 

One thing that is often overlooked in the decision to sign someone is how they believe a player will handle that long-term security. Will they use it as motivation to continue to get better, or will they consider it their big pay day and not work.

 

With Dozier, there's no concern about it. With Arcia, there have certainly be some concerns. 

 

That said, a five year, $18-20 million deal with a few creative option years... that'd work for me.

[tobi0040]

 

This story being posted by Jeremy on the same day as Brian Dozier signs his four-year extension is very interesting. These comments have been very interesting as well.

 

I read comments like the Twins needing to wait one more year and see if Arcia can take off. Well, if he takes off, the contract will be about double what it would be right now. There are some who say that the Twins were not wise in signing Dozier after his very good season in 2014, but then want the Twins to wait for Arcia to have a strong season before committing. 

 

Truth be told, there has to be a leap of faith on all of this and some projection. If the Twins brass thinks that Arcia can be a 30+ home run guy and cut the Ks down and walk a little more and not be completely lost on defense, they should do it right now. 

 

One thing that is often overlooked in the decision to sign someone is how they believe a player will handle that long-term security. Will they use it as motivation to continue to get better, or will they consider it their big pay day and not work.

 

With Dozier, there's no concern about it. With Arcia, there have certainly be some concerns. 

 

That said, a five year, $18-20 million deal with a few creative option years... that'd work for me.

 

$20M with options probably means $3M in buyouts.  So we are locked into a 5 year, $23M deal for a guy that may not be one of the two best corner OF options and/or best DH option on this team when we are good again.

 

If he had a firm grasp on his spot I would be all for it.  But he doesn't.  For example, if Rosario can have a .720-.750 OPS up here, I am guessing that would be a better player than Arcia in LF given the defensive aspect.   This team is not going to have a payroll issue in the next five years, so we should get some clarity on these things first. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

$20M with options probably means $3M in buyouts.  So we are locked into a 5 year, $23M deal for a guy that may not be one of the two best corner OF options and/or best DH option on this team when we are good again.

Usually option buyouts are included in the total guaranteed value of the contract.  For example, Nolasco's contract is generally reported as 4/49, because he makes $12 mil for each of 4 years, plus a $1 mil buyout on a 5th year option.

 

Also, $3 mil in buyouts for that length/cost of contract is probably high.  There are generally buyouts for each option year, and only the buyout for the first declined option gets paid.  Adam Eaton just signed a deal for 5/23.5 -- he gets $22 mil over the first 5 years, then he has a $1.5 mil buyout on each of two option years.  So his base guarantee is $23.5M -- there's no way for him to get both $1.5 mil buyouts.

 

In any case, whether it's $20M, $21.5M, or $23M, 5 years with multiple team options is generally a very team-friendly deal, and almost impossible to get when a player is this close (8-9 months) to getting tendered his first arbitration contract.  The only reason it's probably still feasible with Arcia is because he has yet to show much in the way of positive statistical trends (which admittedly is worrisome).

 

I have no special insight into Arcia, so I have the same doubts about him too, but if the Twins thought there was even a 50/50 chance that he still improves enough to stick as a MLB regular (not to mention any potential to go beyond that), they'd have to jump at such an extension right now.  If they wait for positive statistical trends, and let him get even closer to arbitration, this deal will not be on the table.

[Mike Sixel]

That's the question.....do you bet on the upside, and take on some minor financial risk, or do you wait for you next card to come, when everyone else at the table has already raised you three times?

 

In the latter case, you are more sure if you should stay in, but it costs a lot more. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by mike wants wins

[tobi0040]

 

That's the question.....do you bet on the upside, and take on some minor financial risk, or do you wait for you next card to come, when everyone else at the table has already raised you three times?

 

In the latter case, you are more sure if you should stay in, but it costs a lot more. 

 

 

 

I think we have a different definition of "minor financial risk". 

 

 

If we knew Arcia was our LF for the next five years and you do this deal, you have risk that he doesn't achieve his potential. That, considering the paltry financial commitment is minor to me.  At least are paying a player that was going to be there anyways.

 

 

 

In reality, Arcia does not have a firm grasp on the position. Having watched Pelfrey, on a 1 year and then a 2 year deal operate on scholarship, I think the risk is not minor that we have a better option and play Arcia for five years because he is on scholarship. I don't consider that minor.

 

 

 

Or maybe you and I simply disagree on that concept. You are extremely certain Arcia is a LF or DH on this team over the next five years and I am a lot less certain. In which that makes complete sense that we would disagree about a deal like this.

 

As a side bar, I think the cost rising aspect is not always an apples to apples comparison.  5-20 may happen now because you are amortizing the 500K he will make this year over five years.  If you wait a year, the 500K in year 1 is gone and replaced with a FA year, so the overall contract looks a lot bigger, when in reality you have the player for another year in which he would have been a free agent.

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As a side bar, I think the cost rising aspect is not always an apples to apples comparison.  5-20 may happen now because you are amortizing the 500K he will make this year over five years.  If you wait a year, the 500K in year 1 is gone and replaced with a FA year, so the overall contract looks a lot bigger, when in reality you have the player for another year in which he would have been a free agent.

If you can point to any recent 5/30 plus options type deals signed by an arb-eligible player, I might agree with you.  Here is a tool you can use:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/transactiontracker

 

Billy Butler was the first rough comparable I found, although his deal was 4/30 plus $12.5 mil option and signed before 2011. Ervin Santana also signed for 4/30 plus $13 mil option before 2009.  Those were the only two I found there, dating back to spring 2008.

 

That first guaranteed multi-million dollar payday is a big leverage loss for teams, I think.  (Especially if the player didn't receive a multi-million dollar bonus at the beginning of their pro career.)  Once they've got a couple mil in the bank, most decent players are much better off going year to year unless you offer in the $50+ mil range (which those Santana and Butler deals would probably push, once adjusted for inflation).

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not extremely sure of anything.....other than if you wait until Arcia proves he's good before signing him, it will cost you extremely more than doing it now. That's based on years of data from players all over MLB. 

[tobi0040]

 

I'm not extremely sure of anything.....other than if you wait until Arcia proves he's good before signing him, it will cost you extremely more than doing it now. That's based on years of data from players all over MLB. 

 

What percentage chance do you think Arcia is a LF, RF, or DH for the 2017 Twins?  If you were to handicap it.

 

It is about 60-70% for me.  I think it is a coin flip between who is a  better hitter between him and Vargas and I think we will probably have two better options for LF and RF.  So $20M that will result in a 30-40% chance we are playing a guy for multiple years that is not our best option is not a gamble I would not take.  Especially since we should not have payroll issues over the time period.

 

Heck, Nelson Cruz signed for $14.25M a year in free agency.   How much do we think that first or second free agent year is going to cost us if we wait?  Jeremy's post has $9M and $11M.  Assume some inflation and it seems like we are paying $20M now to save $5-6M a year for a year or two....again on a team that should not have a large payroll.  Mauer isn't making $23M anymore, almost the entire team is under control.  Nolasco is gone by then.  Salaries will escalate, so will cable contracts, ticket prices, jerseys, the value of the Twins, and the price of a beer.

Edited March 25, 2015 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

Right, which makes the "burden" of signing him for $5MM a year practically free. That will be what a veteran who is worth half a WAR signs for at that point, a backup guy. I'd say it is around 80% likely he is a legit RF or DH by then. 

[tobi0040]

 

Right, which makes the "burden" of signing him for $5MM a year practically free. That will be what a veteran who is worth half a WAR signs for at that point, a backup guy. I'd say it is around 80% likely he is a legit RF or DH by then. 

 

It isn't the money though, if the Twins had him signed for five years I think they would play him over someone like Rosario even if it was hurting the club.  If Pelfrey got 160 IP last year when he was less than two years away from his contract ending.......imagine a guy five years away.

Edited March 25, 2015 by tobi0040