Article: Minnesota Twins And Brian Dozier Sign 4-Year Extension

[jimmer]

 

My point is that if you think the player is worth that dollar amount, tradability of the contract is implied. Make a good decision on player value and the rest falls in line.

Word :-)

Edited March 24, 2015 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In the case of "Age 31 Brian Dozier" he might turn down your QO, not because he's worth more than the 1-year dollar value of that offer, but because he's looking for one more guaranteed payday (say 4 years, $40M).

 

And if you are the Twins, you might not pick up the option because you have other in-house options that you feel will perform near the same level at a much lower cost, but at the same time you think that he will turn down your qualifying offer because he wants a multi-year contract.

 

I get that these are all hypotheticals, but I think that's a scenario that is more likely than you are considering it to be.

But to turn down an option, the team usually has to eat $1-2m so you're turning a potential qualifying offer acceptance into a $17-18m contract, which is elite player money.

 

And there's always space on the roster for a guy who's so good that he's looking at a $50m+ contract in the open market. With the new qualifying offer rules, the amount of money a player has to turn down has created a scenario where only a handful of free agents are willing to try their hand at the open market every season.

 

On top of that, if a player is good enough to turn down a qualifying offer, you take the team option because trading 4-5 months of Brian Dozier will net you a good prospect, someone much more likely to help the MLB team than a late first or second round pick.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I echo those that have no problem with this move, and not waiting further.

 

However, not only are the Twins not thinking trade with this deal as Brock says, but it does very little for Dozier's trade value.  Dozier was never going to earn Price/Howard type money in arbitration -- at best, this is a discount of $2-3 mil in any given year.  Which is nice, but for a team targeting Dozier in trade, in win-now mode and willing to surrender enough talent to the Twins to make it worthwhile for both sides, those dollar sums are pretty negligible.  It's nice to save a few mil, but no team in that situation is going to surrender more talent to the Twins because of a $2-3 mil annual discount.

 

The real value is years of control, particularly team option years.  The Nationals certainly liked Span's below arb salaries, but the reason they gave up a top prospect for him was the two years of control plus the team option.  Of course, Span signed his extension a year earlier than Dozier, so he had less leverage in negotiations.

 

Like free agent extensions, if you really want to have a lot of potential excess value, you need to sign the player before they are within a year from FA (like the Twins were unable/unwilling to do with Mauer, Nathan, Santana, etc.).  So arb buyout extensions probably need to be signed before the player is within a year of his first arbitration award (like Span, or Dozier last winter) if you really want excess value and not just mild cost control/savings.

 

It would have been riskier for the Twins to do so, but had they pushed this contract on Dozier last winter, I am almost certain they could have tacked on an option year.  (It generally seems the Twins have been behind the curve in aggressive early long-term deals, although they haven't had many players worth it over the past 5 years or so).

[TheLeviathan]

This is really the only type of extension for Dozier I was on board for.  The option years were likely going to come at a higher price overall, so we got the moderately discounted arb. years and he got certainty.  A fair deal for both.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For the sake of argument, if you couldn't do a QO if you turn down an option, that would be a very good reason not to offer a (team) option year.

You can turn down an option and still make a qualifying offer.  This article mentions it:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mlb-qualifying-offer-system-ervin-santana-nelson-cruz-james-shields-110414

 

Not sure if it has been done yet, but I know it was debated when the Orioles declined their option on Nick Markakis this winter.

[HitInAPinch]

Pretty good contract for the Twins.  My only concern is that information got out about Dozier and his agent wanting to hit free agency at 31.  Ryan & Co. have gotten backed into a corner too many times on needing to trade a player and everyone in both Leagues know it. Scouting reports on Dozier's defense vary on <= average, walks, RBI's and HR's were very good last year, BA and K's were still bad.  If he can increase the BA to something in the .270 range and get the K's below 80-90 in the next couple years, Dozier is incredibly trade-able at age 29.  And the next round of middle infielders should, hopefully, be ready.

[John Bonnes]

Walker made $8M in his third (not second) season of arbitration (he was a super-two player).

You're right. I'll adjust that. I worded it poorly. I meant that he is in his fifth year.

[jimmer]

 

Pretty good contract for the Twins.  My only concern is that information got out about Dozier and his agent wanting to hit free agency at 31.  Ryan & Co. have gotten backed into a corner too many times on needing to trade a player and everyone in both Leagues know it. Scouting reports on Dozier's defense vary on <= average, walks, RBI's and HR's were very good last year, BA and K's were still bad.  If he can increase the BA to something in the .270 range and get the K's below 80-90 in the next couple years, Dozier is incredibly trade-able at age 29.  And the next round of middle infielders should, hopefully, be ready.

I liked how Dozier adjusted to the pitchers' adjustments in the 2nd half.  If he can maintain the kind of OBP he had in the 2nd half, that'd be nice.

[nater79a]

 

Also some notes from the press conference and stuff after:

The question about Polanco was raised a couple times after the conference. Rob Antony's response is that Polanco is no guarantee - remember, they thought Dozier was going to be a shorstop, so things don't always work out the way they think they will.

And, of course, that's where the fact that there is no no-trade clause is important, too. This contract, assuming Dozier continues to perform, could be an asset instead of a liability in trade discussions.


Also, talking to Damon Lapa, Dozier's agent, it sounds like hitting free agency as a 31-year-old was VERY important to them. Any attempt to delay that was going to require some big adjustments to the deal to include that.

 

I would bet Polanco is playing 2B well before the end of Dozier's contract. The length and size of the contract make Dozier easily movable.

[jay]

 

It's nice to save a few mil, but no team in that situation is going to surrender more talent to the Twins because of a $2-3 mil annual discount.

 

I agree with you completely on the risk/reward payoff. A Dozier extension last summer would have had some additional risk, but that's the risk you have to take if you expect significant excess value. It's also why I don't understand the argument that many people were making to wait another year to extend him. The value and incentive is largely gone at that point.

 

The quoted line is the only one I don't necessarily agree with. A few million a year isn't going to mean the difference between getting multiple top prospects and a C prospect, but I'd definitely expect it to result in some degree of better value coming back in a trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Also, talking to Damon Lapa, Dozier's agent, it sounds like hitting free agency as a 31-year-old was VERY important to them. Any attempt to delay that was going to require some big adjustments to the deal to include that.

Thanks for this nugget John.

 

I think the Twins have been bitten by their conservatism in this regard -- by the time a player is established enough to get an extension offer from the Twins, that player is also close enough to arbitration and free agency to have this kind of leverage.  Span was about the most aggressive early career extension we've done, and possibly only because he just happened to fall ~30 days short of Super Two status.

 

Just like I want to see the Twins be more aggressive in international markets, etc., I would like to see them be more aggressive on extensions too.  Hopefully the next few years provide us with some players worthy of aggressive extensions early in their careers!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Just like I want to see the Twins be more aggressive in international markets, etc., I would like to see them be more aggressive on extensions too.  Hopefully the next few years provide us with some players worthy of aggressive extensions early in their careers!

Like you imply, I think the biggest reason we haven't seen more aggressive extensions is because the players haven't been worth it.

 

Brian Dozier was a middling prospect who floundering and then found a groove. It would have been a big risk to sign him last offseason when 2013 could have easily been a career year for Brian.

 

Oswaldo Arcia is a prospect with a ton of warts. Horrible defense, bad discipline, lots of power. If he is relegated to a platoon or DH role - a real possibility - his value falls through the floor. Trevor Plouffe had many of the same issues; thankfully, he managed to work through them and become a solid player but one can't hand out extensions with the hope a player improves drastically to earn that money.

 

Even Span had the traits of a guy who was a near lock to earn modest extension money: solid up-the-middle defense, good/great discipline, and solid speed. It was a pretty low-risk deal. Span's floor was a no-hit up-the-middle guy who can get on base and help you defensively at a critical position. That's worth some money whether he hits .300 or not (and it should be noted that since having two consecutive 100+ OPS+ seasons to start his career, he has only done it twice in the five years following).

 

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Twins aggressively pursue extensions for Sano and/or Buxton, who profile as the type of player you want to lock up.

[nicksaviking]

For those who wanted option years, he's still under contract for four more years.  There will be plenty of time to talk extension should Polanco, Santana, Escobar, Gordon et al bust or get moved. 

 

My vote will still be 'Nay' though.  31 just seems like the perfect time to part ways with a middle infielder.  A corner bat who doesn't need to worry about declining range might be a different story, but I'd rather always cycle through young guys up the middle.

[jimmer]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brian-dozier-twins-agree-to-a-safe-contract/

 

Fangraph's take on the Dozier contract.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The quoted line is the only one I don't necessarily agree with. A few million a year isn't going to mean the difference between getting multiple top prospects and a C prospect, but I'd definitely expect it to result in some degree of better value coming back in a trade.

Do you think the Nationals cared that Span was only due $11.75 mil over his final two arbitration years plus buyout, rather than something like the $13.7 mil Austin Jackson earned going year-to-year, or the $16.85 mil for Dexter Fowler?  I am sure it was nice, but the value of the option year control dwarfed the cost savings, I think.  (And for Dozier the cost savings is somewhat offset by the $1.4 mil that he is getting as a kind of "bonus" during pre-arb years.  The Twins could invest that money instead and later include it with him in trade if it really made any kind of difference.)

 

Average opening day MLB team payroll was $115 mil last year.  The majority of teams were above $100 mil.  Any team, in win-now mode, that's cheap enough to care about $2-3 mil per season in a trade like that, is probably one that's too cheap to provide good enough return value in trade anyway.

 

It's like when people suggest we could get a better prospect for Morneau, Willingham, etc. by eating more salary.  Teams generally don't sell any kind of decent assets for a few million bucks.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I like the deal at the present time, the total cost savings could be decent for the Twins.  But the cost savings over perhaps just half of the contact, for a win-now team, that's already giving up something significant in trade?

[amjgt]

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brian-dozier-twins-agree-to-a-safe-contract/

 

Fangraph's take on the Dozier contract.

 

The writer could have saved himself a lot of time and just typed "YAAAAAAAWN" and submitted that to his editor.

[jimmer]

 

The writer could have saved himself a lot of time and just typed "YAAAAAAAWN" and submitted that to his editor.

okay. I enjoyed the article, myself.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Like you imply, I think the biggest reason we haven't seen more aggressive extensions is because the players haven't been worth it.

Recently, yes.  But the Twins didn't do aggressive early extensions for Mauer or Morneau either.  Nor Santana, Hunter, or Radke, although admittedly their careers started less impressively.

 

Now to clarify, I don't fault the Twins too much in this regard -- the Rays' 2008 contracts for Shields/Longoria 2008 were kind of a "game changer" -- but certainly the Twins would have benefitted from being out front on this earlier.

 

I guess I should thank the heavens that the Twins 2008 talent evaluators didn't give out an aggressive early extension, as it almost certainly would have gone to Delmon Young at the time.  Or maybe Carlos Gomez as they tried to make him a slap hitter...

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brian-dozier-twins-agree-to-a-safe-contract/

 

Fangraph's take on the Dozier contract.

Thanks for the link.  From Fangraphs:

 

 

In the last four offseasons, the only pre-arbitration position players to receive contract extensions not buying any free agent years were fringe-starter catchers in Ryan Hanigan and Josh Thole, and they received less than $5 million guaranteed

 

[jimmer]

2015 Positional Power rankings.  Twins #9 at 2B.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-positional-power-rankings-second-base/

 

'The surprising thing about Brian Dozier in 2013 was his power. It was only natural to wonder if he could maintain it into 2014, and sure enough, he did. In 2014, then, the surprising thing about Brian Dozier was his plate discipline, and now we get to wonder if he’ll keep that up too. Dozier posted a top-15 walk rate among qualified batters last season, completing a three-year transformation from “no power, no discipline middle infielder” to “some power, no discipline, average second baseman” to “good power, good discipline, solid starter.” Then there’s the underrated part of Dozier’s game — his baserunning, where he was bested only by Ben Revere and Dee Gordon last season. The forecasts expect a good deal of regression from Dozier, most notably in the on-base department, but Dozier’s already fooled everyone the last two seasons, so who’s to say he won’t make it a third in 2015?'

Edited March 24, 2015 by jimmer

[James Richter]

This is pretty ideal from the Twins' standpoint. The WAR Dozier has averaged over the past 2 seasons is worth about $20M by itself. I don't think $15M over the final 2 years would deter many potential trade candidates, and nobody is on the hook for a bunch of post-prime seasons. The deal ends at about the time we'd project Nick Gordon to be ready for the Majors. Yet it rewards a home-grown player who has worked to make himself the best he can be - that sets a good precedent for some of the other young core guys.

[shs_59]

Great Deal for him, and The Twins; Love the deal.

Only thing i was hoping to see was a team option at $10-12 Million for 2019.

 

*and maybe a player option at 14-15$ Million for 2020.

 

with small buyouts possilbe in each case.

 

I really don't see Dozier regressing much at all (way more sure than Danny Santana) and I also Know this gives the Twins' FO cost certainty for those seasons, for what its worth.

 

Dozier could actually get a little better.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

A few notes from MLBTR on the deal:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/al-central-notes-dozier-tigers-finnegan.html

 

 

 

“In Brian’s case, we felt it important to restrict the club’s ability at the back end of the contract to have any options or anything like that,” Lapa said.  “To us that resulted in a shorter term, but we feel in the long run that’s in Brian’s best interests. It preserves his ability to hit free agency on time at 31 as opposed to some of the other players who will be in their mid-30s.”

While retaining the ability to test free agency was a key point for Dozier, he made it clear that he would like to spend the rest of his career in Minnesota.  He’s quite open to a future extension with the team and “hopefully this [contract] is a stepping stone for something possibly even longer.”

I am guessing that Dozier and his agent wanted the Carpenter/Kipnis deal (6/52) and the Twins wouldn't do it.  I don't blame him for wanting that, and I don't blame the Twins for resisting it either.

 

And essentially, he signed a deal that mirrors the first 4 years (pre-FA) of Carpenter's and Kipnis's deals (roughly 4/21.5).

[amjgt]

 

okay. I enjoyed the article, myself.

 

That was the writers reaction to the contract, not my reaction to the article.

 

"It was fine.... I suppose"

 

"It wasn't too bad.... I guess"

 

"None of these examples are very good comparisons, but I'll put them up here because that's what my editor expects. I can't draw any conclusions from them, though"

[twinstalker]

I see no upside for the Twins on this.  If he deserves more at the end, he would be easily tradeable.  What is more likely is that they're fixed into paying $6 million and $9 million for a guy who won't be the best 2B on the team at that time.  Dozier has no financial incentive to play well until the 4th year now, whereas he'd have to battle to keep his spot without the contract.  There was just no reason for the Twins to do this.  I know they want their brand to have consistency in personnel, but this doesn't really get at this, other than not allowing them the option of dumping Dozier and his salary.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What is more likely is that they're fixed into paying $6 million and $9 million for a guy who won't be the best 2B on the team at that time.

That's not likely at all.

 

Second basemen who post 9 WAR over two seasons are a rare commodity. Polanco has a chance to do that by 2018 but there's not a particularly good chance he can do it. Polanco is a decent, not great, prospect. He's the kind of guy who you keep an eye on and hope that he matures into something much better than he is right now. Kinda like Brian Dozier, actually... Though Polanco is younger and probably has a higher floor than Dozier. Either way, it's rare for Brian Dozier to turn into Brian Dozier and it'd be stunning to see the Twins strike gold like that twice in a row.

 

Past Polanco, there's... not much. Santana is a SS. Rosario won't be as good as Dozier even if the Twins moved him back to second. Gordon also profiles as a SS and his bat is a pretty big question mark (plus, it would require him to play out of his mind to be in Minnesota by 2018).

 

It continually baffles me how some Twins fans undersell Brian Dozier. He's not a "great" player but he's not far from it, either. He has been a fringe top five performer at his position for two years running. That's a damned fine player.

[Otto von Ballpark]

At these salaries, basically any team could afford to take on Dozier, even as a bounceback candidate if he gets hurt or struggles.

 

Perhaps that's the extra trade value in this deal -- not that the cost savings over arb would net us better return, but rather it is so affordable we will almost certainly never be stuck paying him if we don't want to.

[jay]

 

I see no upside for the Twins on this.  If he deserves more at the end, he would be easily tradeable.  What is more likely is that they're fixed into paying $6 million and $9 million for a guy who won't be the best 2B on the team at that time.  Dozier has no financial incentive to play well until the 4th year now, whereas he'd have to battle to keep his spot without the contract.  There was just no reason for the Twins to do this.  I know they want their brand to have consistency in personnel, but this doesn't really get at this, other than not allowing them the option of dumping Dozier and his salary.

 

I love me a good prospect, but this is another example of where the expectation level for our prospects is FAR too high. Penciling in any of our M-IF prospects to be better than Dozier is dangerous.

 

The "no financial incentive" bit is ridiculous. Players don't get big, fat, long FA deals on the one season they had before FA. He has every financial incentive in the world to keep playing well.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jay

[kab21]

 

Recently, yes.  But the Twins didn't do aggressive early extensions for Mauer or Morneau either.  Nor Santana, Hunter, or Radke, although admittedly their careers started less impressively.

 

Now to clarify, I don't fault the Twins too much in this regard -- the Rays' 2008 contracts for Shields/Longoria 2008 were kind of a "game changer" -- but certainly the Twins would have benefitted from being out front on this earlier.

 

I guess I should thank the heavens that the Twins 2008 talent evaluators didn't give out an aggressive early extension, as it almost certainly would have gone to Delmon Young at the time.  Or maybe Carlos Gomez as they tried to make him a slap hitter...

actually they did.  With all of the listed players (possibly not Radke) they signed contracts buying out arb years and one year of FA.

[Paul Pleiss]

I actually don't hate this. Well done.

 

I don't entirely understand it, but I don't hate it.