Article: WARNE: The Twins' Secret Extension Candidate

[Boom Boom]

These kinds of decisions make me think it was a mistake to put Mauer at first rather than the outfield. Sano would be a better fit at first than third.

[Brandon Warne]

 

These kinds of decisions make me think it was a mistake to put Mauer at first rather than the outfield. Sano would be a better fit at first than third.

 

I want to believe that was simply as a measure to make sure he was good health-wise, and I hope it isn't too late to revisit this. He's 32, there's no reason he should be landlocked right now.

[Brandon Warne]

 

But the flip side is.  Plouffe had a good year last year.  And about a good 40-50 day streak in 2012.  You hand him a 3-4 year deal and he doesn't put up another year like last year and he may not be as easy to move or valuable as we think.  If you look around we have a few poor contracts already, I think you wait. 

 

In today's marketplace, the contract I've suggested is a pittance. There's almost no risk to the Twins to pay Trevor Plouffe $7m a year. In fact, they'll probably have to do it as soon as next year simply due to arbitration.

[tobi0040]

 

OK, so here's the deal with a potential Plouffe extension:

 

I understand why people would like to wait out the remaining two years he has in arbitration. I get that. But as a super-two, he's going to get pretty expensive even as a decent third baseman over those two years.

 

IF you wait them out and still want to sign him after that, you will then be forced to sign him to a market-level deal, which assuming he has played well will be about four years and maybe $10m AAV. 

 

Or, you can split the difference, take him until he's about 32, and play your cards after that. But if you wait it out and then want to sign him, you're not only signing him at market value, but until he's in his mid-30s. 

 

A four-year deal under $30 million carries basically no risk for the Twins here, unless he were to absolutely fall off a cliff. But if you're forecasting that, well, you know more than the team does.

 

I would sign him at 3-25 if we conclude Sano is not a 3B.  Otherwise, I don't neccesarily agree that this deal carries no risk for us.

 

Plouffe could regress. Or he could fail to transition to another postion, which would likely cause us moving one of the best prospects we have ever had to play out of position and in a position that will lower his WAR.  If he can't play LF or RF, where does he go?  If either of those things happen we will kick ourselves for having another contract that is difficult to move, or more likely another player that we play just because he has a contract

 

If the risk of not-signing Plouffe is that he gets more expensive....but we have all this money? So is him getting a little more expensive a huge problem?  To me, that is not as big of an issue as having another contract to deal with. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2015 by tobi0040

[jimmer]

'Plouffe could regress. Or he could fail to transition to another position, which would likely cause us moving one of the best prospects we have ever had to play out of position and in a position that will lower his WAR.'

 

If Sano is a very poor/poor defender at 3B his WAR is going to take a hit anyway.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

Having the money and extending Plouffe are two separate things though.  Just because we have the money does not mean that it is the best decision for the Twins.

 

Regardless of whether he signs an extension or not, he'll cost around $6m next season. The point what that him signing an extension wouldn't be any hindrance to potentially signing free agents next off-season (or the next one after that).

[markos]

 

OK, so here's the deal with a potential Plouffe extension:

 

I understand why people would like to wait out the remaining two years he has in arbitration. I get that. But as a super-two, he's going to get pretty expensive even as a decent third baseman over those two years.

 

IF you wait them out and still want to sign him after that, you will then be forced to sign him to a market-level deal, which assuming he has played well will be about four years and maybe $10m AAV. 

 

Or, you can split the difference, take him until he's about 32, and play your cards after that. But if you wait it out and then want to sign him, you're not only signing him at market value, but until he's in his mid-30s. 

 

A four-year deal under $30 million carries basically no risk for the Twins here, unless he were to absolutely fall off a cliff. But if you're forecasting that, well, you know more than the team does.

I am very skeptical that Plouffe would accept a 4-year, $30M offer. He isn't a poor pre-arb player. He's earned almost $10M in his career already. That's not quite set-for-life money, but its not a pittance, and therefore I don't think he has a dire need to exchange future earnings for security. The arbitration process basically ensures that he is locked in for at least $10M over the next two years unless he is released, and most likely he will get raises that will move him into the $15M-$20M range. If I was advising Plouffe, I would tell him to either sign a market-rate extension (at least 4 year, $40M+) with the Twins or get to free agency as quickly as possible. 

 

From the Twins perspective, I don't see the need for an extension at that price. There may be some need for him after the 2017 season, but in that case he should be good enough to warrant a qualifying offer. 

[tobi0040]

 

Regardless of whether he signs an extension or not, he'll cost around $6m next season. The point what that him signing an extension wouldn't be any hindrance to potentially signing free agents next off-season (or the next one after that).

 

What are we saving by extending him now?  Money over the next 2-3 years, which is not a scarce commodity.  So to me the risk is higher than the cost. 

 

I don't want to move Sano around, a 22 year old that we will hopefully have until he is 37 because we wanted to save a few million dollars on a 29 year old Plouffe, who was probably not going to be here very long.  This is not a franchise that is flexible to moving guys all around.  They would not even talk about Mauer moving and moved him about two years after they should have.  Then they moved him to the wrong position.  And will probably never move him again. 

[Willihammer]

 

It's possible he could stick either place, moving him out of fear Plouffe might be a good player seems like exactly the kind of poor thinking that has plagued this team.

Are you saying the verdict is still out on Plouffe?

[tobi0040]

I personally believe the "how expensive he will get if we don't sign him" crowd is overblowing the difference between how expensive he will get and what we are saving to give him 3-24 now ($8M a year). 

 

If you throw out A-Rod, here a few of the most expensive 3B out there.

 

Han-Ram  .874 OPS @ 22M

 

Beltre    .814 OPS @ $16M      4 gold gloves

 

Wright   .870 OPS @ $15M       2 gold gloves

 

Zimmerman .825 OPS @ $14M      1 gold glove

 

Plouffe's career OPS is .722.  If he was a free agent, I think he fetches $12M a year and he is not a free agent right now.  So we are saving $12M over three years, tops.  If we have oodles and oodles of money the next few years, why open the door for the negatives of this? 

Edited April 28, 2015 by tobi0040

[Willihammer]

 

I personally believe the "how expensive he will get if we don't sign him" crowd is overblowing the difference between how expensive he will get and what we are saving to give him 3-24 now ($8M a year). 

 

If you throw out A-Rod, here a few of the most expensive 3B out there.

 

Han-Ram  .874 OPS @ 22M

 

Beltre    .814 OPS @ $16M      4 gold gloves

 

Wright   .870 OPS @ $15M       2 gold gloves

 

Zimmerman .825 OPS @ $14M      1 gold glove

 

Plouffe's career OPS is .722.  If he was a free agent, I think he fetches $12M a year and he is not a free agent right now.  So we are saving $12M over three years, tops.  If we have oodles and oodles of money the next few years, why open the door for the negatives of this? 

Its not just that you'll be paying higher AAV if you wait, and Plouffe stays a good player. Its that you'll pay higher AAV for more years and for declining production.

 

Pay him now or down't pay him at all. Waiting and then paying him is the worst option.

[twinscowboysbulls]

Should we move Sano back to SS today or tomorrow?

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

Its not just that you'll be paying higher AAV if you wait, and Plouffe stays a good player. Its that you'll pay higher AAV for more years and for declining production.

 

Pay him now or down't pay him at all. Waiting and then paying him is the worst option.

 

Next off-season he is 30 and has two years of control left.  I don't see him requiring a five year deal at that point.  I don't see him saying no to 4/35.  That is basically 2/20 over what he would make in arbitration.

 

At that point we will have a better handle on the Sano situation.  That is only $15M more with one additional season over this hypothetical 3/24 deal.

Edited April 28, 2015 by tobi0040

[dxpavelka]

Let's let Sano get here and show he deserves the job before we even think about trading what we've got.  Denard Span, Ben Revere anyone?

 

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

What are we saving by extending him now?  Money over the next 2-3 years, which is not a scarce commodity.  So to me the risk is higher than the cost. 

 

 

You might be able to save a little in 2016. But you're really hoping to save in 2017 and get a year of free agency out of him.

 

You getting cost-certainty, and there's value in that if you believe he's going to be part of the solution.

[Mike Sixel]

There is also value in "certainty", if you believe Plouffe is a legit 3B. Knowing you have a 3B is valuable in and of itself, even over the value of having one.

[tobi0040]

 

You might be able to save a little in 2016. But you're really hoping to save in 2017 and get a year of free agency out of him.

 

You getting cost-certainty, and there's value in that if you believe he's going to be part of the solution.

 

Yes. But to your earlier point, we have $25M extra in 2016 and 2017.  So paying an additional few million isn't that big of a deal.  I am okay with that right now as we don't have a gun to our head forcing anything.

 

If he takes a 3 year deal with two individual team option years I would do it.  Because I think it then upps his trade value quite a bit (team gets to save money if he is good and move on if he is not).  But that probably doesn't make sense for Plouffe to sign.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You didn't read my earlier post. I'd expect them to have as much as $25m next year to play with...

Your earlier post had them at $98 million for 2016, without adding any free agents at all, and assuming Hicks, Pinto, Tonkin, Meyer, Sano, Buxton, and Rosario are all counted on to make the roster next spring.

 

B-Ref similarly has them estimated at $108 mil for next year:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2015-payroll-salaries.shtml

 

Their team record opening day payroll according to Cot's is $113 mil, which was cut back after one losing season.  I am not seeing a lot of money there with which to play.

 

I don't think money is a big inhibiting factor here, but the fact is we have invested a lot of money in retaining the core of a 90-loss team.

[Linus]

I wouldn't extend him.  We have him up to his age 31 season.  There is a high likelihood that we won't even want him beyond that point.  I also think he still has plenty left to prove, and I also think the assumption that he can transition to another position is flawed.  He was a bad shortstop and, initially, a bad 3rd baseman.  To his credit, he worked hard and got better but it took time - something we won't be able to invest when he is 31 and trying to learn left field.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I wouldn't extend him.  We have him up to his age 31 season.  There is a high likelihood that we won't even want him beyond that point.  I also think he still has plenty left to prove, and I also think the assumption that he can transition to another position is flawed.  He was a bad shortstop and, initially, a bad 3rd baseman.  To his credit, he worked hard and got better but it took time - something we won't be able to invest when he is 31 and trying to learn left field.

 

so, basically, never extend any player that doesn't come up by 24?

[tobi0040]

 

so, basically, never extend any player that doesn't come up by 24?

 

I see a lot of Plouffe-specific commentary in his reasoning.

[Linus]

 

so, basically, never extend any player that doesn't come up by 24?

Actually, pretty much.  At least not players who you have a likely replacement for and are not the cornerstone of your team.  I believe you have been a vocal proponent of not signing decline phase players, which is where he will be at that point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you could sign him at Brandon's target (four years, $28-30 million), that could be pretty good.  But that seems on the low side for Plouffe, if he's already got $7 mil in the bank and he's almost a lock for another $7 mil in arbitration next year.

 

Any more than that, and you are looking at paying his arb prices and then guaranteeing close to $12 mil for that FA year.  As solid as his 2014 was, I don't think Plouffe has the upside where that kind of cost certainty is worthwhile.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Actually, pretty much.  At least not players who you have a likely replacement for and are not the cornerstone of your team.  I believe you have been a vocal proponent of not signing decline phase players, which is where he will be at that point.

 

Fair. I was just checking. I'm not big on signing 32 year olds to 4 year deals.....Signing good 28 year olds to 4-6 year deals? Maybe, but ya, I share your skepticism. Every team will have some 32 year olds, it's the price you pay for having good 30 year olds.

[tobi0040]

 

 I don't think Plouffe has the upside where that kind of cost certainty is worthwhile.

 

 Given the uncertainty about his position and the fact that I don't ever see him as a $15M a year player....That is my ultimate conclusion too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Plouffe outperformed the following third basemen last year in wOBA (a Fangraphs metric that takes all hits and properly weighs them before scaling them to on-base percentage for ease of consumption):

Pablo Sandoval
Evan Longoria
David Freese
David Wright
Xander Bogaerts
Nick Castellanos

Now that’s a who’s who of third basemen in a couple of different respects. Of course, a number of those guys had down years

That list is pretty extreme cherry-picking.

 

Bogaerts was a 21 year old rookie, Castellanos 22.

 

Longoria & Wright - 2014 was their worst season in MLB by far.

 

Sandoval & Freese - 2014 was the second worst season in MLB for each.

 

Every one of those four veterans has a higher *career* wOBA than Plouffe's 2014 career high mark.

 

I really am not sure what that list accomplishes, other than to mislead readers.  Dozier was pretty good in 2014 too, but it has nothing to do with the fact that his season wOBA was better than Utley and Pedroia.

 

Conor Gillaspie had virtually the same wOBA in 2014 as Plouffe, admittedly worse defense, but is also a year younger with a year less service time.  Do you think the White Sox should lock up Gillaspie for the next 4-5 years?

Edited April 28, 2015 by spycake

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

Your earlier post had them at $98 million for 2016, without adding any free agents at all, and assuming Hicks, Pinto, Tonkin, Meyer, Sano, Buxton, and Rosario are all counted on to make the roster next spring.

 

B-Ref similarly has them estimated at $108 mil for next year:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2015-payroll-salaries.shtml

 

Their team record opening day payroll according to Cot's is $113 mil, which was cut back after one losing season.  I am not seeing a lot of money there with which to play.

 

I don't think money is a big inhibiting factor here, but the fact is we have invested a lot of money in retaining the core of a 90-loss team.

 

B-Ref uses arbitration averages - the big difference between our figures is that I'm accounting for the fact that these guys aren't average players and their salary will reflect that. (And that's where we differ.)  

 

And I was only counting the out-of-options players, not the other young guys (which would bring it down further). 

 

Regardless of where it all actually shakes out, the Twins aren't going to drop $20m/year on a pitcher, so it doesn't matter. But they will have money to spend.

 

Where we do agree, though, is that money isn't an inhibiting factor. They have seven guys locked up to multi-year deals, and, besides Nolasco, I don't think I'd say any of those deals are bad deals.

 

I think the biggest question is whether or not Plouffe is part of the solution. Brandon says yes, I'm less sure... if he is, an extension through these next couple years makes sense.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Are you saying the verdict is still out on Plouffe?

 

On whether he's worth locking up and forcing a move by someone to another position?  Yes, I absolutely believe that is up in the air for a number of factors.  To me, I wouldn't lock up Plouffe unless it was at the 4/30 mark being discussed.  Anything more than that would depend on how likely Sano can stay at third and I'm not sure any of us have much of a clue about that one way or the other.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Where we do agree, though, is that money isn't an inhibiting factor. They have seven guys locked up to multi-year deals, and, besides Nolasco, I don't think I'd say any of those deals are bad deals.

That's sort of what I was getting at before.  Any one of those deals isn't that big or bad on its own.  But the combination of those seven deals isn't a very good base for building a successful team.

 

Three of the biggest contracts you couldn't give away right now (Mauer, Nolasco, Santana), and arguably a fourth (Suzuki).  The most valuable of the deals might be a long-term deal for a reliever (Perkins).  A lot hinges on Hughes repeating/improving on 2014.

 

And Dozier's deal was already a big guarantee for a few million in potential cost savings for quite possibly a non-elite player.  I am not sure I'd be in a rush to add another such guarantee for Plouffe -- there's already almost no margin for error with our upcoming prospects and future FA signings.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

B-Ref uses arbitration averages - the big difference between our figures is that I'm accounting for the fact that these guys aren't average players and their salary will reflect that. (And that's where we differ.)  

 

And I was only counting the out-of-options players, not the other young guys (which would bring it down further).

Thanks for the clarifications, sorry I misread your post.

 

Still, I don't think $98 million gives us that much room to play with.  Enough to make a guarantee to Plouffe, sure, or to sign another Hunter (hopefully not actually Hunter again ), but probably not enough to make a play on an impact player who could really lessen the burden on our prospects.