Article: Ten To Extend: A Five-Part Series (Part 1)

[Jeremy Nygaard]

I’ve always been a fan of extensions. Well, baseball extensions anyway. My wife came home with hair extensions once because they were a “good deal” and I wasn’t a big fan of that. But that’s besides the point.

 

As far as baseball extensions go, even “good deals” sometimes aren’t good deals. And sometimes bad-looking deals turn into great deals (but usually not). The reality is that’s impossible to tell until later. Sometimes a little later. Sometimes a lot later.

 

The best part - for me anyway - is that once an extension is signed it’s thrown into a group of contracts that can be examined in a number of different ways - from years of free agency bought out to team options to buyouts to looking specifically at the details of those with similar service time and position.According to MLBTR’s Extension Tracker, the Twins have signed 13 players to 15 extensions since the beginning of the 2008 calendar year. Eight of those have been signed during the month of March, including the extension of Brian Dozier in 2015 and Glen Perkins in 2014. Will there be another one in 2016?

 

Over the next couple of weeks, we’re going to examine ten players and how a potential extension would be structured and why. Please note: I’M NOT SUGGESTING SIGNING ALL OF THESE PLAYERS TO EXTENSIONS. In fact, there are a couple that would be downright ridiculous. But ten is a nice, round number to examine over this multi-part series. These are listed in order of a combination of likelihood and personal preference, starting with least-likely/preferred ones.

 

10) Kurt Suzuki, catcher

 

Wait, this can’t be serious. Can it!? Well, it was serious when the Twins signed Suzuki to a two-year extension 18 months ago when many fans were hoping they would trade him. Suzuki, of course, finished 2014 .288/.345/.383 after signing the extension on trade deadline day (and hitting .306/.369/.391 at the time). He backed that up with a 2015 that saw his production drop even more, to the tune of .240/.296/.314. Yikes!

 

So why extend him? There’s not a great reason to “extend” him as much as there is to “modify”. Currently Suzuki is in line to earn $6 million in 2016 and $6 million in 2017, but only if he makes 485 plate appearance in 2016. He’s almost assured to not reach that number in 2016; he fell short of it in 2015. So the likelihood is that he’ll hit the open market and be looking at, what, the possibility of signing a minor league deal? Even the best case scenario is he’s not coming close to the $6 million he will make this year.

 

The addition of John Ryan Murphy and having both Stuart Turner and Mitch Garver knocking on the door might render Suzuki useless as we look towards 2017, but what if we replace the vesting option with a team option at a much lower price that includes a guaranteed buyout. We’ll toss some plate appearance bonuses in to insure Suzuki makes money if he would have otherwise triggered what would have vested the option.

 

Would I extend Suzuki? No way. I’d make sure his option doesn’t vest and he’s off the books, but would the team and Suzuki consider the following deal:

 

Eliminate the vesting option. Add a mutual option for $2 million for 2017 with a $100,000 buyout (if the term declines). Add $250,000 plate appearances bonuses at 450, 485, 520 and 555 and add a $1 million bonus at 615. The Twins will be on the hook for an extra $100,000 but Suzuki could earn an extra $2 million if he makes 615 plate appearances. He wouldn’t recoup the $6 million that he could have earned, but if he puts up a season that includes 615 plate appearances, he’ll probably do ok for himself in free agency.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s not so much an “extension” as it is a “modification”. I’ve also said it’s something I wouldn’t do. But is it something that both parties would consider beneficial to themselves? It might be, especially considering how much the parties involved seem to like each other.

 

9) Brian Dozier, second baseman

 

You Can’t Be Serious, Part 2, right? Sort of. As much as I was against the Suzuki extension when it was signed, I was against the Dozier extension for a completely different reason: It didn’t give the Twins any additional years of control. The only benefit - and it’s a benefit that might prove to be even bigger as the years progress - is that it provided cost-certainty. But you can also make the argument that having to pay additional dollars going year-by-year is a better alternative than locking in at a cost for a handful of years. Now’s not the place to argue that (well, you can down below if you’d like). I’m just not going to touch it here.

 

If you don’t remember, the Twins signed Dozier to a four-year/$20 million deal last spring. They tore up the $540,000 deal they had given him for 2015 and bumped his salary to $2 million. The club then bought out his arbitration years at $3, $6 and $9 million.

 

But no more years. And no team options.

 

The contract signed by Dee Gordon is a great comparison for what Dozier should have gotten/could still get. You could view the $1.46 million bump Dozier got as a signing bonus. Gordon got a signing bonus of $1.5 million. Both players will make $3 million in their 3+ year of service. Gordon will make $1.5 million more than Dozier in each of his 4+ and 5+ seasons.

 

The big difference is that Gordon will remain under the Marlins control for $13 million and $13.5 million with an additional vesting option whereas Dozier will become a free agent.

 

Is it time for the Twins to right that wrong? Not many would have batted an eye if the Twins bought out a year or two of Dozier’s free agency last March, so would they now? An additional two years at $30.5 million. It would break down like this: $3 million signing bonus (the difference in arbitration-year salaries), $13 million in 2019, $13.5 million in 2020 and a $1 million buyout on a $14 million team option for 2021. Essentially the exact same deal that Dee Gordon signed.

 

This would lock up Dozier through his age-33 season and he would enter free agency the same time as Gordon, who is one year younger.

 

Personally, I would have been more likely to give Dozier this deal last March. Now that he’s locked in, I’d let it play out (at least until this time next year). But it wouldn’t be the first time the club extended a player one year into a contract.

 

*cough*Phil Hughes*cough* Which might be just enough to make the club a little gun shy this time around.

 

So what do you think about Suzuki (are you kidding me?!) and Dozier (well, now that you put it that way)? We’ll be checking in on eight more players over the next few days or weeks. Feel free to chime in below.

 

Click here to view the article

[Mike Sixel]

Uh......I'm typeless on the Suzuki thing. All I do is make sure his option doesn't vest, and let him go. I'll take the risk that if he's awesome, and his option vests, fine, he's on my roster another year.

 

Dozier, I agree, I'd have done that last year. But, now there is less value in the buyout, because he is closer, so the discount is less (imo). At this point, I let it play out 1 more year, and see what Polanco is or is not in AAA. But, I'd at least consider this one, and not just say "are you kidding me".....

[Seth Stohs]

I'll agree with Jeremy's opinion that although both of these could make some sense in the right scenario, neither makes sense to do at this point. 

 

If the Twins let Suzuki go, he could probably be signed after the season as a free agent for less than $2 million if they really want to.

 

With Dozier, I'm agreement with others. Last year, it would have made some sense to add a year or so, but now they've got a good deal. No need to add to it three years too early.

[SF Twins Fan]

No way on Suzuki. Dozier's situation is interesting. Should the Twins trade him and see if Polanco can take over at second base or keep him and move Polanco? It doesn't sound like Polanco is going to be able to play SS at the MLB level.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

I don't even like myself for thinking Suzuki is 10th most-likely to sign a new contract. But I still have the pukey taste in my mouth from the first extension I didn't like. I view it - from the Twins perspective - that if things go bad behind the plate and Suzuki somehow reaches the plate appearances to vest... I'd pay him money now to not have that option.

 

As far as Dozier goes, I think he'll be the second baseman for the forseeable future. I'm starting to wonder if Polanco gets more time at third this year - the Twins talked about doing it last year according to one of Phil Miller's blurbs in BA - and is the third baseman of the future. I also really like the idea of him being the Twins version of Josh Harrison (or Ben Zobrist).

[beckmt]

I am still one of the few who would trade Dozier at some time.  Polanco does not have the power, but will probably be just about as good.  What could you get back, a very good bullpen piece or two, or a couple of very good prospects, that would fillin the pitching staff 3 years from now. 

Do not want it to happen this year, but would make sense this offseason.

[Thrylos]

Sub the word "trade" for "extend", and you'd be right on with these 2.

 

Dozier has been regressing, both with the stick and the glove.  Got to sell high.  As far as Suzuki goes, Hicks is way better with the glove and at least equal with the stick.

[nicksaviking]

No for me on Dozier. Off the books at 32 sounds exactly right to me.

[tobi0040]

If Dozier was a stock I owned I would sell it. This will likely be its peak value. The problem is Polanco in 2016 would likely result in fewer wins this year and probably next year as well. I hope we are in contention both years and we are in the winning baseball games business.

[spinowner]

No extension for either. Suzuki's future, as with many backup-caliber catchers, is as a coach. Or maybe minor league player-coach as in Crash Davis, if fiction can come true in real life. I think the Twins will come out smelling like a rose with Dozier's contract. He'll be down-turning when it expires and we'll have Polanco/Gordon/Vielma to cover the middle infield by then.

[DocBauer]

Count me with the general universal of no on Suzuki. It's just not necessary. You should be able to re-sign him for $2 or less before next season. (Not necessarily a bad option for a backup catcher)

 

However, while I respect and like Suzuki, if Turner or Garver or not yet ready, I still favor signing a solid backup who swings a decent LH bat. It just makes roster sense.

 

Dozier? Sure...if this time you gain a couple FA years. Otherwise it's just not necessary.

[blairpaul715]

 

I am still one of the few who would trade Dozier at some time.  Polanco does not have the power, but will probably be just about as good.  What could you get back, a very good bullpen piece or two, or a couple of very good prospects, that would fillin the pitching staff 3 years from now. 

Do not want it to happen this year, but would make sense this offseason.

I am with you , but I do want to see how this season plays out, we should have a better idea on Dozier...........I think unless Dozier ups his BA a bit, even at the expense of HR's, I would look to trade and replace with Polanco next yr.......Provided Polanco keeps showing improvement.

[Otto von Ballpark]

One thing all of Twins Daily can agree on: if your extension candidate list includes Kurt Suzuki circa 2016, you should probably just shorten your list.

[Paul Pleiss]

I wouldn't have given Zook the first extension, and I would have allowed Dozier to go year-to-year with the Twinks. I understand the idea of "cost certainty" with Dozier, but the Twins took on a lot of risk for the hope of saving a couple million. Bonkers of a deal without an option or buying out at least one FA year.

 

Zook would be a great back-up catcher, but I don't know if he's ready to accept that role, and quite frankly, I think you can get a back up catcher on the market without much work. As much as I loathed Drew Butera when he was wearing the Twins colors, I miss having him around. I was pretty stoked for him to catch the last pitch of the World Series last fall. There are Drew Butera types out there. Let's hope the Twins go find one, or promote the ones coming from within the org. Bye bye Zook!

 

Brian Dozier is the new Michael Cuddyer? I don't know. He's great with the fans, and one of my favorite Twins with both Morneau, Revere and Hicks having left the organization. I think the Twins could move him if things are looking bleak at the mid-summer classic, but I don't know what they would return. he's been considerably less valuable in the 2nd half of the last couple seasons, and while he's a consistent everyday player, I don't know that there's a lot of upside. Maybe he's the right piece for a contender down the stretch. I don't know. This team could use his consistency if they truly hope to compete in 2016-2018.

 

In summation, don't extend either. Let the cards fall where they may.

[slash129]

 

Zook would be a great back-up catcher, but I don't know if he's ready to accept that role, and quite frankly, I think you can get a back up catcher on the market without much work. 

 

He should probably be getting ready to accept that role.  Looking up and down the OPS numbers of starting catchers last year, few were lower than Suzuki.  Most, if not all, of those won't be starting in 2016.  Add on that he doesn't bring much strike zone or running game control to the table, and I don't see any starting jobs available for him.

 

If Garver, Turner or Hicks don't look to be the part soon, I would keep him around as the backup on a year-by-year basis.  The pitching staff likes him, and he will be a cheap cheerleader. 

 

Long term, I can wishfully think of Mientkiewicz managing and Zook as the bench coach.

[SockNet]

I liked the Dozier arbitration buy out. They gave the guy the raise he deserved and security in knowing his salary. But Dozier had yet to have a complete season with consistent stats through out and still hasn't. Why commit extra years and likely large sums of money to an unproven commodity? Especially now, when players are declining earlier than in the past couple decades. If anything I'd have given a larger raise but still no additional years. If Dozier walks in FA and the Twins don't have anyone competent to replace him if he leaves, I'll take that as an indictment of Twins player development over their willingness to give Dozier extra years. (I don't remember, did the Twins offer extra years? Did Dozier ask for extra years?)

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

(I don't remember, did the Twins offer extra years? Did Dozier ask for extra years?)

 

The Twins pushed hard for a free agent year or two. Dozier didn't bite. (From the team's perspective, if there are no free agent years included - whether it's an option or a straight year - that's a deal-breaker.)

[blairpaul715]

 

The Twins pushed hard for a free agent year or two. Dozier didn't bite. (From the team's perspective, if there are no free agent years included - whether it's an option or a straight year - that's a deal-breaker.)

Apparently it wasnt a deal breaker since he got a deal without including FA yrs.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

Apparently it wasnt a deal breaker since he got a deal without including FA yrs.

 

Right. (Site wasn't working correctly, so I couldn't edit my post.)

 

FOR ME if I'm looking at it from the team's perspective, at the time I didn't think cost certainty was enough of a benefit to make the deal. Any extension should involve give-and-take from both parties... felt like more give from the Twins and more take from Dozier. Which I don't have a problem with as a fan. Good for the player!

[Brock Beauchamp]

Dozier has been regressing, both with the stick and the glove.  Got to sell high.

"Sell high" should only be referenced if at least one of the following criteria is met:

 

1. The team has no expectation of winning enough baseball games to matter

 

2. The team has a viable replacement at the position who can step in and won't sacrifice (multiple) wins in the short-term

 

Neither applies to the 2016 Twins. Maybe in July of this season, that changes and we all feel more comfortable about Polanco's defense and bat. But right now, not so much.

 

Over the past two seasons, Brian Dozier has posted a .757 OPS. Jorge Polanco hasn't posted a number that high since he was in Ft. Myers.

[tobi0040]

 

Right. (Site wasn't working correctly, so I couldn't edit my post.)

 

FOR ME if I'm looking at it from the team's perspective, at the time I didn't think cost certainty was enough of a benefit to make the deal. Any extension should involve give-and-take from both parties... felt like more give from the Twins and more take from Dozier. Which I don't have a problem with as a fan. Good for the player!

 

Agreed.  "cost certainty" is not a huge deal.  Especially since the amount we gave Dozier was pretty close to what he was likely going to get anyways. You are just locking in future payroll and prepaying a guy.  You lose flexibility and protecting the downside risk.

[Thrylos]

 

"Sell high" should only be referenced if at least one of the following criteria is met:

 

1. The team has no expectation of winning enough baseball games to matter

 

2. The team has a viable replacement at the position who can step in and won't sacrifice (multiple) wins in the short-term

 

Neither applies to the 2016 Twins. Maybe in July of this season, that changes and we all feel more comfortable about Polanco's defense and bat. But right now, not so much.

 

Over the past two seasons, Brian Dozier has posted a .757 OPS. Jorge Polanco hasn't posted a number that high since he was in Ft. Myers.

 

Polanco's bat is better than Dozier's.  Polanco hit .289/.346/.393 in Chattanooga last season, and Dozier hit .236/.307/.444. Slightly higher OPS because of the SLG% and HRs difference.  Polanco is not a power hitter yet.  And on the top of the order, I'd rather have a guy who gets on base and makes better contact than Dozier.   But I am not talking about Polanco as Dozier's replacement because I see him as a SS.

 

So with Polanco as SS you got the option to move Escobar to 2B (who will be an upgrade both with the glove and the stick over Dozier) or, if you think that Polanco is not ready now, you wait until he is ready and play Nunez (who on limited role hit for a slightly higher OPS, OPS+, OBP, and BA than Dozier last season, so you do not have a drop with the bat.)  You might lose some HRs, but RH power is not lacking in the 2016 Twins.  Also Really high on Levi Michael, and check out his AA record...

 

Plus, if you can get someone at the Jepsen/Perkins plus level in the pen and a prospect for Dozier, you will actually be improving the team.   Nobody is saying trade for players 2-3 years away

 

So the Twins can actually both trade Dozier and improve the team to make them more of a contender in 2016.   If you have to wait until the deadline do it, but there is no way you should extend him.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Thrylos

[tobi0040]

 

So with Polanco as SS you got the option to move Escobar to 2B (who will be an upgrade both with the glove and the stick over Dozier)

 

I am not following this part.

 

Last year Eduardo beat Dozier .754 vs. .751.  But both a three year look and career look give Dozier a fair edge.  And Dozier steals a bag or two as well.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Polanco's bat is better than Dozier's.  Polanco hit .289/.346/.393 in Chattanooga last season, and Dozier hit .236/.307/.444.

This is an absurd statement. If Polanco has a better bat, why has his MiLB OPS been lower than Dozier's MLB OPS over the past two seasons?

 

It's possible Polanco will have the better bat in the future, maybe even the near future... But right now, he does not have the better bat.

[Thrylos]

 

I am not following this part.

 

Last year Eduardo beat Dozier .754 vs. .751.  But both a three year look and career look give Dozier a fair edge.  And Dozier steals a bag or two as well.

Escobar is 2 years younger than Dozier.  Career stats mean zero when you comparing a player in his prime and one who entering his prime.  Escobar's .754 was on the rising part of his bell curve, while Dozier's .751 at best at the top of the curve, or maybe even the decline.   So you got to try to predict who will be better in 2016 and beyond.  The past is the past, and you can use it to try to build a career curve.

[Thrylos]

 

This is an absurd statement. If Polanco has a better bat, why has his MiLB OPS been lower than Dozier's MLB OPS over the past two seasons?

 

Because Dozier hits more HRs and has an 0.050 advantage at SLG%.  OPS is a sad way to compare top of the order hitters.

 

And in Polanco's age, Dozier was hitting with an aluminum bat.  

 

Plus, my point was that Polanco is a SS; someone else would replace Dozier.  Either Nunez or Michael

Edited March 3, 2016 by Thrylos

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Because Dozier hits more HRs and has an 0.050 advantage at SLG%.  OPS is a sad way to compare top of the order hitters.

 

And in Polanco's age, Dozier was hitting with an aluminum bat.  

 

Plus, my point was that Polanco is a SS; someone else would replace Dozier.  Either Nunez or Michael

Either way, you're removing Dozier and adding Polanco to the lineup. The offensive gain/loss is the same no matter how you rotate the players around the diamond.

 

And why does Dozier need to be at the top of the order? Is this an appeal to the old (I believe it was Batgirl) Gardenhire parody book and its chapter titled "Play Second, Bat Second"?

 

And I don't understand the point of even bringing up what Brian Dozier was doing at age 22. It's irrelevant to 2016.

 

If you want me to admit that Dozier is not great at the top of the lineup, well, I agree. His bat plays much better down the lineup (5-6 would be my preferred destination for him).

 

Regardless of lineup order, as of today Brian Dozier has a better bat than Jorge Polanco. I don't see how this statement can be challenged.

[alarp33]

 

Because Dozier hits more HRs and has an 0.050 advantage at SLG%.  OPS is a sad way to compare top of the order hitters.

 

And in Polanco's age, Dozier was hitting with an aluminum bat.  

 

Plus, my point was that Polanco is a SS; someone else would replace Dozier.  Either Nunez or Michael

 

This.  OPS is a flawed stat because it gives equal weight to OBP and SLG.. OBP is far more important in the scheme of things

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This.  OPS is a flawed stat because it gives equal weight to OBP and SLG.. OBP is far more important in the scheme of things

More important but not far more important.

 

Polanco's AA/AAA OBP was about .030 higher than Dozier's MLB number. Dozier's MLB SLG was about .060 higher than Polanco's AA/AAA number.

 

One guy did it in the minors. The other guy did it in MLB. The MLB guy is the better hitter. I don't even see how this is an argument.

[alarp33]

 

More important but not far more important.

 

Polanco's AA/AAA OBP was about .030 higher than Dozier's MLB number. Dozier's MLB SLG was about .060 higher than Polanco's AA/AAA number.

 

One guy did it in the minors. The other guy did it in MLB. The MLB guy is the better hitter. I don't even see how this is an argument.

 

Well for one, Polanco is 22.  Generally guys gain power as they get bigger and stronger.  Will he hit 20+ home runs? Doubtful, but if he hits a bunch of doubles and gets on base at a .250 clip he'll be a pretty damn good hitter.  

 

The question isn't, is Polanco a better hitter than Dozier today.  It's, is the team better with Polanco + Whatever is acquired in a trade, vs Dozier.  That is a decent argument, and after Dozier's 2nd half collapse I think "selling high" is more than fair to discuss.  

 

Lots of people on this board have pointed to Escobars numbers in the 2nd half, some in an argument he should be a leadoff option... if we are going to cherry pick those numbers, fair to discuss these as well?

 

July - .206/.282/.433

August - .216/.275/.387

September - .200/.280/.309