Article: Ten To Extend: A Five-Part Series (Part 5)

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Over the last handful of days, we’ve looked at basically every player that is projected to be on the Opening Day roster - with the exception of those that have multi-year deals or have very little service time - and examined what a potential extension would look like and if the club (or player) would have interest.

 

In most cases, extensions just wouldn’t make sense at this point. Many players just aren’t good candidates to extend because the team already controls their rights anyway.

Today we’re going to look at the final two players whom the team could consider extending.2) Trevor Plouffe, third baseman

 

There was absolutely no way the 2016 season was going to kick off with anyone but Miguel Sano manning the hot corner, right? Right, we all assumed. Well, you know what happens when you assume. The Twins have held their hand strong and called every bet. And if you’re going to do that until the end, don’t your final words have to be, “All in”?

 

Here we are, entering the second-to-last year of control of Trevor Plouffe. He’s set to earn $7.25 million. If he goes to arbitration again next winter, he’ll head towards a raise that will put him in line to make in excess of $9 million. What are the chances the Twins will continue to retain him?

 

The best time to sign a multi-year deal would have been while negotiating the deal to avoid arbitration. It appears that neither side was interested enough to make that happen.

 

Personally, I still think the Twins fold their hand and trade Plouffe. Since it doesn’t appear to be happening now, it will happen next offseason. But only because I think Jorge Polanco becomes the next everyday third baseman. Just a hunch.

 

1) Kyle Gibson, starting pitcher

 

So far, this list has been void of starting pitchers. Part of that has to do with two of them being signed to long-term deals already. Part of that has to do with my affinity for not wanting to guarantee money when every pitcher is just one pitch away from being useless for 18 months.

 

For me, Gibson is different. In fact, of the nine players previously profiled, I can’t say with strong conviction that I would go long-term with any of them. I’d be most inclined to lock up Sano. I’d consider the same with Rosario, given how I know the Twins feel about him. But he still has a lot to prove. So does Buxton.

 

I’d go long-term with Gibson. And I’d model it after two extensions that were signed in the spring of 2012 (so I know the numbers would have to be a little bit more). The Mets deal with Jon Niese and the Rangers deal with Derek Holland. Both signed their deals entering their final season before arbitration. Gibson already has a deal for that season (this season at $587,500). Niese’s three arbitration years were bought out for $15 million ($3/$5/$7) where Holland got $16 million ($3.2/$5.4/$7.4). Given inflation, Gibson could fairly ask for $18 million.

 

2017 (3+): $4 million

2018 (4+): $6 million

2019 (5+): $8 million

 

I don’t think anyone would have any qualms about that. Those terms are completely fair.

 

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, in exchange for guaranteed salaries, the team needs to get the benefit of having the option to buy out free agency. In Gibson’s case, I’d want two more years. This would put him through his age-33 season.

 

2020 (6+): $11 million

 

The first free agency year is worth $11 million. Also in line with Niese’s and Holland’s deals. But instead of going with a straight guarantee or straight team option for 2021, we’re going to ask for the “Lackey Clause.” As you may recall, John Lackey signed a lucrative deal in December of 2009 with the Red Sox with the stipulation that if he missed a year due to Tommy John surgery, the team could keep him for an extra year at league minimum.

 

2021 (7+): $13 million with a $1.5 million buy-out OR becomes a club option for league minimum if he misses a year with his second Tommy John surgery.

 

The entire deal essentially is a four-year extension with a guarantee of $29.5 million (if he has arm issues) or four years at $30.5 million (if he doesn’t).

 

That’s a deal that could and should be made this spring.

 

Of all the 10 players profiled (or ones that weren’t), whom would you sign long-term?

 

Click here to view the article

[tobi0040]

We already have Gibson controlled through his prime (31).  I don’t think he is ever going to be a guy that is going to be a $20M pitcher.   And we already have too many veterans with contracts, I am not sure I add another.

 

We have a group of guys in the minors with arguably higher ceilings in Berrios, Jay, Gonsalves, Kohl, and Thorpe.  Meyer and May not be done starting too.  I just see no reason.

 

I could be talked into it for Plouffe if we have concluded there is no way Sano sticks at 3B.

[Vanimal46]

Hard pass on Plouffe. Like you said, I think the Twins fold their hand and trade Plouffe. Which IMO is the right thing to do. They had a good run with Plouffe, and retained him through his age 30 season. Nothing wrong with moving on from him next season, or in July if Polanco tears up AAA pitching.

 

Gibson I agree should be extended. He's improved every year on this team, and should have plenty of gas left in the tank to make a 4/30.5 contract worthwhile.

 

After everyone you mentioned on the list, it's clear that there's very few on the priority list to sign. Gibson and Sano should be the highest priorities going forward, and the rest will quietly exit this team (Suzuki, Jepsen, Perkins, Plouffe) when their contracts are over.

[Mike Sixel]

yes for sure on that Gibson deal. Sure, he could blow out his arm, but a hitter could run into Sano, or get a concussion, or blow out his knee playing with his kids. That price for Gibson would look like a bargain now, let alone in a few years.

 

No on Plouffe. I don't know what their plans are, but they should be Sano or Polanco or something, imo, that is not Plouffe two years from now. But, no, no but I guess. I like that he's worked his way into a good, valuable player, but I'm not sure he's part of the next WS team.....

[tobi0040]

I see this Gibson deal as a no brainer the other way. 

 

In arb at 3-18, I am not sure how much money we think we are saving here.  Same with $15M in his first year of FA.  At  most, we are saving $5-10M worst case. He is never, ever going to be David Price. 

 

With the glut of prospects, guys we have shifted to the pen that could come back, and guys we already have under contract, is Gibson worth it?  His career ERA+ is 91, with one year above league average (last year at 108).  He has already had TJ once.

 

I think you target guys who could become top players and who will hit FA during their prime. Sano and Buxton are guys that fit that criteria.  Gibson who becomes a FA at 31/32 does not for both reasons (age and upside)

[Seth Stohs]

My proposal for Gibson would be just to go with two-years, $10 million. Or, they could rip up his 2016 deal, make it $1 million, and then have a 3-year, $11 million.

 

For Gibson, if he continues to improve, he still has a year of arbitration in which he can make a bunch. Also, regardless of whatever happens, he'd have $10-11 million guaranteed. 

 

For the Twins, they have control of him for three more years after this year. It gives them a little more cost certainty the next two years. It isn't a very long commitment. It allows them to see how Gibson does and how Berrios and other minor leaguers progress. And when that deal is up, they still have another year of his control either way. Eliminates some of the long-term risk.

 

Would he take it? Not sure. 

[spinowner]

Plouffe is a difficult one because I think his primary value to the Twins is as a trading chip. The advantage of extending him (if the cost is not too high) is that it improves his tradeability, at least in theory. The receiving team would know that he's locked up and would be willing to part with more in return than if there's only a year or two of control. The disadvantage is that if he's not traded the Twins are then locked in with a player who may not fit.

[old nurse]

Plouffe's value is at the trade deadline, but only as a short term contract.  There would also need to be a contender with a 3B out or having a real bad season.  That would require someone having bad luck for the Twins to have good luck. It would also require Plouffe having a good year.  The same scenario would repeat next year.

[Willihammer]

I have to admit when I saw the first article in this series I was in shock and awe about the scope of it - ten players! But here we are. Kudos Jeremy.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

I have to admit when I saw the first article in this series I was in shock and awe about the scope of it - ten players! But here we are. Kudos Jeremy.

Thanks. I think we can all agree not all of these guys are viable extension candidates. But - for me anyway - it's a fun exercise to consider what potential deals might look like.

[Halsey Hall]

Any extension for Plouffe turns my stomach.  I can see Sano and possibly Gibson. 

[Thrylos]

I have no problem with extending Gibson

 

I have a problem with extending Plouffe.   Plouffe is in his prime maybe a tad beyond.  Career .245/.308/.420 and 99 OPS+ (league average).  And last season's numbers were there.   Lots of similarities with Dozier, albeit Plouffe's defense (unlike Dozier's) is improving.  And there is a ready replacement that will actually solve the Twins logjam in the OF/1B/DH situation and bring a better bat at 3B.    I would be surprised if Plouffe lasts past the deadline, and he should not...

[mikelink45]

No to Gibson.  We should have learned from the past two years that extending pitchers who are number 3,4,5 guys just is not wise.  I am always surprised to read Gibson's age and it is good to see it again because he might be at his peak right now and the worst thing about extensions is paying after the peak instead of before. 

[jorgenswest]

There is no reason to buy Gibson's 32 year old season. The Twins are not a small market team. They don't have to make deals to protect themselves a possible few million in arbitration. If Gibson pitches well, pay him what he has earned in arbitration. If not, be able to move on without being tied to a contract. We have enough low ceiling starting pitchers with multi year contracts.

[Oxtung]

If anyone is interested, I think an interesting article would be Plouffe's comparables for next season.  If he's making $10M does that price him out of the trade market?  If they couldn't move him at $7M this off season why do people think he'll be movable next year at a higher price and a year older?

 

Back to the article at hand.  If the Twins have truly given up on the Sano at 3B experiment than extending Plouffe for a season or two makes sense.  There isn't another player with the Twins currently that profiles to be better at the hot corner.

[The Wise One]

 

If anyone is interested, I think an interesting article would be Plouffe's comparables for next season.  If he's making $10M does that price him out of the trade market?  If they couldn't move him at $7M this off season why do people think he'll be movable next year at a higher price and a year older?

 

Back to the article at hand.  If the Twins have truly given up on the Sano at 3B experiment than extending Plouffe for a season or two makes sense.  There isn't another player with the Twins currently that profiles to be better at the hot corner.

Market conditions vary from year to year, and throughout the season. The trouble with this winter was with a contending team needing a third base guy. There were none where Plouffe would be an upgrade except for maybe Boston.  Plouffe had  2 seasons of decent production, but not so great that he is a got to have player, except for the Twins.  The Twins did not have many players playing at the got to have level. Plouffe was closest.

 

   People may say to move him, what I would ask them is where to.

 

Extend? Depends on how this year goes.  A decline in the offensive numbers he might not be worth the extention

Edited March 8, 2016 by The Wise One

[HitInAPinch]

Did I miss something?  At what point did Jorge Polanco become a 3rd base prospect?

[tobi0040]

Did I miss something? At what point did Jorge Polanco become a 3rd base prospect?

A year after Danny Santana was a left fielder, a month after Santana was an infielder again and Miguel Sano was a right fielder.

[Halsey Hall]

 

Did I miss something?  At what point did Jorge Polanco become a 3rd base prospect?

Terry Ryan talked about that during the first game with Gladden and Provus.  He said Polanco was serviceable at 2nd, ss, and 3rd and could play in the outfield. 

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

Did I miss something?  At what point did Jorge Polanco become a 3rd base prospect?

 

I think it was Radcliff that mentioned it last year as well. 

[blairpaul715]

First , I am not inclined to extend Plouffe, but if he is the option over Sano, then possibly you keep him for 2 yrs, I could see a 2 yr $22M extension, cover his 1st yr of FA, and then after that let him walk. Or if not sure add a team option for $13M for 2019...........as this would preclude having extend a QO if we dont have a good option to take over 3rd base then........I would guess the  QO will be in the $18M range  by then.

[blairpaul715]

As far as Gibson, I like him and I personally would extend him AFTER this season, if he still looks good......I understand the sentiment of , we have pitchers waiting in the wings, but if Gibson proves to be a solid #3 I could see and would be willing to offer a 4 yr $30M with a team option for a 5th yr at $15M..........and pitchers waiting in the wings seldom turn out as good as we hope.

[tobi0040]

 

and pitchers waiting in the wings seldom turn out as good as we hope.

 

But pitchers that you sign on 3, 4, and 5 year deals often times don't pan out either.  We have two or three examples on our 25 man roster right now. 

 

Scott Baker was given a four year deal.  Basically league average for the first two years.  Above average the third year through 130 IP, then missed the rest of the contract.

 

Joe Mays and Nick Blackburn were pretty bad too after we gave them a similar contract (Mays was actually an all star before the deal).

 

So you have risks to these deals.  I am not sure those risk warrant pre-paying a guy you have controlled anyways through 31.  Is it worth saving maybe $1-2M a year in arbitration and having the option on a #3 starter at $15M a year?

[Mike Sixel]

 

But pitchers that you sign on 3, 4, and 5 year deals often times don't pan out either.  We have two or three examples on our 25 man roster right now. 

 

Scott Baker was given a four year deal.  Basically league average for the first two years.  Above average the third year through 130 IP, then missed the rest of the contract.

 

Joe Mays and Nick Blackburn were pretty bad too after we gave them a similar contract (Mays was actually an all star before the deal).

 

So you have risks to these deals.  I am not sure those risk warrant pre-paying a guy you have controlled anyways through 31.  Is it worth saving maybe $1-2M a year in arbitration and having the option on a #3 starter at $15M a year?

 

what do you think a number 3 will cost in 4 years?

 

By this logic, you would never sign anyone past age 31? Total risk aversion? But, willing to risk it all on guys that have never played in the majors? Who is more likely to be good, a guy that has never played in the majors, or a guy that has had success in the majors?

[Lefty74]

I would do the Gibson deal in a minute. I believe his is/will be a very solid #3 and many teams would have interest if he goes to FA. Would not do Plouffe's deal. Like him a lot however we seem to have plenty of pieces that could work at 3B if he were to leave.

[tobi0040]

 

what do you think a number 3 will cost in 4 years?

 

By this logic, you would never sign anyone past age 31? Total risk aversion? But, willing to risk it all on guys that have never played in the majors? Who is more likely to be good, a guy that has never played in the majors, or a guy that has had success in the majors?

 

Well Mike, I am not saying that I would never sign anyone.  But if Berrios is up here at 22 and a FA at 28-29 and looks like a #1 or #2 starter, that is the type of guy I throw money at.  He is much more likely to break the bank because he is much better and will hit FA at a younger age. 

 

I think back-testing this thought process is a decent exercise.  As far as I can tell right now, the Twins have done several of these deals.  Johan, Baker, Mays, and Blackburn. I know I am likely missing a few.  By my tally we are 1 for 4 and the one was a Cy Young winner before the deal.  Blackburn, Baker, and Mays never reached the OMG they are so good and expensive I am glad we paid them four years early part.

 

Tough to speculate exactly on the contract.  but Mike Leake has a career ERA+ of 101 (Gibson 91) and he signed for his prime years at $16M a year.  So I don't think Kyle Gibson is going to be commanding $20M or more post-peak (age 32), even four years from now.

 

I think the risk averse move is to sign him thinking you are going to be saving money down the road.  But I think it is prudent to calculate roughly what we think we are saving and weigh that with the risks, i.e. he goes backward from here, gets hurt, or we have more talented guys around.

 

We can afford the additional arb money without having another contract.  We already have Nolasco for two years, Ervin for three, Hughes for another four, and Berrios controlled for another seven.  In my opinion, Gibson's upside is 4th among those guys (Hughes and Ervin have had better years and Berrios has much more upside).  Not to mention May, Meyer, Jay, Gonsalves, Thorpe,  etc. 

 

 

[blairpaul715]

 

Well Mike, I am not saying that I would never sign anyone.  But if Berrios is up here at 22 and a FA at 28-29 and looks like a #1 or #2 starter, that is the type of guy I throw money at.  He is much more likely to break the bank because he is much better and will hit FA at a younger age. 

 

 

So, are you saying if Berrios is a #1 you would throw 7 yrs $210-245M? That is the going rate now, what will it be in 7 yrs? And then if you would be willing to do that, you are paying someone thru age 35...............And I did in my original post on Gibson, that AFTER this yr , if he shows to be still improving, remember he did lose time with his TJ. I would not extend Gibson today............I guess after typing this, you probably mean to try to extend Berrios when his Arb yrs are about here and save money...........there is risk in everything, sometimes you have to take chances..............I will also say, I am a big fan of Berrios' demeanor and work ethic, but I dont believe him to be anything more than a good #3. I wish to be wrong tho

[Mike Sixel]

If the argument is, you only extend ace types.....you think the Twins will ever pay a SP $30MM a year? I don't, well, not in the next 10-20 years anyway.

 

If the argument is, you can't afford Berrios and Gibson, we don't agree.

 

If the argument is, Gibson is a number 4 pitcher, no way we agree, not even close. 

[jsteve96]

personally I would give Sano a good deal for a 10 year contract. Gibson I'd consider buying out his ARB years like they did with Dozier. Maybe reconstruct it in a year or 2 if he has a breakout... Plouffe i'd consider getting a fair deal for the last year of his contract + 1 more year. I wouldn't want it to be too long where he's holding prospects back but adding a year will lift his trade value up as long as its a good deal. I'd get that deal done ASAP then trade him mid-summer if teams are more desperate and he's hitting well. I wouldn't give Buxton a dime until he's proven that he can hit big league pitching for at least a couple months. I'd wait on Rosario, has a lot to prove.

[tobi0040]

So, are you saying if Berrios is a #1 you would throw 7 yrs $210-245M? That is the going rate now, what will it be in 7 yrs? And then if you would be willing to do that, you are paying someone thru age 35...............And I did in my original post on Gibson, that AFTER this yr , if he shows to be still improving, remember he did lose time with his TJ. I would not extend Gibson today............I guess after typing this, you probably mean to try to extend Berrios when his Arb yrs are about here and save money...........there is risk in everything, sometimes you have to take chances..............I will also say, I am a big fan of Berrios' demeanor and work ethic, but I dont believe him to be anything more than a good #3. I wish to be wrong tho

Yes. I meant when Berrios is 24 or so, locking him up through 30-31 would be ideal.

 

My standard is if you are very sure this person is going to be one of your five best, his arb ends while he is still in his peak, and he has the potential to really break the bank to the point we can't afford him. Then you look to extend.

 

Gibson is probably one of the best 5 on the 2020 Twins but I am not willing to bet 30 million on it, especially to secure his age 32 season.