Article: Blackmon's Deal With Rockies Sets Precedent For Dozier

[Vanimal46]

I've said this in multiple Dozier contract threads. I want him back. His production will be hard to replace from the internal options. He's a fan favorite and the vocal club house leader. There are several 2B still producing in their mid-30s.

 

I'd go 4 years without hesitation. 5 years I'd wince but still do it. 6+ years is where I walk away.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I'd do a three year deal for sure. Beyond that? Depends on a lot of factors.

 

I don't see them signing a top pitcher this coming off season, given the competition and the list (which isn't great for pitchers). So, they don't really need the money next year at least.

Another advantage of a 3-year deal is that it would end at exactly the same time Buxton is scheduled to hit free agency. 

 

 

I can't agree with your opinion here. Lynn and Morrison have serious issues for any team to consider. Quite frankly, I see Lynn as a potential upside player, but not a guy I'd want on a long term contract. Lynn with either have a big bounce back or be a back end rotation arm for another year or two before he's out of baseball.

 

Morrison is replacement level. Sorry. He's got absolutely no track record of anything other than 1/2 of last year. A guy comes out of nowhere at age 30 and his game completely changes? Doesn't happen. Morrison slashed .231/.333/.452 OPS .786 in the second half last year (right around his career average).

The logic behind these contracts -- from a team's standpoint -- is fine and defensible, yes. But if you think Lynn and Morrison would've gotten the same deals in past winters I don't know what to tell ya. It is very evidently not true. And while Darvish and Martinez did get long-term deals, both were smaller than anyone expected for the top pitcher and hitter on the market. (The Hosmer contract is inexplicable and an outlier.)

 

I mean, seriously, go look at ANY free agent contract projections prior to the offseason. Almost nobody made close to what analysts expected based on precedent.

[Nick Nelson]

 

For a team on a budget, why is a 3 year, 75MM deal, better than a 5 year 85MM deal? Isn't stretching the money out better? Especially if you are willing to cut him after three years if he's bad? You were able to afford another player in teh first three years this way, right?

Why would the player ever want that latter deal? It would be a complete bet against himself (which is partially what makes me wary of Darvish's demands).

[SF Twins Fan]

Are team options common in baseball contracts? Would both sides be agreeable to a 5 year deal where year 4 is a player option and year 5 is a team option or player/team option?

 

Deal would be 5 years for say 85 to 90 million. After year three Dozier could opt out and after year four both parties would have to agree to the fifth year. I think this would be beneficial for both parties. It gives Dozier the security with a 4 year deal and also gives him the option to opt out early if he continues to put up great years. It would also give the team security because they would have to agree to the fifth season and if he starts dropping off they walk away.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why would the player ever want that latter deal? It would be a complete bet against himself (which is partially what makes me wary of Darvish's demands).

 

Like I said....it's an example. Say you pay Darvish over 10 or 15 years, same money, when he'll be late thirties under the "normal" deal.

 

Why is spreading the money out bad? It's good in almost every other business.

[Vanimal46]

Are team options common in baseball contracts? Would both sides be agreeable to a 5 year deal where year 4 is a player option and year 5 is a team option or player/team option?

 

Deal would be 5 years for say 85 to 90 million. After year three Dozier could opt out and after year four both parties would have to agree to the fifth year. I think this would be beneficial for both parties. It gives Dozier the security with a 4 year deal and also gives him the option to opt out early if he continues to put up great years. It would also give the team security because they would have to agree to the fifth season and if he starts dropping off they walk away.

Team options are definitely a thing. That's why Chris Sale and Madison Bumgarner are underpaid for their production.

 

Those 2 signed their contracts 1-2 years after making their MLB debuts. So not sure if an established player like Dozier can be talked into it.

[Twodogs]

Offer him the qualifying offer and then after he rejects it offer him a 3 year big money deal and then let him troll for better offers.  If he gets better offers they can either counter them or bid him farewell and move on to Gordon?  If he doesn't get better offers then keep the deal on the table and bring him back.  Simple,  

[cmoss84]

I really do not see him signing a contract for less than 90-100 mil (let's be real-he's earned it). I do not see us paying him that much. It is as simple as that. I would love to have him back, but he is really going to have to buy into this club and give a hometown discount if he is going to remain a Twin. 

 

I'm guessing someone ponies up and offers him 5 and 100 or 110. 

[jkcarew]

 

Like I said....it's an example. Say you pay Darvish over 10 or 15 years, same money, when he'll be late thirties under the "normal" deal.

 

Why is spreading the money out bad? It's good in almost every other business.

I'm tracking.  In most businesses, if I think an asset is going to provide X total value, I'd be happy to spread the cost of that asset beyond the asset's 'life'.

 

I think part of the catch is, the seller always wants incremental/marginal (sometimes not so marginal) return for the extra years, arguing both in terms of incremental value (or possibility of) provided in the extra years and also the diminished future value of cash (basically, inflation).  But the concept still is relevant, IMO, for how a FO evaluates a deal.

[jkcarew]

I just think how far the Twins go in the attempt to retain Dozier has everything to do with the progress of the young talent.  Both the middle infielders in the minors, and also the young talent on the big club.  The Twins can compete for championships with average production from the 2nd base position...IF Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario (at least one or two of them) take the next step offensively.  If the FO is not confident with either of those propositions at the end of the year, I think they must consider getting pretty aggressive with Dozier.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I just think how far the Twins go in the attempt to retain Dozier has everything to do with the progress of the young talent.  Both the middle infielders in the minors, and also the young talent on the big club.  The Twins can compete for championships with average production from the 2nd base position...IF Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario (at least one or two of them) take the next step offensively.  If the FO is not confident with either of those propositions at the end of the year, I think they must consider getting pretty aggressive with Dozier.

 

this makes a ton of sense. Also, how the minor league options look....any decision on the 24* man roster has to be in context.

 

*on this team, anyway.

[cmoss84]

 

I just think how far the Twins go in the attempt to retain Dozier has everything to do with the progress of the young talent.  Both the middle infielders in the minors, and also the young talent on the big club.  The Twins can compete for championships with average production from the 2nd base position...IF Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario (at least one or two of them) take the next step offensively.  If the FO is not confident with either of those propositions at the end of the year, I think they must consider getting pretty aggressive with Dozier.

So if our minor league talent isn't ready (and if our young guys don't progress), you think the Twins offer him 90 million+? Or you don't think he will make that much anywhere?

Edited April 5, 2018 by cmoss84

[Major League Ready]

 

This is why you never use basic rate stats for players who play in Colorado.

 

Blackmon career home OPS: .972

Blackmon career road OPS: .750

 

Dozier career home OPS: .802

Dozier career road OPS: .765

 

Blackmon 2017 home OPS: 1.239

Blackmon 2017 road OPS: .784

 

Dozier 2017 home OPS: .916 

Dozier 2017 road OPS: .800

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

 

You make a good point.  I failed to take that into consideration. However, you did not mention the remainder of the post which was the primary point. It does not makes sense for the Twins to offer a similar deal at this point. IMO, what you have really done here is substantiate the Blackmon contract was probably ill-advised.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Major Leauge Ready

[bean5302]

 

...I mean, seriously, go look at ANY free agent contract projections prior to the offseason. Almost nobody made close to what analysts expected based on precedent.

MLB Trade Rumors has been open about over-predicting some players, and sure.

Eric Hosmer 8yrs $144M vs. Chris Davis 7yrs $161M (2016)

J.D. Martinez 5yrs $110M vs. Edwin Encarnacion 3yrs $60M (2017)

Yu Darvish 6yrs $125M vs. Johnny Cueto 6yrs $130M (2016)

Lance Lynn 1yrs $12M vs. Brett Anderson 1yr $15.8M (accepted QO 2016)

 

Davis was clearly hotter than Hosmer after Davis posted a 7 WAR season, but the contracts aren't too far apart, especially considering Hosmer's contract also contains opt outs. Martinez might be worth a little more than Encarnacion, but not much. Cueto definitely had the better durability. Anderson accepted his QO despite definitely being superior to Lynn.

 

Just because a player is the best player available in free agency does not mean they're comparable to any other year's best players. In example, Davis was only ranked as the 5th best free agent in his class. J.D. Martinez was potentially the top free agent in his class. Put simply, the 2017-2018 free agent class sucked.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You make a good point.  I failed to take that into consideration. However, you did not mention the remainder of the post which was the primary point. It does not makes sense for the Twins to offer a similar deal at this point. IMO, what you have really done here is substantiate the Blackmon contract was probably ill-advised.

Oh, I definitely believe that contract was ill-advised.

 

I'd probably offer Dozier something along the lines of a 3/$60m contract but would hesitate to go longer than that unless he took less per season.

[whydidnt]

At this point, I think both the Twins and Dozier are right to wait to see what happens. I think it’s unlikely Dozier will get the kind of deal Blackmon gets. But that depends upon what happens with the Yankees and Red Sox this year. For Dozier to get that kind of money, one of the big spenders is going have to have a need at 2B. If Torres doesn’t turn in the player the Yankees are expecting, or if Pedroia can’t fully recover, then those two teams may decide it’s worth it to take the plunge.

 

 

Otherwise, Dozier only has to look at the current 2B of the Yankees, and see what his value was this off-season. Dozier is a better player than Walker, but NOT $90 Million dollars better. We only have to look at the 2016-17 off-season to see how little other teams valued his skill-set, as the best offer the Twins could get was a decent Minor League pitching prospect. This was coming off an all-star season, too. Nothing happened in 2017 to change his value, in my opinion, a bad half of baseball, followed, by a great half. But he is now 2 years older AND doesn’t have a reasonable contract for 2 years. Who is going to give him $100M over 5 years? I just don’t see teams with money and a huge need at 2B, but that’s what it will take.

[jkcarew]

 

So if our minor league talent isn't ready (and if our young guys don't progress), you think the Twins offer him 90 million+? Or you don't think he will make that much anywhere?

I would say, in that case, the Twins need to consider being "significantly more aggressive" in their attempts to sign Dozier.  That is relative to whatever the market is next off-season....and of course, it's the FO job to figure that out.  I don't have a strong opinion on exactly where the market will end up next off-season.  We'll see how much of a trend (or blip) this past off-season was.

[Nick Nelson]

 

MLB Trade Rumors has been open about over-predicting some players, and sure.

Eric Hosmer 8yrs $144M vs. Chris Davis 7yrs $161M (2016)

J.D. Martinez 5yrs $110M vs. Edwin Encarnacion 3yrs $60M (2017)

Yu Darvish 6yrs $125M vs. Johnny Cueto 6yrs $130M (2016)

Lance Lynn 1yrs $12M vs. Brett Anderson 1yr $15.8M (accepted QO 2016)

 

Davis was clearly hotter than Hosmer after Davis posted a 7 WAR season, but the contracts aren't too far apart, especially considering Hosmer's contract also contains opt outs. Martinez might be worth a little more than Encarnacion, but not much. Cueto definitely had the better durability. Anderson accepted his QO despite definitely being superior to Lynn.

I'm not talking about MLB Trade Rumors. I'm talking about everyone, everywhere. No one anticipated these free agency outcomes.

 

I'm sorry but to say there's "no evidence" that MLB teams are re-valuing free agents is an indefensible stance, no matter how many handpicked examples and dubious comparisons you want to cite (Brett Anderson was "definitely superior" to Lance Lynn?? What?). 

 

The subject has been written about time and time and time again. You can argue that this trend is overstated, but not that it doesn't exist.

[TFRazor]

 

I really do not see him signing a contract for less than 90-100 mil (let's be real-he's earned it). I do not see us paying him that much. It is as simple as that. I would love to have him back, but he is really going to have to buy into this club and give a hometown discount if he is going to remain a Twin. 

 

I'm guessing someone ponies up and offers him 5 and 100 or 110. 

 

Whether he's earned it or not is immaterial. What's going to matter is what the bidders value him at. If last offseason is any indication, that's not going to be anywhere near 100 mil over a lot of years. I will say that's not a statement on how they value Dozier personally, but how the views on veteran players looking for big deals has shifted. Assuming that this devaluation on veterans continues I would absolutely floored if he walks out of next offseason making above 100mil over 5 years or more.

[TFRazor]

I think that the upcoming offseason is going to have an absolute landslide of changes in MLB free agency. We're going to have the largest deals in league history (Harper, Machado), and I think we're going to see a complete shift on what kinds of contracts 2nd-tier veterans are going to be looking for. If I'm a veteran player on Dozier's level I would very seriously considered a short term, high AAV contract. For example, Dozier is sitting on two offers, one at 5yrs and 100mil, other at 3yrs and 75 mil. Let's say he accepts the 3yr deal. Assuming good health and that he just maintains his current level of play, he would be reentering free agency again at 34 with another 3yrs of solid results. He could then be on the lookout for another similar contract. If the second deal is equal to the first, he could be looking at 140mil over 6yrs instead of 100mil over 5. 

 

Hopefully we win the World Series first, but this offseason is going to be fascinating to watch.

[bean5302]

 

...I'm sorry but to say there's "no evidence" that MLB teams are re-valuing free agents is an indefensible stance, no matter how many handpicked examples and dubious comparisons you want to cite (Brett Anderson was "definitely superior" to Lance Lynn?? What?). 

 

The subject has been written about time and time and time again. You can argue that this trend is overstated, but not that it doesn't exist.

 

My opinion is that there is "no evidence." Just because somebody says something more than once doesn't make it more true. You asked for examples, then when I gave you examples (albeit, I have no idea what I was thinking on Anderson, I was looking at a ton of contracts), you changed the subject.

 

Honestly, we're just not going to agree.

 

Back on topic. The Twins have no interest in Dozier. If he has another great year, he's going to get a 5+ year contract and it's going to be $100M+ and the Twins aren't going to spend that kind of money on a player who doesn't fill an organizational need. If Dozier has a down year, the Twins aren't going to want to give him a long term contract at all. It would take a very bizzare scenario for the Twins to even offer Dozier a contract. i.e. Polanco tanks in his return or tests positive again, Gordon gets hurt and Dozier has a down year enabling the Twins to get him on a shorter contract for WAY less money.

[TFRazor]

 

Yeah, I think this contract has "mini Jacoby Ellsbury" written all over it.

 

And I actually laughed out loud at that contract when it was given.

 

Sad thing is he doesn't even have to be terrible for it to be a bad contract. If Blackmon has just decent numbers throughout the deal, it's still a terrible one to make.

[TFRazor]

 

My opinion is that there is "no evidence." Just because somebody says something more than once doesn't make it more true. You asked for examples, then when I gave you examples (albeit, I have no idea what I was thinking on Anderson, I was looking at a ton of contracts), you changed the subject.

 

Honestly, we're just not going to agree.

 

Back on topic. The Twins have no interest in Dozier. If he has another great year, he's going to get a 5+ year contract and it's going to be $100M+ and the Twins aren't going to spend that kind of money on a player who doesn't fill an organizational need. If Dozier has a down year, the Twins aren't going to want to give him a long term contract at all. It would take a very bizzare scenario for the Twins to even offer Dozier a contract. i.e. Polanco tanks in his return or tests positive again, Gordon gets hurt and Dozier has a down year enabling the Twins to get him on a shorter contract for WAY less money.

 

Just curious, what teams do you see as being candidates for giving Dozier 5+ at $100mil?

[Doctor Wu]

Nick, in the article you wrote:

" ... the potentially career-altering PED suspension for Jorge Polanco – Dozier's possible heir apparent at second – could change things."

 

What do you see specifically as "career-altering" about Polanco's suspension? It's not like he's coming back from a horrible injury. Maybe he's a bit rusty the first month, but I don't see how the suspension will affect his subsequent performance. It seems like many players return from such suspensions and perform as good, if not better, than they did before. Ervin Santana and Dee Gordon are two examples I can think of right off the bat.

[cmoss84]

 

Just curious, what teams do you see as being candidates for giving Dozier 5+ at $100mil?

I know this question wasn't geared for me, so my apologies. I would say the usual suspects-both LA teams, both NY teams, and Boston. Whoever loses out on Harper and Machado will want to add some pop elsewhere. Red Sox have Pedroia, but he is running on fumes and Hanley's contract is off the books after this year. 

[Nick Nelson]

 

Nick, in the article you wrote:

" ... the potentially career-altering PED suspension for Jorge Polanco – Dozier's possible heir apparent at second – could change things."

 

What do you see specifically as "career-altering" about Polanco's suspension? It's not like he's coming back from a horrible injury. Maybe he's a bit rusty the first month, but I don't see how the suspension will affect his subsequent performance. It seems like many players return from such suspensions and perform as good, if not better, than they did before. Ervin Santana and Dee Gordon are two examples I can think of right off the bat.

By the time Polanco returns, someone else might have taken his job. The Twins are gonna have a hard time relying on him as a full-timer once he's back, because they won't have him in the playoffs. They need someone else primed for the task.

 

And that's not to mention the questions his positive test raises around last year's power breakout. 

 

Santana and Gordon were more established players so it's a bit different, but you're right, it's entirely possible that from 2019 and on he'll be fine. 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think the Yankees will be in on him at all, given their minor leagues....but the Dodgers? They should have traded for him.....

[cmoss84]

 

I don't think the Yankees will be in on him at all, given their minor leagues....but the Dodgers? They should have traded for him.....

I don't think he ends up on the Yankees either, but I think they will still be in the running since they like their vets...and I can also see them trading some of those prospects for a starting pitcher. 

I'm guessing he signs with Dodgers, Angels or Mets. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by cmoss84

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm tracking.  In most businesses, if I think an asset is going to provide X total value, I'd be happy to spread the cost of that asset beyond the asset's 'life'.

 

I think part of the catch is, the seller always wants incremental/marginal (sometimes not so marginal) return for the extra years, arguing both in terms of incremental value (or possibility of) provided in the extra years and also the diminished future value of cash (basically, inflation).  But the concept still is relevant, IMO, for how a FO evaluates a deal.

 

I have worked with over well over 100 fortune 500 companies specifically managing infrastructure and asset strategies. Not one of them practices writing off an asset past it's useful life. Shareholders won't stand for that kind of foolishness and the the IRS has guidelines that prevent it. So, no "most businesses" are not happy to spread the cost beyond the assets useful life. 

 

It' also a horrible business practice. Let's spend money we don't have by creating a liability we will have to deal with long after the value of the asset has expired. Really bad idea.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Major Leauge Ready

[jkcarew]

 

I have worked with over well over 100 fortune 500 companies specifically managing infrastructure and asset strategies. Not one of them practices writing off an asset past it's useful life. Shareholders won't stand for that kind of foolishness and the the IRS has guidelines that prevent it. So, no "most businesses" are not happy to spread the cost beyond the assets useful life. 

 

It' also a horrible business practice. Let's spend money we don't have by creating a liability we will have to deal with long after the value of the asset has expired. Really bad idea.

Taking it WAY to literally.  The point is, in the baseball business, you can use the concept for creative ways to structure, or at least evaluate, deals.