Article: The Hammer Pounds Again

[Seth Stohs]

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php?1050-The-Hammer-Pounds-Again

[Siehbiscuit]

"It is wise for the Twins to let 2013 play out before considering extending Willingham. It will be another year to see how he performs as well as seeing how the prospects progress."

 

Initially, I agreed with your statement, but after thinking it through a little more I think adding another year may be worth it. If Willingham received another 7 million for his age 36 season that extra year may provide the peace of mind for him to replicate his 2012 season in 2013 and increase trade value or even help the Twins make an unexpected run. I highly doubt his contract would stay on the books in 2015, but sometimes guys press to get one more payday. If an extension can help him perform by eliminating this distraction I am all for it.

[mikeee]

I told my boys last night that I thought Willingham at 35 homers was the most in the modern Twins history.

I thought Hrbek was the last one with 34..

I didn't remember Morneau or the G-man having that many, but the number 34 stuck in my head.

[Twins Twerp]

What? Extend him now, no way. You mentioned all the reasons not to extend the guy. He has 1 maybe 2 good years left, which just so happen to be with us. He has never played this many games in a season. We have MAJOR outfield depth in our farm system. The number one question to ask oursevles is whether or not we should trade him because this offseason. His contract is amazing, 7 mil for 100+ RBI and 35 hr is a better deal than the Louisiana Purchase.

 

IMO, you wait it out, if you can contend next year keep him w/o the extension. If you plays the next two years at the same level, THEN you start talking extension. Even then, you offer him the 12 to 13 million for one year. If he takes it, you get a guy whom can mash (at age 37), if he does not take it, you recieve a compensatory pick. It is as easy as that.

 

In other words, don't sign this guy until you have to.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What? Extend him now, no way. You mentioned all the reasons not to extend the guy. He has 1 maybe 2 good years left, which just so happen to be with us. He has never played this many games in a season. We have MAJOR outfield depth in our farm system. The number one question to ask oursevles is whether or not we should trade him because this offseason. His contract is amazing, 7 mil for 100+ RBI and 35 hr is a better deal than the Louisiana Purchase.

 

IMO, you wait it out, if you can contend next year keep him w/o the extension. If you plays the next two years at the same level, THEN you start talking extension. Even then, you offer him the 12 to 13 million for one year. If he takes it, you get a guy whom can mash (at age 37), if he does not take it, you recieve a compensatory pick. It is as easy as that.

 

In other words, don't sign this guy until you have to.

 

Pretty much this, though I might offer up the extension next offseason if he posts another .900 OPS in 2013.

[Seth Stohs]

Twins Twerp, Did I write somewhere in the article that I thought they should extend Willingham this offseason?

[Twins Twerp]

Twins Twerp, Did I write somewhere in the article that I thought they should extend Willingham this offseason?

\

After reading it agian, no. I wasn't insunuating that you did either. The premise of the end of the article was whether or not he is worth extending this winter. You laid out both arguments. Your conclusion was spot on that he should not be extended. I found it to be such a good point, and the other side so absurd, that I had to comment on it. The sargastic, almost talk-down tone I used was directed towards the Willingham camp that says they would be open to talking about an extension. I am sorry if it looked like I was bashing you. Good article btw.

[jharaldson]

I agree with the sentiment that we should not extend WIllingham because of his age/injury concerns but we need to keep in mind that Terry Ryan has this opportunity. The easiest thing in the world for a GM to do is NOT sign someone. Part of being a GM is judging that risk and inaction can be as costly as action.

[Seth Stohs]

Correct. My point wasn't completely saying I'm against it. I wouldn't extend him because I don't think there is any reason to. However, if he was willing to add a year at $7 million, it'd be like the Twins signing him to a 3 year, $21M deal after a mammoth year. There's risk, but based on his history, even in some of his years where he missed a little time, he was worth well more than $7 million. So I guess I put it back out there to say that there are three options with Willingham, none of which is really terrible.

[mnfireman]

Why not extend him now? Yes the team has OF prospects up the a$$, but that is exactly what they are, PROSPECTS. They may or may not pan out. In a couple of years the team will be needing a veteran DH, why waste time looking through the scrap heap and piles of rejects when he might already be on the team. And if it doesn't pan out or he gets traded, its not a big expense.

[SpantheMan]

Signing him to a one year extension isn't really like signing him to 3/21 again. We already have the 2/14. He will probably be good value for those two years. But just because signing to 3/21 now would also be good value, that doesn't mean we should do it. The question is how valuable would he be in that age-37 season that we would be extending him for.

[Twins Twerp]

I think another year, even at 7 million which is cheap for his production, might hurt his trade value. The trade Willingham sentiment has died down recently because he has just kept producing, but we have to look at this team and see that he may get traded soon (my guess at the trade deadline next season). Does extending into a guys 37th birthday hurt or help his value? What do you think and more importantly, what does T-Ry think?

[TheLeviathan]

The trade Willingham sentiment has died down recently because he has just kept producing

 

Allow me to rekindle - any idea but trading Willingham at this value is a mistake.