Is the structure, in part, dictated by arbitration? I know they often use player comps (performance + service time) to come up with salary estimates. If they even just had a flat rate for Polanco's deal ($5M/year), could a future arbitration case use Polanco's hypothetical $5M arb1 salary (rather than the actual $2.5M arb1 salary) as a comp when arguing for their salary?

 

As I read the CBA, yes.  My guess is that it wouldn't be that persuasive because the rest of the contract structure would also be admissible.  The union could argue that the contract controls for Arb-1 and the Team could argue the contract controls for Arb-3.  It's not exactly a good benchmark.  But anything can happen in arbitration...  

But its great to wrap up Polanco longterm. And now Kepler. This is what should be happening. No way are we ever going to contend if the revolving door of the past isn't slammed shut.

 

Lets sink or swim with these guys. Get Berrios down too and a couple of Rosario's FA years while we are at it. Don't stop there either, Gibson, Buxton and Sano too.

 

I'd like to see that as well, but if they did, it would pretty unique for a MLB team.

 

I'm guessing owners prefer to hold onto that $25M and keep getting interest and dividends as long as possible. Future payroll is still secondary to future profit.

 

Or just hold onto it, period.  Future profit is secondary to current profit.

Edited February 14, 20197 yr by Miggy's Little Helper

 

On the negative side, is $25M the right rate for 15-25 throwing errors per year?

For a guy who might be an AS 2B it would be a very good deal.

I like it. Polanco's performance has steadily improved since he's become a full-time player, the suspension not withstanding.

 

I'm with those that don't see this as anything other than locking up an asset that's likely to hold or appreciate in value. I don't think it means they are committed to Polanco for the life of the contract, nor do I think it means that Gordon or Javier are automatically out of luck. It's worth repeating that the extension likely improves Polanco's trade value around the anticipated arrival time of Lewis and Javier.

Lets sink or swim with these guys. Get Berrios down too and a couple of Rosario's FA years while we are at it. Don't stop there either, Gibson, Buxton and Sano too.

I agree with you on Berrios and Rosario. Gibson is a qualifying offer for me, if he plays like last year and not the previous ones. Buxton and Sano I’m an outright no thank you.

I'm really happy for Jorge Polanco. He's worked hard to get this deal, and he deserves it. This must be a huge life-changing moment for him.

 

From a selfish standpoint, I love watching him play. I think he'll improve his defense, and he has a lot of potential to improve his already impressive offensive skill set. I'm really excited to see him settle in and produce for a full season.

 

I also hope this nudges some of the other young guys to make similar deals. It does seem like a fair deal to both sides, and if the FO are proceeding similarly with the others, we may have 4, 5 or 6 guys we can count on for the immediate future of this franchise.

 

On the negative side, is $25M the right rate for 15-25 throwing errors per year?

 

If he OPS in the .800, for sure it is. 5 mill a year for a strong hitting middle infielder is fair.

 

I agree with you on Berrios and Rosario. Gibson is a qualifying offer for me, if he plays like last year and not the previous ones. Buxton and Sano I’m an outright no thank you.

I see Gibson as either he is extended at somewhere around a 3/30-35 or he moves on. I don't see a QO in his future. QO is around 18 mil. He is set to make 8.125 in 2019, so I don't see why the team would QO him for 18mil unless he won 20 games and was a Cy finalist, maybe. But if he was the 2018 Gibson, no QO.

 

I'm just fine with this deal, but I think a lot of people are over-estimating the flexibility of this deal in it's later stages. Assuming the pay is going to escalate, years four and five will likely be approaching if not above $10M and the option years will surely be higher than that. 

 

$10-12M per year for a 2B on the free agent market is about the max these days. I think this is likely a rather player friendly deal, which is just fine, but I don't think it will help with his trade value unless he turns into Jose Ramirez.

 

In which case one would hope he's not traded.

 

If they were smart, they might front load it though, or just pay him 5 mil per year. They have the money now, might as well use it. No sense in being cheap to him now and paying more later, it would make him much more tough to move if indeed that is something that has to be done later. 

 

If he OPS in the .800, for sure it is. 5 mill a year for a strong hitting middle infielder is fair.

 

Polanco hasn't done this yet. I expected him to do it by now.

 

Posted this on the other thread, but will carry it over to here.

 

I'm guessing something like 5 years, $31M, with a couple team options for 2025 and 2026 that could bring it to 7 years, $59M.

 

Breaks down like this:

 

2020: $1,500,000

2021: $3,500,000

2022: $6,000,000 (last arb year)

2023: $9,000,000

2024: $11,000,000

2025: $13,000,000 (team option, $1M buyout)

2026: $15,000,000 (team option, $1M buyout)

 

 

Why would the Twins want to backload it that much (or Polanco for that matter)?  They have payroll flexibility this year, and front-loading more would increase their future flexibility.

 

So I'm thinking it'll be closer to 5 mil per year for the first 5 and the team options are probably significant raises, probably getting into the 10 million range.

 

 

If they were smart, they might front load it though, or just pay him 5 mil per year. They have the money now, might as well use it. No sense in being cheap to him now and paying more later, it would make him much more tough to move if indeed that is something that has to be done later. 

 

The idea is inflation and/or increasing player salaries will make today's commitments cheaper when they actually have to sign the checks.

 

I wonder if it would be legal for the Twins to sell bonds to cover a player's salary. 

 

Polanco hasn't done this yet. I expected him to do it by now.

 

You're right. But even an OPS around .750 ish. 5 mil a year seems like a deal for this type of production for a middle infielder. 

 

I wouldn't say this signing is about Gordon. Any long-term extension impacts the career path for other players that play the same position(s). Gordon's path, along with Luis Arraez now have more obstacles.

Players get hurt, players get traded, you can't have too many good players!!! If Gordon is good enough, he'll force a move somewhere.

Also, I don't get the negativity on this deal.  If it is around 5 mil per year and Polanco is just a 1 WAR per year it'd probably still be tradeable to a team that needs a stopgap SS or utility infielder.  I think it's extremely unlikely that Polanco is worse than that and pretty likely he'll be more like a 2-3 WAR player.

The biggest obstacle for Gordon is to finish a season strong and not hitting below the Mendoza line in the second half.  He needs to improve that before one even considers him as anything more than a potential utility player in the majors.

 

Arraez lost some ground because of injury, but came back full force.  The worst batting average for any stop in his career has been .298 and worst OBP .345.  Schoop is in an one year deal and would be leaving just in time for Arraez to slot in as the starting 2B in 2020.

 

Arraez does not belong in the same sentence with Gordon...

 

But this is for Polanco.  And by all indications he will be the present and future SS for the Twins.  If the Twins will need to accommodate Lewis and Javier in the future, that would be a great problem to have, and I am sure that they find a way to do it.

But not today

I agree with your sentence about Arraez and Gordon. Gordon has a higher ceiling, out performed Arraez at AA last year, has more pop, is better defensively, and probably has more versatility. I like Arraez, but I think Gordon is being undervalued by many.

I see Gibson as either he is extended at somewhere around a 3/30-35 or he moves on. I don't see a QO in his future. QO is around 18 mil. He is set to make 8.125 in 2019, so I don't see why the team would QO him for 18mil unless he won 20 games and was a Cy finalist, maybe. But if he was the 2018 Gibson, no QO.

I’d agree the 18 million would be an overpay. It limits the risk to one year and if he would decline it then Twins get a nice draft pick.

 

You're right. But even an OPS around .750 ish. 5 mil a year seems like a deal for this type of production for a middle infielder. 

 

I don't think it's a bad deal. I don't think Polanco has peaked yet, I feel like he will have some very good seasons ahead of him.

 

His throwing errors are concerning, but not a deal breaker.

 

I agree with you on Berrios and Rosario. Gibson is a qualifying offer for me, if he plays like last year and not the previous ones. Buxton and Sano I’m an outright no thank you.

As far as Buxton goes, lets take a look at 2016-17. He played in 232 games. He amassed 7 WAR in that season and a half. So thats about a 4.5WAR per season. Even if he's the 2016 Buxton, a 3WAR player, if we had a 3WAR player for 5-6mil per season that is pure bargain. I say sign him and don't bat an eye. It's a risk well worth taking. If he can stay healthy he is still an STL player. Yes there will be times he's not hitting, it's the org's job to surround him with players that make up for those times.

 

Is the structure, in part, dictated by arbitration? I know they often use player comps (performance + service time) to come up with salary estimates. If they even just had a flat rate for Polanco's deal ($5M/year), could a future arbitration case use Polanco's hypothetical $5M arb1 salary (rather than the actual $2.5M arb1 salary) as a comp when arguing for their salary?

I don't think so. I mean, I don't think players can use the "arb1" salaries from guys like Jose Abreu or Masahiro Tanaka as comps without context in arbitration. Or if a pitcher signs a contract like Pineda's, with a low first year salary due to rehab and a higher second year salary, I don't think those salaries can be used without context either. I suspect the system allows enough discretion to avoid that.

So ditto for Kepler here; buying out arbitration and one FA year with the potential for one more. 

 

I'm pretty neutral on this deal, as I'm pretty neutral on Kepler in general. 

 

If they had planned to start locking these guys up this winter, the lack of activity in the trade market and FA makes even less sense to me....

 

I don't think so. I mean, I don't think players can use the "arb1" salaries from guys like Jose Abreu or Masahiro Tanaka as comps without context in arbitration. Or if a pitcher signs a contract like Pineda's, with a low first year salary due to rehab and a higher second year salary, I don't think those salaries can be used without context either. I suspect the system allows enough discretion to avoid that.

 

Here's what the contract says:

 

"The arbitration panel shall, except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group."

Very team friendly deals. Even moreso for Polanco. Love these signings

 

Looks like they "front-loaded" Kepler's deal a bit, by giving him twice as much this year.

Edited February 14, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

I didn't have interest in signing Kepler long term, but oh well. Good for him.

 

 

Looks like they front-loaded Kepler's deal a bit, by giving him twice as much this year.

 

If they can keep doing these deals at this pace, we'll be at $130 mill by lunch tomorrow.

Glad they are front loading the deals. Seems to make a lot of sense

Or it is Polanco at 3B, Lewis at Short and Gordon or Javier at second. Mix and match and I am happy.

Polanco’s arm is very weak for a shortstop. It would be even moreso at 3b.