Extension Candidate: Oswaldo Arcia

If you always wait to KNOW with some CERTAINTY......you aren't really likely to save any money. It's too late by then.

 

It would appear that most posters here are conservative, and would rather go year to year more, until there is more certainty. I disagree. There is value in certainty of what he'll cost. And, as salaries rise, those numbers above will look conservative.

 

If you believe in him, you sign him to a 7 year deal.......or, you go year to year, and spend a TON of money in future years, and maybe lose him.

The only certainty at this point is that Arcia has proven to be a very bad defensive outfielder.  And a platoon type player at the plate.  That might catch some off guard.  But a career OPS split of .809/.613 is the definition of a platoon player. And he has struck out in over 30% of his at bats.  He has a ton of upside, no doubt.   But these are undeniable.

It is not completely out of the question that four different guys could beat out Arcia for a corner OF spot (Rosario, Sano, Plouffe, Hicks, plus someone not on the radar) .  Or that he proves himself incapable of playing in the field and he is beaten out by Vargas.   So giving him a 5, 6, or 7 year deal seems really, really unneccesary at best.

Even a deal like Jose Tabata isn't as bad as it looks. You take on a risk with money that's similar to what the Twins pay Ricky Nolasco for a season's worth of starts. The flipside of that they Twins get a very team-friendly deal.

 

That's how extensions are supposed to work: Each side is rewarded, while also taking on some risk.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/08/pirates-extend-jose-tabata.html

On the risk/reward scale, this seems way too far on the risky side. You could be giving a guy with question marks and not a defined role a 5-7 year contract.  That seems completely foolish to me.

Most guys that are given the 5-7 year deal early, at a minimum have a defined spot on the team.  That should be an essential ingredient here.  Nobody can honestly say Arcia has that.

For me, it's not about "knowing" so much as "this player has the type of floor that could put him out of baseball in 3-4 years".

 

Arcia doesn't have faults, he has some glaring issues that need to be resolved for him to be a long-term fixture at a defensive position. If he doesn't fix one or more of them, he's a platoon bat.

 

Platoon bats don't get extensions.

 

The day Byron Buxton hits Minnesota, I won't know if he'll be a 90 OPS+ player or a 140 OPS+ player... But I'd pursue an extension anyway because Buxton, as an up-the-middle defender, can be of real value whether he hits like Babe Ruth or Nick Punto. Sano, while not a defensive force, should hit enough to be a DH no matter what happens so an extension should be explored there as well. Arcia hasn't shown that he can even hit enough to hold down DH.

 

It's about risk mitigation. Is the floor of this player so low that he could be out of baseball before the contract is done? If yes, then I drag my feet on an extension until that player shows me he can hold a place on an MLB roster.

Spot.  On. 

For me, it's not about "knowing" so much as "this player has the type of floor that could put him out of baseball in 3-4 years".

 

Arcia doesn't have faults, he has some glaring issues that need to be resolved for him to be a long-term fixture at a defensive position. If he doesn't fix one or more of them, he's a platoon bat.

 

Platoon bats don't get extensions.

 

The day Byron Buxton hits Minnesota, I won't know if he'll be a 90 OPS+ player or a 140 OPS+ player... But I'd pursue an extension anyway because Buxton, as an up-the-middle defender, can be of real value whether he hits like Babe Ruth or Nick Punto. Sano, while not a defensive force, should hit enough to be a DH no matter what happens so an extension should be explored there as well. Arcia hasn't shown that he can even hit enough to hold down DH.

 

It's about risk mitigation. Is the floor of this player so low that he could be out of baseball before the contract is done? If yes, then I drag my feet on an extension until that player shows me he can hold a place on an MLB roster.

Pretty much every player is going to show a weak side in a platoon. Since there are more RH pitchers than LH pitchers, and since there is more RH power leaguewide and in the Twins system, its preferable the batter be LH and stronger against RHPs. That combination makes a player less likely to get pigeonholed as a part time player, not more likely, and doesn't preclude him getting an extension (eg. Justin Morneau).

Arcia's floor as a LH hitting DH is no lower than a field-only up the middle player IMO. The Twins have found those types on the waiver wire or in small trades easily, eg. Florimon, Fuld.

Risk is a necessary component for the team to have upside. The best extensions ever signed were extremely risky. Reducing the risk moves the price closer to FA amounts, eg. the Mauer extension.

Pretty much every player is going to show a weak side in a platoon. Since there are more RH pitchers than LH pitchers, and since there is more RH power leaguewide and in the Twins system, its preferable the batter be LH and stronger against RHPs. That combination makes a player less likely to get pigeonholed as a part time player, not more likely, and doesn't preclude him getting an extension (eg. Justin Morneau).

Arcia's floor as a LH hitting DH is no lower than a field-only up the middle player IMO. The Twins have found those types on the waiver wire or in small trades easily, eg. Florimon, Fuld.

Risk is a necessary component for the team to have upside. The best extensions ever signed were extremely risky. Reducing the risk moves the price closer to FA amounts, eg. the Mauer extension.

Not every player shows a platoon split of a .613 OPS against one side. The Twins on any given night would have a better chance to win with almost anyone off the bench starting in LF for Arcia against lefties.  Escobar, for one would be better offensively and defensively.

Not every player shows a platoon split of a .613 OPS against one side. The Twins on any given night would have a better chance to win with almost anyone off the bench starting in LF for Arcia against lefties.  Escobar, for one would be better offensively and defensively.

Platoon splits won't stabilize for another 350 PAs or so, which again, waiting til that point reduce the unkowns and therefore the upside for the team.

And maybe the Twins are happy to pay the cost of waiting, I don't know. On the other hand, if their talent evaluators feel they have a firm grasp on Arcia's true talent, his weaknesses and his strengths, then the sooner they extend him the better.

edit: Unless that evaluation is: Arcia is playing over his head.

Platoon splits won't stabilize for another 350 PAs or so, which again, waiting til that point reduce the unkowns and therefore the upside for the team.

And maybe the Twins are happy to pay the cost of waiting, I don't know. On the other hand, if their talent evaluators feel they have a firm grasp on Arcia's true talent, his weaknesses and his strengths, then the sooner they extend him the better.

edit: Unless that evaluation is: Arcia is playing over his head.

He has a 196 basis point split thus far between his right and left OPS.

Here are his minor league differential in OPS:

2013 - 206 basis points

2012 - 210 basis points

2011 - 174 basis points

Maybe they just won't stabilize?

Lefty hitters often struggle against southpaw pitchers, yes... But Arcia doesn't just struggle. He's absolutely horrid against lefties. He has a .266 OBP against them and a .613 OPS. Morneau's career OPS against lefties is .100 OPS higher.

 

Morneau was also a much better hitter, full stop. During his breakout season of 2004, his OPS against lefties was:

 

.240 .289 .427 .716

 

Arcia's 2014 OPS against lefties (same age):

 

.198 .261 .313 .574

 

There's "good hitter but mediocre against lefties", which is pretty common among good lefty hitters. Then there's "OMG cover your eyes, this guy is facing a lefty". Morneau was the former, Arcia is currently the latter.

As far as early extensions go, I think the Twins should be done for this year after the Dozier one and I was on the fence there given the control they had through his prime.

But if I was forced to extend guys, Arcia would not be even near the top of the list.  Buxton and Sano, 1 and 2*.  Barring what happens next year, I could see Gibson being more of a priority.  If Sano does not stick at 3B, Plouffe would be a much higher priority to me.

*To explain the hypocrisy between my hesitation because Arcia does not have a defined position and the perception that Sano does not as well.  Sano is not a lock at 3B, but he is a lock somewhere.

I'm not in love with OPS because it doesn't account for the changes in run and stadium environment that's occured in the last 10 years.

There's also the fact that 250 PAs is not a reliably large sample to conclude much about a player's splits against same sided pitching. As I said, that won't become reliable until around the 600 PA mark.

Having said that, I'll go ahead anyway

wRC+

Morneau vs. LHP

2003 (age 22): -7 (27 PA)

2004 (age 23): 81 (229 PA

Arcia vs LHP, ages 22-23 seasons

2013-2014: 69 (259 PAs)

Looks like a wash to me.

I mean, Morneau signed his 6/80 extension prior to the 2008 season. That was a huge extension in its day. By the time Arcia reaches that point in his service clock (2017, for argument's sake), accounting for 10% inflation, you're looking at a price tag of 156 million.

Obviously Arcia probably won't win the MVP as Morneau did, but there is a cost to waiting for concrete answers to these questions. A huge one, potentially.

This story being posted by Jeremy on the same day as Brian Dozier signs his four-year extension is very interesting. These comments have been very interesting as well.

 

I read comments like the Twins needing to wait one more year and see if Arcia can take off. Well, if he takes off, the contract will be about double what it would be right now. There are some who say that the Twins were not wise in signing Dozier after his very good season in 2014, but then want the Twins to wait for Arcia to have a strong season before committing. 

 

Truth be told, there has to be a leap of faith on all of this and some projection. If the Twins brass thinks that Arcia can be a 30+ home run guy and cut the Ks down and walk a little more and not be completely lost on defense, they should do it right now. 

 

One thing that is often overlooked in the decision to sign someone is how they believe a player will handle that long-term security. Will they use it as motivation to continue to get better, or will they consider it their big pay day and not work.

 

With Dozier, there's no concern about it. With Arcia, there have certainly be some concerns. 

 

That said, a five year, $18-20 million deal with a few creative option years... that'd work for me.

$20M with options probably means $3M in buyouts.  So we are locked into a 5 year, $23M deal for a guy that may not be one of the two best corner OF options and/or best DH option on this team when we are good again.

If he had a firm grasp on his spot I would be all for it.  But he doesn't.  For example, if Rosario can have a .720-.750 OPS up here, I am guessing that would be a better player than Arcia in LF given the defensive aspect.   This team is not going to have a payroll issue in the next five years, so we should get some clarity on these things first. 

That's the question.....do you bet on the upside, and take on some minor financial risk, or do you wait for you next card to come, when everyone else at the table has already raised you three times?

 

In the latter case, you are more sure if you should stay in, but it costs a lot more. 

I think we have a different definition of "minor financial risk". 

If we knew Arcia was our LF for the next five years and you do this deal, you have risk that he doesn't achieve his potential. That, considering the paltry financial commitment is minor to me.  At least are paying a player that was going to be there anyways.

In reality, Arcia does not have a firm grasp on the position. Having watched Pelfrey, on a 1 year and then a 2 year deal operate on scholarship, I think the risk is not minor that we have a better option and play Arcia for five years because he is on scholarship. I don't consider that minor.

Or maybe you and I simply disagree on that concept. You are extremely certain Arcia is a LF or DH on this team over the next five years and I am a lot less certain. In which that makes complete sense that we would disagree about a deal like this.

As a side bar, I think the cost rising aspect is not always an apples to apples comparison.  5-20 may happen now because you are amortizing the 500K he will make this year over five years.  If you wait a year, the 500K in year 1 is gone and replaced with a FA year, so the overall contract looks a lot bigger, when in reality you have the player for another year in which he would have been a free agent.

I'm not extremely sure of anything.....other than if you wait until Arcia proves he's good before signing him, it will cost you extremely more than doing it now. That's based on years of data from players all over MLB. 

What percentage chance do you think Arcia is a LF, RF, or DH for the 2017 Twins?  If you were to handicap it.

It is about 60-70% for me.  I think it is a coin flip between who is a  better hitter between him and Vargas and I think we will probably have two better options for LF and RF.  So $20M that will result in a 30-40% chance we are playing a guy for multiple years that is not our best option is not a gamble I would not take.  Especially since we should not have payroll issues over the time period.

Heck, Nelson Cruz signed for $14.25M a year in free agency.   How much do we think that first or second free agent year is going to cost us if we wait?  Jeremy's post has $9M and $11M.  Assume some inflation and it seems like we are paying $20M now to save $5-6M a year for a year or two....again on a team that should not have a large payroll.  Mauer isn't making $23M anymore, almost the entire team is under control.  Nolasco is gone by then.  Salaries will escalate, so will cable contracts, ticket prices, jerseys, the value of the Twins, and the price of a beer.

Right, which makes the "burden" of signing him for $5MM a year practically free. That will be what a veteran who is worth half a WAR signs for at that point, a backup guy. I'd say it is around 80% likely he is a legit RF or DH by then. 

It isn't the money though, if the Twins had him signed for five years I think they would play him over someone like Rosario even if it was hurting the club.  If Pelfrey got 160 IP last year when he was less than two years away from his contract ending.......imagine a guy five years away.