Ten To Extend: A Five-Part Series (Part 1)

According to MLBTR’s Extension Tracker, the Twins have signed 13 players to 15 extensions since the beginning of the 2008 calendar year. Eight of those have been signed during the month of March, including the extension of Brian Dozier in 2015 and Glen Perkins in 2014. Will there be another one in 2016?

Over the next couple of weeks, we’re going to examine ten players and how a potential extension would be structured and why. Please note: I’M NOT SUGGESTING SIGNING ALL OF THESE PLAYERS TO EXTENSIONS. In fact, there are a couple that would be downright ridiculous. But ten is a nice, round number to examine over this multi-part series. These are listed in order of a combination of likelihood and personal preference, starting with least-likely/preferred ones.

10) Kurt Suzuki, catcher

Wait, this can’t be serious. Can it!? Well, it was serious when the Twins signed Suzuki to a two-year extension 18 months ago when many fans were hoping they would trade him. Suzuki, of course, finished 2014 .288/.345/.383 after signing the extension on trade deadline day (and hitting .306/.369/.391 at the time). He backed that up with a 2015 that saw his production drop even more, to the tune of .240/.296/.314. Yikes!

So why extend him? There’s not a great reason to “extend” him as much as there is to “modify”. Currently Suzuki is in line to earn $6 million in 2016 and $6 million in 2017, but only if he makes 485 plate appearance in 2016. He’s almost assured to not reach that number in 2016; he fell short of it in 2015. So the likelihood is that he’ll hit the open market and be looking at, what, the possibility of signing a minor league deal? Even the best case scenario is he’s not coming close to the $6 million he will make this year.

The addition of John Ryan Murphy and having both Stuart Turner and Mitch Garver knocking on the door might render Suzuki useless as we look towards 2017, but what if we replace the vesting option with a team option at a much lower price that includes a guaranteed buyout. We’ll toss some plate appearance bonuses in to insure Suzuki makes money if he would have otherwise triggered what would have vested the option.

Would I extend Suzuki? No way. I’d make sure his option doesn’t vest and he’s off the books, but would the team and Suzuki consider the following deal:

Eliminate the vesting option. Add a mutual option for $2 million for 2017 with a $100,000 buyout (if the term declines). Add $250,000 plate appearances bonuses at 450, 485, 520 and 555 and add a $1 million bonus at 615. The Twins will be on the hook for an extra $100,000 but Suzuki could earn an extra $2 million if he makes 615 plate appearances. He wouldn’t recoup the $6 million that he could have earned, but if he puts up a season that includes 615 plate appearances, he’ll probably do ok for himself in free agency.

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s not so much an “extension” as it is a “modification”. I’ve also said it’s something I wouldn’t do. But is it something that both parties would consider beneficial to themselves? It might be, especially considering how much the parties involved seem to like each other.

9) Brian Dozier, second baseman

You Can’t Be Serious, Part 2, right? Sort of. As much as I was against the Suzuki extension when it was signed, I was against the Dozier extension for a completely different reason: It didn’t give the Twins any additional years of control. The only benefit - and it’s a benefit that might prove to be even bigger as the years progress - is that it provided cost-certainty. But you can also make the argument that having to pay additional dollars going year-by-year is a better alternative than locking in at a cost for a handful of years. Now’s not the place to argue that (well, you can down below if you’d like). I’m just not going to touch it here.

If you don’t remember, the Twins signed Dozier to a four-year/$20 million deal last spring. They tore up the $540,000 deal they had given him for 2015 and bumped his salary to $2 million. The club then bought out his arbitration years at $3, $6 and $9 million.

But no more years. And no team options.

The contract signed by Dee Gordon is a great comparison for what Dozier should have gotten/could still get. You could view the $1.46 million bump Dozier got as a signing bonus. Gordon got a signing bonus of $1.5 million. Both players will make $3 million in their 3+ year of service. Gordon will make $1.5 million more than Dozier in each of his 4+ and 5+ seasons.

The big difference is that Gordon will remain under the Marlins control for $13 million and $13.5 million with an additional vesting option whereas Dozier will become a free agent.

Is it time for the Twins to right that wrong? Not many would have batted an eye if the Twins bought out a year or two of Dozier’s free agency last March, so would they now? An additional two years at $30.5 million. It would break down like this: $3 million signing bonus (the difference in arbitration-year salaries), $13 million in 2019, $13.5 million in 2020 and a $1 million buyout on a $14 million team option for 2021. Essentially the exact same deal that Dee Gordon signed.

This would lock up Dozier through his age-33 season and he would enter free agency the same time as Gordon, who is one year younger.

Personally, I would have been more likely to give Dozier this deal last March. Now that he’s locked in, I’d let it play out (at least until this time next year). But it wouldn’t be the first time the club extended a player one year into a contract.

*cough*Phil Hughes*cough* Which might be just enough to make the club a little gun shy this time around.

So what do you think about Suzuki (are you kidding me?!) and Dozier (well, now that you put it that way)? We’ll be checking in on eight more players over the next few days or weeks. Feel free to chime in below.