Twins Sign 2B Jonathan Schoop

Mike,

 

What if Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal?

 

He's 27 and was surprisingly granted free agency coming off a disaster in Milwaukee.

 

If I'm his Agent.. I'd advise him to do a 1 year deal to get his production back and then work on the pay day the next off season.

 

If Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal... would you say "I'm sorry only a two year deal is what we are offering"?

Then don't sign him. This does not fix anything meaningful. Or sign him, but trade Gibson. Because they aren't doing anything meaningful.

Then don't sign him. This does not fix anything meaningful. Or sign him, but trade Gibson. Because they aren't doing anything meaningful.

I recognize the inherent risk based on his woeful Brewers performance last year but if you are looking a player trying to repair himself and if successful... that production for a year is meaningful.

But if you feel different that’s ok

Yes. Unless you’ve already determined you aren’t going to compete and are looking for potential bounce-back players to sell at the deadline.

I’m not sure I understand the importance.

Everything depends on a bounce back.

If he bounces back and the team is in contention. Thumbs up.

If he bounces back and the team isn’t in contention you trade him for prospects and stock the shelves. Thumbs Up.

If he doesn’t bounce back... you are happy it is just a one year deal. Thumbs Up.

What is the downside I’m missing?

They aren’t planning for the future.

That doesn't seem plausible. It seems to me instead that their plan for the future doesn't involve being very competitive in 2019. That disappoints me greatly, as I was hoping to take a step forward toward serious contention this coming year while not mortgaging the future. The rebuild (never termed as such by the team) began in earnest after the 2012 season; it's been a long time, with 2017 being mostly a dead-cat bounce.

As I stated probably a month ago, I was one of those who wouldn't be filing an off-season plan - the reason being that I could not construct one that I was confident in moving the needle for 2019. But I was hoping our front office, armed with better analytics than the back-of-the-envelope ones I can muster, would see a way. Apparently they reached the same conclusion I did. To repeat, disappointing.

Schoop's an OK signing. The "plan" for contention in 2019 seems to be that several rolls of the dice might coincide.

I was getting really nervous that these would be our only moves of the off-season...

 

...but then I heard that the off-season had barely began and will extend through it's normal time period! What a relief! Maybe relief pitchers will be coming soon! More relief!

 

Breathe people. Long off-season. Be critical and judgmental AFTER we sign (or don't sign) free agents.

Well that would take away the Daily aspect of Twins Daily, no? Let's shut down all comments until March 1.

If the plan for 2019 doesn't involve being competitive, why sign Schoop?  Just give the job to Gordon.

I saw all I care to see of Gordon in one game in Pawtucket. Let him prove his glove and bat, both, at AAA before handing him anything.

They aren’t planning for the future. They aren’t getting the best out there. Didn’t the FO themselves say that last year was a mistake having too many one year contracts on the team, that it made for a very noncohesive clubhouse? It’s a ‘We’re standing pat’ kind of move. This is not improvement. When there are better options out there, that we could have for more than a year, and we’re not making those moves, speaks volumes to me. It’s half-assed, imo.

Myself... I basically ignored the one year contract comment because people come in all shapes and sizes. Over the history of this game plenty of one year contracts have worked great. Yes some were bad but it isn’t locked down certain either way.

Closing the door on them because it didn’t work out with one or two of them would be a freightening over reaction and end up being a self imposed speed bump to keeping all avenues open.

It's not the contract Its the individual players themselves that determine if it was a good acquisition.

Now if you think we could have done better than Schoop. That is valid and I get the concern but one or two years doesn’t worry me. I’d prefer the one year if it’s someone who needs a bounce back.

I have no faith in Gordon either. None.

 

But that's not the point. If the plan isn't to compete, why sign Schoop?

 

I don't think that's the plan.

"Compete" is one of those fuzzy terms. It looks to me that the FO isn't planning on tanking, nor risking tanking by committing to kids who aren't ready.

I didn't wordsmith much there, but on re-reading I see hedged phrases like "very competitive", "serious contention", and "rolls of the dice" in what I said. That serves to somewhat define the muddled middle ground I view the FO as occupying this off-season.

Can I comment as a fan... One year deals are lame because it gives me zero incentive to invest in their success. If the player bounces back, do we really think the Twins are going to win the bid again for their rights?

Since Falvey and Levine took over there have been way too many players who signed and left the organization. I can't keep up with it anymore.

I think both.

Yeah but you multi-task

If the plan for 2019 doesn't involve being competitive, why sign Schoop? Just give the job to Gordon.

Service Time.

I know the minute I talk about service time being a factor, I get a string of responses back saying that it doesn’t matter but to the front offices... it does and it’s why the one year deal is important.

Gordon isnt ready and by the time he is ready... we could be 3 years deep into his service time letting him fail at the MLB level. They have 3 years to make a decision on Gordon. He might be ready this year... he might ready in 2021 or never ready. Signing Schoop or whoever to a one year deal provides an exit if Gordon establishes himself filling in for injury.

Giving Gordon the job and saying “Ok Learn” would be the same mistake they made with Hicks.