Jeremy Nygaard

Every Thursday morning, you can count on coming here to get a snapshot of which players are trending up or trending down within the organization. Obviously statistics will play a part, but a week is a small sample and spring training stats are… well, pretty pointless. Anecdotal and observational accounts will also help shape this segment. Here’s a look at five players whom you may have changed your tune about since seven days ago. Phil Hughes, starting pitcher Since joining the Twins in 2014, Phil Hughes has set an all-time baseball record (11.63 SO/BB - only 16 walks - in 2014), signed an expensive extension and then turned around and led the league in home runs allowed the following year. Everyone who follows the Twins and even Hughes himself would admit that last year was a bad year. Hughes missed seven starts due to various hip and back ailments. The velocity on Hughes’ fastball dropped from 92.0 to 90.7. He swing-and-miss percent dropped from 8.9% to 5.5%. Recognizing that he needed to get back to his 2014 form, Hughes reported to camp 15 pounds lighter than when he left last October. The dividends appear to be paying off already. Through two spring training starts, Hughes has pitched five innings, surrendering only one hit (which was erased by a double-play). He’s thrown 45 pitches*, with 29 of them reaching the strike zone. This percentage (64.4%) is almost a 10% decrease from his 2014 season, but it’s early in the season and the sample is admittedly tiny. Though he hasn’t recorded a swing-and-miss pitch to this point, he’s passed the “eye-test” through two brief appearances. That’s progress over anything that Hughes did in 2015. Trending: Up (and toward the Opening Day nod?) Tyler Duffey, starting pitcher It was going to take something “fairly significant” for Duffey to work his way out of the rotation. His first start was OK, though he did walk a batter which is slightly out of character. The start he made against Toronto on Tuesday was significantly worse: a five-run first inning that included a walk and a home run. He settled down and finished his outing with a 1-2-3 seven-pitch third inning. But not before issuing his second walk of the day in the second inning. I’m as big of a Duffey supporter as anyone and I believe he’ll still end up in the rotation, but a string of poor starts, coupled with dominant outings by the other members of the rotation competition, could make heading to Rochester more likely. At this point, though, let’s just chalk it up as one bad inning. Trending: Slightly down Oswaldo Arcia, outfield 2015 was an abysmal year for Ozzie. After starting the year as the Opening Day right-fielder, he fell so far that he finished it with a sub.-200 batting average in the minor leagues. Arcia spent his winter in Fort Myers working his skills and his body back into shape. So far, the work is paying off. After drawing only four walks in 65 plate appearances with the Twins in 2015, Arcia drew three walks on Monday and showed some defensive chops in both right field on Sunday and left field on Monday. The out-of-options Venezuelan will need to stick as a left-handed bench bat and he appears to be on his way to earning that spot. Trending: Slightly up Miguel Sano, right fielder We know about the big bat and the big arm. What we’re not sure about is the outfield glove on his left paw and the mobility to use it productively. Don’t get me wrong, Sano is athletic enough to play the outfield. But will the experiment work? He’s turned a semi-routine line out in a double. (Sorry, Ricky.) He’s quadruple-skipped a throw to the cut-off man. But he’s made all of the clearly routine plays and threw out Troy Tulowitzki trying to leg out a double on Tuesday. Oh, and he also hit his first spring training home run as well. Trending: Steady (but better than expected) Byung Ho Park, designated hitter Well, those two blasts certainly helps you forget about all the early swings and misses, doesn’t it? Trending: Up (up and out of here) BONUS BATTLE: Ricky Nolasco vs Tommy Milone, starting rotation Both have pitched well in their most recent outing, but there’s really only room for one in the rotation. Milone isn’t built for a bullpen success and is making $4.5 million; Nolasco, could be successful in the bullpen, and has two years and $25 million left on his deal. Oh, and Nolasco isn’t going to be too happy if he has to go to the bullpen. He probably isn’t alone in feeling the way he does, but not every player (or his agent) publicly states how they feel. Regardless of how this plays out, Nolasco is going to get his money. The Twins could remove Nolasco from the roster, but he would have to consent to a minor-league assignment. If he won’t go to the bullpen, there’s no reason to think he’d go to Rochester. So the question that remains, will he earn his money as a team player (in the bullpen) or will he force the Twins to make a move? (Call the Dodgers.) Trending: Towards Tommy Obviously, those are only five players out of a number that could be mentioned. (Both good and not-so-good.) Who do you have trending one way or the other? * Spring Training stats are much more difficult to come by, so these stats are based on what Mike Berardino of the St. Paul Pioneer Press has reported on Twitter. Click here to view the article

I think it was Radcliff that mentioned it last year as well.

Thanks. I think we can all agree not all of these guys are viable extension candidates. But - for me anyway - it's a fun exercise to consider what potential deals might look like.

Over the last handful of days, we’ve looked at basically every player that is projected to be on the Opening Day roster - with the exception of those that have multi-year deals or have very little service time - and examined what a potential extension would look like and if the club (or player) would have interest. In most cases, extensions just wouldn’t make sense at this point. Many players just aren’t good candidates to extend because the team already controls their rights anyway. Today we’re going to look at the final two players whom the team could consider extending.2) Trevor Plouffe, third baseman There was absolutely no way the 2016 season was going to kick off with anyone but Miguel Sano manning the hot corner, right? Right, we all assumed. Well, you know what happens when you assume. The Twins have held their hand strong and called every bet. And if you’re going to do that until the end, don’t your final words have to be, “All in”? Here we are, entering the second-to-last year of control of Trevor Plouffe. He’s set to earn $7.25 million. If he goes to arbitration again next winter, he’ll head towards a raise that will put him in line to make in excess of $9 million. What are the chances the Twins will continue to retain him? The best time to sign a multi-year deal would have been while negotiating the deal to avoid arbitration. It appears that neither side was interested enough to make that happen. Personally, I still think the Twins fold their hand and trade Plouffe. Since it doesn’t appear to be happening now, it will happen next offseason. But only because I think Jorge Polanco becomes the next everyday third baseman. Just a hunch. 1) Kyle Gibson, starting pitcher So far, this list has been void of starting pitchers. Part of that has to do with two of them being signed to long-term deals already. Part of that has to do with my affinity for not wanting to guarantee money when every pitcher is just one pitch away from being useless for 18 months. For me, Gibson is different. In fact, of the nine players previously profiled, I can’t say with strong conviction that I would go long-term with any of them. I’d be most inclined to lock up Sano. I’d consider the same with Rosario, given how I know the Twins feel about him. But he still has a lot to prove. So does Buxton. I’d go long-term with Gibson. And I’d model it after two extensions that were signed in the spring of 2012 (so I know the numbers would have to be a little bit more). The Mets deal with Jon Niese and the Rangers deal with Derek Holland. Both signed their deals entering their final season before arbitration. Gibson already has a deal for that season (this season at $587,500). Niese’s three arbitration years were bought out for $15 million ($3/$5/$7) where Holland got $16 million ($3.2/$5.4/$7.4). Given inflation, Gibson could fairly ask for $18 million. 2017 (3+): $4 million 2018 (4+): $6 million 2019 (5+): $8 million I don’t think anyone would have any qualms about that. Those terms are completely fair. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, in exchange for guaranteed salaries, the team needs to get the benefit of having the option to buy out free agency. In Gibson’s case, I’d want two more years. This would put him through his age-33 season. 2020 (6+): $11 million The first free agency year is worth $11 million. Also in line with Niese’s and Holland’s deals. But instead of going with a straight guarantee or straight team option for 2021, we’re going to ask for the “Lackey Clause.” As you may recall, John Lackey signed a lucrative deal in December of 2009 with the Red Sox with the stipulation that if he missed a year due to Tommy John surgery, the team could keep him for an extra year at league minimum. 2021 (7+): $13 million with a $1.5 million buy-out OR becomes a club option for league minimum if he misses a year with his second Tommy John surgery. The entire deal essentially is a four-year extension with a guarantee of $29.5 million (if he has arm issues) or four years at $30.5 million (if he doesn’t). That’s a deal that could and should be made this spring. Of all the 10 players profiled (or ones that weren’t), whom would you sign long-term? Click here to view the article

Right. It depends on how much you value cost-certainty. My point all along is that the Twins shouldn't have bothered with the Dozier extension because that was ALL they got. They, as an organization, obviously do value it. And those are the glasses I tried to look through as I wrote these pieces.

I don't know that the money is the thing so much. I mean, bottom line... yes, the money is the thing. But with a new CBA coming, more revenue than ever before, etc. It's going to be all about the opt-outs. Guaranteed money is and should always be an incentive for the players. The uberprospects aren't guaranteed anything past the half million they have coming this year... being guaranteed something counts for a lot.

The proposed contract would pay him to be a really good 4th OF. If he sticks as a starter, he gets paid like one... or becomes cost-controlled trade bait.

It's true for everyone except guys that come over from other countries, basically. Not always the case. Park won't go to arbitration, Cespedes had a clause that he couldn't. Same as Iwakuma. I believe Jose Iglesias didn't have a clause. But as far as any American/player who entered the league through the draft, it's always the case: you don't hit free agency til after you have six years of service unless you're released/non-tendered. But if another team picks you up on a one-year deal and you still have less than six years, no free agency. (Take Abad, for example. If he plays for the Twins all year after signing a milb deal, he'll have 5.073 years of service and go to arbitration next year.)

Over the past few days, we’ve looked at a variety of potential extensions for a half-dozen players. Remember, these aren’t necessarily players that deserve extensions, nor that I would sign to extensions. Today, we’ll take a closer look at two other players. Two players that are on different ends of the spectrum.4) Kevin Jepsen, relief pitcher Jepsen reached an agreement with the Twins to avoid arbitration. Jepsen sought $5.4 million, the Twins offered $5.05 million and the team settled at $5,312,500. While it was taking a few extra weeks to come to an agreement, it seemed there was a possibility that the Twins might be interested in securing an extra year of Jepsen’s services - the first year of Jepsen’s free agency. After coming over to the Twins in a deadline deal with Tampa Bay, Jepsen filled in as the club’s closer, saving 10 games and finishing seven others in his 29 appearances. He’s likely to be the set-up man in the 2016 bullpen and be the back-up closer. The Twins did make a similar deal with Jared Burton in the winter of 2012. Burton struggled after an impressive first year and the club chose to buy out the team’s option. Coincidentally enough, when you visit Kevin Jepsen’s Baseball Reference page, Burton shows up as the player most similar to Jepsen. Maybe that’s reason enough to play the year out. It would have been best - if the parties involved were interested - to agree to an extension when the sides were negotiating for 2016. When a player is this close to free agency for the first time, tacking on a year probably isn’t very appealing. And once the 2016 contract was signed, free agency is only one step away. Could the Twins consider an in-season deal? I wouldn’t call it an impossibility, but at any rate, there would have to be some incentives that pay Jepsen extra if he assumes the closer role. Incentives that, by rule, would have to pay him for “games finished” in addition to another incentive that is likely to be included for “games pitched.” 3) Miguel Sano, monster playing right field There’s literally no way to start thinking about signing Sano to an extension without considering the record contract that Giancarlo Stanton signed 16 months ago with Miami. The difference, or course, is that Stanton had over four years of service when he signed his deal and Sano is still short of a full year. Another notable difference is that Stanton is in Miami and Sano, represented by CAA and Roc Nation, is in flyover country. If I were representing Sano, my advice would be: Play out these next few years and enormous bags of money will be awaiting you in New York or wherever it is you’d like to make hundreds of millions of dollars. That doesn’t mean that there’s no risk for Sano to go year-to-year with the Twins. He’s already missed a year of baseball after undergoing Tommy John surgery. He’s in the midst of a positional move that many around baseball are questioning whether he can handle. And if you can’t play defense, you’re limited to the American League (for now). My belief is ALWAYS that if a team is willing to guarantee money, that the return should be at least a year of free agency. Though I’m not picky enough to say it needs to include or not include a team option. At a minimum we’re talking about a seven-year deal. If we were going year-to-year, I’d renew Sano’s deal for $530,000 in 2016. In the event of a long-term deal, I’d be willing to bump that up. The increase for his 1+ and 2+ seasons will make Stanton’s raises (a total of $121,000) look tiny as I’d be comfortable hitting $1 million in 2018. In comparison, Stanton made only $537,000 in his season before hitting arbitration (though that was without an extension). 2016 (0+): $550,000 2017 (1+): $775,000 2018 (2+): $1 million Arbitration is where it gets tricky. Stanton avoided his first year of arbitration by agreeing to a deal worth $5.5 million. And he’ll get a total of $22 million for his three arbitration years. By comparison, Mike Trout signed a deal that guarantees him nearly $20 million in his third year of arbitration alone. Josh Donaldson signed a two-year deal that will pay him $17 million in his third (of four) years of arbitration. (He was a Super 2.) Prince Fielder was awarded $15.5 in his final arbitration year… in 2011. The point is not that Sano is Mike Trout or Josh Donaldson or Prince Fielder, but instead how expensive arbitration can be going year-by-year or by an extension. So let’s enter in the extension signed by Anthony Rizzo. Another player who had four years of arbitration in front of him, Rizzo agreed to be paid $5 million for the first two and $7 million for the last two. Getting a guy to sign early - Rizzo signed his deal as a 1+ player - locks him in at a significantly lower price. 2019 (3+): $5 million 2020 (4+): $8 million 2021 (5+): $11 million That puts Sano’s arbitration years about 10% higher than what Stanton earned. Rizzo has escalators in his deal that increase his salary based on MVP finishes. Sano can have those too. If he wins an MVP or finishes Top 5 in the voting twice any time between 2016 and 2020, all ensuing salaries and options increase by $1 million. We’ll even tack on an extra $2 million for a second MVP or a third Top 5 finish. This particular proposal buys out one free agency year guaranteed and adds a team option for the 2023 season. 2022 (6+): $14.5 million 2023 (7+): $17.5 million ($1.75 million buyout) The seven-year, $42.575 million pact eclipses Rizzo’s $41 million deal, could grow to be over $65 million and guarantees that Sano hits free agency at age 30. While there’s certainly risk for both parties involved, would this be a deal that both sides could/would agree on? Click here to view the article

If Rosario opted out of the potential deal with less than six years if service, he'd still have to go through the arbitration process.

I'd be less inclined to sign a guy like that. I thought he'd be an excellent trade candidate. However, there are so many in the organization that absolutely love him. It's amazing really. I'm not saying that means they'll extend him, but I really feel like he's a guy the Twins believe in and want to have around for the long haul.

He wasn't omitted. He was mentioned twice.

Earlier in this series we looked at what unlikely extensions could look like for Kurt Suzuki and Brian Dozier, realized that Glen Perkins makes uncommon baseball decisions and examined the parameters for a potential long-term deal for Byron Buxton. Today’s installment involves two players who are both in the early parts of their careers, one who just entered arbitration and another who is a few years away from it.6) Eduardo Escobar, shortstop Personally, I feel like the time to extend Escobar has passed. There are a couple of reasons for that. When he narrowly missed the Super 2 deadline after the 2014 season, the Twins could have given him an extra bump in 2015 in return for a guarantee in 2016. Even as a utility-type player, Escobar brought lots of value to the roster. Amid rumors that the Twins were dangling him for a relief pitcher though, it shouldn’t be surprising he wasn’t extended. Secondly, while negotiating his salary as a first-time arbitration-eligible player, the Twins could have rewarded their new shortstop by guaranteeing his second year. Basically a “You’re our shortstop, we believe in you, now stop looking over your shoulder” contract. Essentially the same type of ill-fated deal the team made with Brendan Harris a few years back. A contract, too, that doesn’t damage your payroll even if Escobar returns to a utility-role. Escobar has earned the starting shortstop position to begin 2016. It’s hard to see Jorge Polanco wrestling it away from him as many believe he’s not equipped to handle that position long-term. So who in the organization is? Defensively Engelb Vielma is, but his bat has a ways to go and he hasn’t even played at AA yet. Nick Gordon is a better all-around player, but he’s only likely to make his Fort Myers debut this year. The reality is that the Twins, for the first time in a long time, have middle infield options. Brian Dozier is one of the best second baseman in the American League. Polanco is a legitimate prospect. Vielma and Gordon are down the line and Jermaine Palacios and bonus-baby Wander Javier are even further down the line. Oh, Danny Santana, despite the “position change” this offseason, and Eduardo Nunez could still remain options as well. There are some big-sticker prices on the arbitration years of bought-out shortstops, but then there’s also the deal the Royals signed Alcides Escobar to. A deal that agreed to pay the shortstop $3 million in EACH of his three arbitration years. If there’s a deal like that out there to be had, that’s one worth considering. 5) Eddie Rosario, outfielder The unlikelihood of signing a player with less than one year of service was discussed during the potential Buxton extension. Rosario falls into that category. But there is a deal that was signed a handful of years ago that could provide a nice framework for a Rosario deal; A deal signed by then-Pirates outfielder Jose Tabata. Yes, Tabata turned out to be a bust, but the investment for six years of Tabata ($15 million) pales in comparison to the nearly $25 million invested in Byung Ho Park, a complete unknown. There is going to be pretty significant difference between Tabata and Rosario, though, and that is because Rosario is in line to be a Super 2 player after the 2017 season. So while the framework remains the same, an extra year of arbitration, inflation over the 2011 Tabata deal and some incentives that will reward Rosario if he continues to remain a regular will increase the value of this deal. At a minimum, Rosario will always provide defensive value and has a floor of a fourth outfielder. The initial contract would pay him, at worst, as a fourth outfielder. The proposal: 2016 (0+): $540,000 2017 (1+): $760,000 2018 (Super 2): $2 million 2019 (3+): $3.5 million 2020 (4+): $4.5 million 2021 (5+): $5.7 million 2022 (6+): $7 million option or $.5 million buyout 2023 (7+): $8 million option or $.5 million buyout 2024 (8+): $9 million option or $.5 million buyout All told, the guarantee is over six years at the price of $17.5 million. Some other caveats: Starting in 2018, Rosario will earn an additional $500,000 in any year he exceeds 550 plate appearances. His salary for each ensuing year will also increase by $500,000 and his buyouts will increase by $100,000. An additional security for Rosario is that starting with that 2019 season, each time he exceeds the aforementioned 550 plate appearances, he can opt out of the remainder of his contract. Rosario’s maximum contract, if he reached 550 plate appearances each year and never opted out, would look as follows: 2016 (0+): $540,000 2017 (1+): $760,000 2018 (Super 2): $2.5 million 2019 (3+): $4.5 million 2020 (4+): $6 million 2021 (5+): $7.7 million 2022 (6+): $9.5 million option or $1 million buyout 2023 (7+): $11 million option or $1.1 million buyout 2024 (8+): $12.5 million option or $1.2 million buyout The contract becomes a six year, $23 million deal with a maximum value of $55 million over eight years, a fair-market contract for an everyday, but not an All-Star, outfielder. What do you think? #ExtendEitherEddie? Click here to view the article

This is Polanco's last option year. I hope he plays around the diamond this year in AAA. I don't know if I said it in this thread or a different one, but Polanco is a player that I think could have a lot of success in a Josh Harrison-type role. And he's one injury away from bring a regular infielder at 2B, SS and (I even feel) 3B.

Yesterday we examined what possible extensions might look like in the cases of Kurt Suzuki (more of a modification than anything) and Brian Dozier. Overwhelmingly - and in no way surprisingly - the consensus is that the Twins would be wise to let Suzuki’s contract play out, hoping that the team can avoid him getting enough plate appearances for his option to vest. Brian Dozier is coming off of his first year of a three-year deal that bought out no free agents years. Readers were less than enthused to tack on years to his deal either. Let’s take a look at two new candidates today.8) Glen Perkins, proven closer During my initial time researching this piece, Perkins didn’t jump out as a potential extension candidate. Not even a little bit. But the more I dug, the more he became a player that I had to think about including. Consider this: After his age-28 season (2011), the club and Perkins agreed on a five-year deal that was very team-friendly. Just two years later, during the spring training of 2014, Perkins approached the team about a restructure/extension and terms to another team-friendly deal were agreed upon very quickly. After signing the “discounted” deal, Perkins was quoted as saying, “I’ll take a $22 million discount every day of the week” citing he was going to make more money than he’d “ever need,” playing for the team that he never wants to leave. Perkins is a forward-thinking player, who is very honest about himself and what he needs to do better. He’s also basically put on the record that he’ll make more money than he will ever need. Players don’t do that. I don’t know what kind of trick Perk could have up his sleeve this time, but I’d say there’s a non-zero chance that the three-time All-Star closer is thinking about making the next move typical ballplayers don’t make. 7) Byron Buxton, centerfielder Here’s one you’ve all been waiting for, right? But you also probably thought Buxton might be higher on the list. Right? One reason Buxton is showing up here and not higher is there might be some trepidation after his slow start. Not at all because the Twins think he’s a bust, but just because there were very high expectations that weren’t met and it would be extremely difficult to find a deal that both parties are comfortable with. Another reason is that Buxton falls into the 0-1 year of service category. The Twins have never signed a player to an extension with less than one year of service. In fact, it’s only happened five times in the history of baseball. (Tampa Bay is responsible for three of those deals.) The nearest comparison from the Twins perspective would be the five-year deal that was given to Denard Span in March of 2010. With Span’s service time, the guarantee lasted through his arbitration years and the team held an option for his first year of free agency. At the time, Span’s deal was very similar to the contract that Grady Sizemore had signed. Strictly using the contracts signed recently by A.J. Pollock, Lorenzo Cain and Juan Lagares, you can assume that Buxton could easily command north of $20 million just to buy out his arbitration years. You’ve read this far because you want me to throw some actual numbers out, didn’t you? Here goes: 2016 (0+): $525,000 2017 (1+): $750,000 2018 (2+): $1 million 2019 (3+): $3.5 million (same as A.J. Pollack) 2020 (4+): $7 million (all of Pollack, Cain and Lagares got between $6.5m and $6.75m) 2021 (5+): $10.5 million (Pollack will go to arbitration; Cain is signed for $11m, Lagares $9m) 2022 (6+): $13 million option or $1 million buyout Grand total: Six years, $24.275 million. Something to note: The Twins have only Hughes and Park under contract in 2019 (with a Santana option) and only Park’s option on the books in 2020. Would that make them more or less likely to sign one of their younger players to an extension? Weigh in below. Click here to view the article

Right. (Site wasn't working correctly, so I couldn't edit my post.) FOR ME if I'm looking at it from the team's perspective, at the time I didn't think cost certainty was enough of a benefit to make the deal. Any extension should involve give-and-take from both parties... felt like more give from the Twins and more take from Dozier. Which I don't have a problem with as a fan. Good for the player!

The Twins pushed hard for a free agent year or two. Dozier didn't bite. (From the team's perspective, if there are no free agent years included - whether it's an option or a straight year - that's a deal-breaker.)

I don't even like myself for thinking Suzuki is 10th most-likely to sign a new contract. But I still have the pukey taste in my mouth from the first extension I didn't like. I view it - from the Twins perspective - that if things go bad behind the plate and Suzuki somehow reaches the plate appearances to vest... I'd pay him money now to not have that option. As far as Dozier goes, I think he'll be the second baseman for the forseeable future. I'm starting to wonder if Polanco gets more time at third this year - the Twins talked about doing it last year according to one of Phil Miller's blurbs in BA - and is the third baseman of the future. I also really like the idea of him being the Twins version of Josh Harrison (or Ben Zobrist).

I’ve always been a fan of extensions. Well, baseball extensions anyway. My wife came home with hair extensions once because they were a “good deal” and I wasn’t a big fan of that. But that’s besides the point. As far as baseball extensions go, even “good deals” sometimes aren’t good deals. And sometimes bad-looking deals turn into great deals (but usually not). The reality is that’s impossible to tell until later. Sometimes a little later. Sometimes a lot later. The best part - for me anyway - is that once an extension is signed it’s thrown into a group of contracts that can be examined in a number of different ways - from years of free agency bought out to team options to buyouts to looking specifically at the details of those with similar service time and position.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. Click here to view the article