Thread: Is this the offseason to extend Revere?

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

I'd be really curious to see if someone could find Hicks' batting splits from different parts of the order. It really seemed to me that he struggled early in the season batting leadoff and strived when he was finally moved down in the order, the further the better.

Ok, so I guess there's another thing to consider: Is Revere only a 4th outfielder? Is Hicks a future leadoff hitter?

Um, I believe it was the opposite. I think they finally moved him to leadoff with Herrmann second and Arcia third after Arcia's promotion. I believe New Britain moved Hicks around 3-5 up until then and he was ok, but much better batting leadoff.

That very well may be true... like I said, I couldn't find splits and didn't feel like going through every boxscore. I know he bounced around the lineup in New Britain. He definitely batted leadoff for the Snappers the two years I watched him play in Beloit.

Remember, Revere hasn't actually stayed with the Twins for an entire 162 game season yet. He has areas to improve on for sure, but he was 3rd in SB, 10th in Triples, 6th in singles in the AL. I fully expect that his walk rate will improve, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him in contention for a Gold Glove and leading the league in SB next season.

If we extend him now, we take the chance that he won't pan out. BUT, we won't be taking that big a risk. With his limited big league experience, they should be able to extend him for pretty cheap, cheaper than what it will cost next off-season

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

I don't really like comparing anyone to anyone but I used Bourn as an example just to point out the potential undervalue taking place with Ben by some.

Yes, but then you need to find someone actually comparable. Bourn was 75-100 points higher in OPS, that is not insignificant. Revere is barely a poor-mans Bourn so it's not that people are undervaluing him they are just being honest about his production at this point. Revere could get better, but it's hard to believe it's considerably better when you take into account what he does well and what he doesn't.

The logic I'm hearing is "well what if he becomes a better player - then we'll have to pay him! Better pay him now before he's a good player!" Please take that logic and apply it to Parmalee. Or Hendricks. How about Valencia after his rookie year? It sounds really good on paper but there is a reason why no team in the league operates like that. We shouldn't buck that trend on Revere.

I'm comparing skill sets and I believe they are comparable skill set wise... But I don't like comparing players directly because its nearly impossible to compare players like its hard to compare snowflakes.

If OPS is your main point.

Ben Revere OPS .619 in first full year at age 23
Michael Bourn OPS .588 in his first full year at age 25

But again... Bourn has the benefit of time to become what he has become.

And again... I do not think we should extend Ben at this time. But I would like to say that "Extend Ben" Rhymes.

I know you don't hate Ben... We just disagree on his value. That probably won't change unless Revere actually changes it with frying pans over either of our heads.

I have no idea whether the Twins should lockup Revere to a long term contract. What I like about Revere is that he is a natural hitter. Some players, Span is a good example, have to learn how to hit in the minors. Revere has always been able to hit. I don't think he will ever be a 4th outfielder. I do think he could contend for batting titles. I also think that he can refine his hitting stroke to the point where he develops a bit more gap power. It is hard to play a guy with that kind of speed too shallow, if the ball gets past you it is a triple or a home run.

Revere has things to learn, but he was also brought up to the majors a year too early. A little more plate discipline, learn how to bunt a little better, a little more consistency with the swing. I expect some pretty good years from Revere as long as he is healthy.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

I'm comparing skill sets and I believe they are comparable skill set wise....

That's fine, but until we see results like Bourn, we shouldn't pay Revere. I'm not saying he can't reach that level, there is just zero logic in paying him based on the chance that he might be that level of player. Let's at least see which Revere is the real one first: pre-August or August and on before we talk about guaranteeing millions of dollars to him.

Originally Posted by spideyo

Remember, Revere hasn't actually stayed with the Twins for an entire 162 game season yet. He has areas to improve on for sure, but he was 3rd in SB, 10th in Triples, 6th in singles in the AL. I fully expect that his walk rate will improve, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him in contention for a Gold Glove and leading the league in SB next season.

If we extend him now, we take the chance that he won't pan out. BUT, we won't be taking that big a risk. With his limited big league experience, they should be able to extend him for pretty cheap, cheaper than what it will cost next off-season

Why will his walk rate improve? It was never very good in the minors. He might draw an extra walk or two but there's no reason to think it will ever be significant.

And how is extending him not taking a big risk? Was Nick Blackburn not a risk? Are the Twins so flush with cash that they didn't need the $5m paid to Nick in 2012? Seems to me that the $11m wasted on Blackburn in 2012/13 could have been used to pay someone who wouldn't help the team to consecutive "worst pitching staff in the AL" awards.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by spideyo

Remember, Revere hasn't actually stayed with the Twins for an entire 162 game season yet. He has areas to improve on for sure, but he was 3rd in SB, 10th in Triples, 6th in singles in the AL. I fully expect that his walk rate will improve, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him in contention for a Gold Glove and leading the league in SB next season.

If we extend him now, we take the chance that he won't pan out. BUT, we won't be taking that big a risk. With his limited big league experience, they should be able to extend him for pretty cheap, cheaper than what it will cost next off-season

Why will his walk rate improve? It was never very good in the minors. He might draw an extra walk or two but there's no reason to think it will ever be significant.

And how is extending him not taking a big risk? Was Nick Blackburn not a risk? Are the Twins so flush with cash that they didn't need the $5m paid to Nick in 2012? Seems to me that the $11m wasted on Blackburn in 2012/13 could have been used to pay someone who wouldn't help the team to consecutive "worst pitching staff in the AL" awards.

I can only offer my theory with no proof.

A. He's a free swinger and he was a superstar in High School in Kentucky. The Twins Would not have reached for him in the first round if he wasn't knocking the ball around the park and out while flying around the bases. He hit 28 dingers in High School. I don't believe the Twins Scouts, Cross Checkers, Directors and GM said... Lets reach for this guy with no arm and no power. He would have been available much later with no arm and no power. He was most likely showing something else in High School.

And A High School Coach is not going to want him to stop swinging when he's your superstar and he's knocking the ball around the park.

B. he's still Young... Breaking Habits are hard and he still hasn't failed yet as a free swinger.

C. The Wood Bat... Ben isn't a power hitter no matter how many times he cleared the fence in high school. Since the Dawn of baseball... Coaches consistently take kids with the kinda of speed that Ben and the power that Ben has to use their legs. Ben has taken to that pretty good... Maybe too much.

D. He's the son of a coach... Football coach but a coach none the less. I think it's quite possible that Ben will spend the Winter with Plate discipline as a goal of improvement. Span is gone now... Ben knows that makes him Mr Lead Off candidate. I'm sure he knows what that means and I'm sure his coaches are saying the same thing and Im sure his dad understands it as well.

E. You may be right... He may be the same type of guy who doesn't draw enough free passes 4 years from now. I still think its very possible that he gets better with experience.

Oh yeah"" one more...

F... He's really short... Think Eddie Guedel.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

I'm comparing skill sets and I believe they are comparable skill set wise... But I don't like comparing players directly because its nearly impossible to compare players like its hard to compare snowflakes.

If OPS is your main point.

Ben Revere OPS .619 in first full year at age 23
Michael Bourn OPS .588 in his first full year at age 25

But again... Bourn has the benefit of time to become what he has become.

And again... I do not think we should extend Ben at this time. But I would like to say that "Extend Ben" Rhymes.

I know you don't hate Ben... We just disagree on his value. That probably won't change unless Revere actually changes it with frying pans over either of our heads.

Yeah, I definitely see your point on this.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by jokin

I'm in total agreement.
The only ones who don't concur are the vast sea of TD keyboard GMs who think they know better.

Or Billy Beane. Or Andrew Frieman. But hey, they're just keyboard GMs.

I assume you assume they would always, without fail, strictly take the sabremetric argument to determine player value, and I concur it has merit, especially in a small market team with little leeway for making a personnel error. There is also the fans-in-the-seats and more Neilsen rating points for FSN argument, too. Plus you have an an extremely athletic guy at 23 who clearly has a potential for a significantly higher ceiling.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Michael Bourn hit 9 home runs last year. Before that his previous high was 5 and typically he hit 2 a year.

Ben Revere had 553 at bats last year at age 24. Michael Bourn had 127 career total at age 24 and the Phillies were able to acquire their closer by trading Michael Bourn for Brad Lidge after that season.

Bourn hit .229 his first full year in the Majors with the Astros. At age 25 which is really two years behind Ben who got MLB at bats at age 23.

Bourn is now set to sign for 75 million at age 29.

I acknowledge that there are negative comps as well but am not motivated to find them.

I do not believe that Revere should be extended at this time but I continue to be amazed by the under valuing of Ben... And from Twins fans to boot.

I'm not amazed, there are those who follow a certain baseball bible and anyone who's a slightly rounded peg who doesn't fit neatly in their square holes necessarily means he's garbage.

Regarding Bourn's salary demands, supposedly the Cubs are interested and Boras has started the negotiations at not, $75M, but $100M. That the Twins can get a Bourn-lite- who is already producing much better numbers at the same age as Bourn and who isn't all that far from Bourn's best numbers 6 years out and in his prime- at less than $.5M is a payroll godsend for a team that has so many other holes.

Originally Posted by jokin

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by jokin

I'm in total agreement.
The only ones who don't concur are the vast sea of TD keyboard GMs who think they know better.

Or Billy Beane. Or Andrew Frieman. But hey, they're just keyboard GMs.

I assume you assume they would always, without fail, strictly take the sabremetric argument to determine player value, and I concur it has merit, especially in a small market team with little leeway for making a personnel error. There is also the fans-in-the-seats and more Neilsen rating points for FSN argument, too. Plus you have an an extremely athletic guy at 23 who clearly has a potential for a significantly higher ceiling.

No, I'm saying that they use a surplus to their advantage by trading it off, they don't sit on that surplus and wait for it to lose value.

As for Revere, I keep hearing "expected improvement", "significantly higher ceiling", etc. etc. What are all of you basing this on? The fact that he hasn't posted an OPS higher than .741 since low A? That he hasn't been a plus hitter since Beloit? Brian freakin' Dozier dominated AA for almost an entire season. Revere couldn't even do that. Beyond trying to snatch hope and dreams from the skies, what is the basis for this faith in Revere? Because his on-field performance has said very different things for 4+ years now. Revere may be an acceptable centerfielder. I'm not saying there's no hope for him as a player. My argument is that there is no evidence to support that he will be a plus player. He has no power. He has no patience at the plate. He hasn't been a good hitter at any level since 2009. Every skill he has as a baseball player is based around the fact that he can run really, really fast.

And baseball is historically unkind to those types of players. This isn't sabermetrics. This is observation through 100+ years of the sport. Guys who have one tool tend to fall on their faces, especially if that power is speed.

As for Bourn, his upcoming contract is irrelevant. We should be laughing at whoever Boras hoses into paying that guy big money going into his 30s, just as many of us laughed at Seattle when they did the same for Figgins. How'd that work out for the Mariners? What makes anyone think Bourn is going to hold up as he ages? He's the exact kind of player that doesn't hold up as he hits his 30s. Just because some teams are willing to throw bad money around doesn't mean the Twins should follow suit, particularly when all the cards are in their favor (ie. they have five more years of control of Revere).

This is Baseball 101 and pure common sense, folks.

Originally Posted by jokin

Originally Posted by willihammer

Originally Posted by brock beauchamp

the twins have two outfielders in aa who tore the cover off the ball last season. Both are younger than revere and better hitters. That's a surplus.

Why extend revere when he's not even arb eligible yet and you have two superior players in the minors? It's an unnecessary risk.

the rangers are at this moment trying to nab andrelton simmons from the braves in order to flip him for j upton. They already have andrus and profar. a surplus is a terrific problem to have when everyone is cheap, any manager or gm will say as much. Because whatever internal logjam might occur, it says nothing about their tradeability or the supply of outfielders in other organizations

i'm in total agreement.
The only ones who don't concur are the vast sea of td keyboard gms who think they know better.

I travel quite a bit, who do you think is one of the most likely players brought up in conversation by the typical casual fan when the subject of the twins comes up? Simply put, there's two kinds of value that a player can bring to the table, that which wins games (by the numbers) and that which puts fans in the seats and in front of the tube ( by the sizzle). Revere's clearly better at the latter, but that ain't all bad.

derrrrrppppppppppppppppp

The day Revere proves he can hit for even a .700 OPS (Which is still on the "way below average end of the spectrum for OF's) then maybe we can think about having this conversation. Until then, he is nothing more then a 4th OF, or a stop gap CF on a 90 loss type team.

Anyone who argues otherwise on the basis of "He is exciting!!" or whatever doesn't have the faintest idea of how baseball works and understands statistics at a 1st grade level. Not trying to be harsh, but it's the truth.

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

The day Revere proves he can hit for even a .700 OPS (Which is still on the "way below average end of the spectrum for OF's) then maybe we can think about having this conversation. Until then, he is nothing more then a 4th OF, or a stop gap CF on a 90 loss type team.

Anyone who argues otherwise on the basis of "He is exciting!!" or whatever doesn't have the faintest idea of how baseball works and understands statistics at a 1st grade level. Not trying to be harsh, but it's the truth.

I'm going to try and ignore that one. Cuz There are more important things in life.

Carry on

Is it fair to say that Ben Revere's natural progression equivalent is Juan Pierre? They seem like similar players.

I think the real answer to the question is: how difficult is it to replace a Ben Revere? He's a small, fast guy, with no power, and a weak arm. It seems to me that men in his demographic are plentiful in the baseball world. Quite likely each team draft 2-3 every year--true, very few are worthy of the ML level, but they are there someplace. The type of player to "lock-up" is the guy who is extremely difficult to replace--the truly elite player. The man whose skill set is way above the major league standard--all-star level, not just above average. The Twins made mistake with contracts on just that basis. It's easy to denigrate Blackburn, but let's assume his career was repeats of '08 and '09 rather than the disasters of '11 and '12. His salary for that level of performance would be reasonable, but also attainable on the open market at about the same price. Thus, even if Blackburn had "stayed the pitcher he was" , it was pointlessly risky to "lock him up" for fear he would "get too expensive". His '08 and '09 seasons were not awesome, merely competent. I don't believe that Revere should ever be extended a multi-year contract by the Twins--there are just too many other "ben revere's" in the baseball world to ensure that the Twins keep this Ben Revere.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

Is it fair to say that Ben Revere's natural progression equivalent is Juan Pierre? They seem like similar players.

I think Pierre is close to Revere's ceiling. But yeah, not a bad comp at all.

Originally Posted by Kwak

I think the real answer to the question is: how difficult is it to replace a Ben Revere? He's a small, fast guy, with no power, and a weak arm. It seems to me that men in his demographic are plentiful in the baseball world. Quite likely each team draft 2-3 every year--true, very few are worthy of the ML level, but they are there someplace. The type of player to "lock-up" is the guy who is extremely difficult to replace--the truly elite player. The man whose skill set is way above the major league standard--all-star level, not just above average. The Twins made mistake with contracts on just that basis. It's easy to denigrate Blackburn, but let's assume his career was repeats of '08 and '09 rather than the disasters of '11 and '12. His salary for that level of performance would be reasonable, but also attainable on the open market at about the same price. Thus, even if Blackburn had "stayed the pitcher he was" , it was pointlessly risky to "lock him up" for fear he would "get too expensive". His '08 and '09 seasons were not awesome, merely competent. I don't believe that Revere should ever be extended a multi-year contract by the Twins--there are just too many other "ben revere's" in the baseball world to ensure that the Twins keep this Ben Revere.

Exactly. There is a reason why teams aren't going around giving Juan Pierre multi year deals.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

Is it fair to say that Ben Revere's natural progression equivalent is Juan Pierre? They seem like similar players.

I think Pierre is close to Revere's ceiling. But yeah, not a bad comp at all.

Revere and Pierre entered the League at approximately the same age. Pierre made $3.7M, $5.8M and $7.5M ($17M) in years 6, 7, 8 of his career (ages 28,29,30).

While Pierre ultimately topped out at $ 10M, Michael Bourn is about to get between 5/$85 and 6/$100 on the open market. If Revere got locked up for an additional 3 years past/during arb (ala Span) for $15-$17M (which Bourn will possibly make in 2013 alone), that's a pretty good risk/reward ratio.