Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85

Thread: Article: Glen Perkins Signs Extension With Twins

  1. #41
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    960
    Like
    43
    Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
    Excellent move for the Twins. Local guy, effective in his job, and now signed cheap into the point where his 40 saves don't constitute 70% of the team's wins in a season.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  2. #42
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,178
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    36
    Liked 446 Times in 273 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    was not gonna do that, but what the hey... That's what Glen Perkins is thinking about that extension (from yesterday) :


  3. #43
    As a twins fan........ .... No
    As a Minnesota fan.... Yes

  4. #44
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,397
    Like
    420
    Liked 823 Times in 517 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DJL44 View Post
    They paid 2014 market value for 2017 and get an under-market option for 2018. 2017 market value will almost certainly be higher.

    Perkins is a very effective LH reliever. He might pitch until he's 40 like Dan Plesac and Darren Oliver. Eddie Guardado was effective until age 35.
    I'd still argue it's cheap. 6M for an elite closer is a bargain.

  5. #45
    For those upset about the no trade issue, consider the 10/5 rule regarding trading veterans. A ten year veteran, the last five with the same team, has the right to refuse a trade. This is similar to the trade language that was worked into the Mauer deal. Perkins needs 2(?) more years to reach the 10/5 plateau.

    Edit: After looking at the Twins Daily roster/payroll page, 2017 would be Perkins' 10th season. It effectively makes his option year a non trade season.
    Last edited by DuluthFan; 03-14-2014 at 05:33 PM. Reason: additional info

  6. This user likes DuluthFan's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    SpiritofVodkaDave (03-14-2014)

  7. #46
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    292
    Like
    4
    Liked 45 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    The contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8M of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5M.

    Here are possible scenarios:
    1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
    2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
    3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


    Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

    Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

    Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.

  8. #47
    Personally, I love it. As a fan of Minnesota athletes, it eases the disappointment of Decker signing with a New York team.

  9. #48
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,014
    Like
    104
    Liked 393 Times in 207 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
    Here are possible scenarios:
    1. He suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14M+ that you didn't need to.
    2. He declines through age and injury then you have given him $10M more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
    3. He continues to be very good and you've paid him $16M+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


    Only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an AAV of $8M+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8M this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

    Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16M extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16M to sign another elite FA reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

    Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.
    1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"
    2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.
    3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

    Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:
    1. Talented
    2. Loyal
    3. Team player
    4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)

    Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald


  10. This user likes SpiritofVodkaDave's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    JB_Iowa (03-14-2014)

  11. #49
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    445
    Like
    1
    Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
    Teams don't do x until suddenly one does, gains a competitive advantage, and then the rest of the teams play catch up. Besides, I'm not sure that one home town guy wanting to make sure he plays his entire career for his favorite team and willing to take less money than he'd probably get if he was to play out his contract to make sure it happens sets a huge precedent.
    The CBA prevents teams from doing this. A player's salary can only decrease 20% from one year to the next.

  12. #50
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    292
    Like
    4
    Liked 45 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    1. He has no real injury history. By this logic, signing any pitcher to a team friendly deal is a "risk"
    2. As I pointed out earlier, 34 isn't that old for baseball players, it especially isn't old for relief pitchers.
    3. Exactly. If a 40+ year old Joe Nathan can net $20 million in a contract now....how much do you think a still relatively young (32 I think) closer could net a few years down the road? $16 million has a really, really, really, really good chance to look like an absolute steal. Especially considering all the new TV deals revenue, and the extreme inflation that goes on year over year in baseball salaries. If Perkins continues to do what he has done as a RP they absolutely wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that production from 8 mil a year.

    1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.
    2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.
    3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.

    Bonus: This signals to other players in the org that if you are:
    1. Talented
    2. Loyal
    3. Team player
    4.The Twins will reward you before they "need" too. (A good message to the youngsters)
    I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.

    Wild card: Perkins has actually only been a RP for 3 years and a closer for 2 years. He has been improving overall during those three years (especially in the k/bb dept) why can't he continue to improve at this point? Additionally, look how much the Braves gave Kimbrel (a guy they had control on for quite some time!)
    Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

    At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.

  13. #51
    Senior Member All-Star Bark's Lounge's Avatar
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    314
    Liked 508 Times in 199 Posts
    Blog Entries
    34
    This is a win win for the Twins and Perkins. Fair price for a Top notch relief pitcher, who is by no means past his prime.

    I am happy for Glen. He is living the dream. Playing Major League baseball in the metropolitan area he grew up in, playing for the team he grew up cheering for, and getting paid well to do so.

    As a fan of the Twins, I appreciate his loyalty and his ambition to initiate this extension.

  14. These 3 users like Bark's Lounge's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    ashburyjohn (03-14-2014), benchwarmerjim (03-15-2014), Twins Fan From Afar (03-14-2014)

  15. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by jp3700 View Post
    the contract is fair if you just look at the overall figures. It actually is a steal. But you have to factor in that they had two years of control left with about $8m of guaranteed money and an option at $4.5m.

    Here are possible scenarios:
    1. he suffers a catastrophic injury or completely falls off then you just guaranteed him $14m+ that you didn't need to.
    2. he declines through age and injury then you have given him $10m more for one additional season of control and will likely decline the 2018 option for his age 35 season.
    3. he continues to be very good and you've paid him $16m+ for the two additional seasons of control you've locked up.


    only 13 relievers have ever signed a multi-year contract with an aav of $8m+ and only 6 relievers will make over $8m this year. So it's not like those two additional years are at a discount even if best case scenario happens.

    Why not just play out the contract and if scenario 3 happens, you can then talk extension in 2016 once you've picked up his option. A 2 year, $16m extension, which is what they've essentially given him, would be fair. If not then you have $16m to sign another elite fa reliever or if one of your other relievers can step in to that role then you can spend that money to plug another hole on the roster.

    Just seemed unnecessary to me. All risk, with little reward.
    amen

  16. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
    1. He just had knee surgery this off-season. He also plays baseball, a sport where injuries often happen, especially as you age. The team friendly deal was already in place. They just added $10M for 1 year or $16M for two years.
    2. Just cause a few players beat the odds doesn't make it less likely for a player to decline as they age.
    3. Nathan has been elite for a decade and is coming off of a 1.39 ERA while showing no signs of decline. He was also a free agent. The Twins had control over Perkins for the next three years to talk extension.



    I'm fine with this. I hope the Twins extend a lot of their young, core players when the time comes. I just felt this was unnecessary from the team's point of view.



    Kimbrel filed for $9M in arbitration. If he won his case he would have made close to $40M in his three years of arbitration if he continued to perform like he has. He signed for $42M for four years with a club option. So his contract was very club friendly.

    At the end of the day, even if it was unnecessary from the Twins point of view, the deal is fine. It won't make or break the organization. I like Perkins, I'm glad he's a Twin and I'm happy for him. I hope he continues to be an excellent reliever.
    Exactly. You seem to be the only person here who has grasped that this was completely unnecessary. Explore it after 2014 or 2015 if both parties want too. It's not going to be a killer contract even if he does fall off a cliff, but so so unnecessary

  17. #54
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,685
    Like
    3
    Liked 336 Times in 213 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetOne69 View Post
    The CBA prevents teams from doing this. A player's salary can only decrease 20% from one year to the next.
    This is not exactly true. The 20% rule only applies to arbitration. Extensions and free agents can agree to whatever salaries they want.

  18. #55
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    424
    Like
    71
    Liked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by alarp33 View Post
    Exactly. You seem to be the only person here who has grasped that this was completely unnecessary. Explore it after 2014 or 2015 if both parties want too. It's not going to be a killer contract even if he does fall off a cliff, but so so unnecessary
    I think that is why you have to look beyond the numbers for this to make sense. He worked with the Twins on his initial contract and gave them a favorable salary because he wanted to be here. He is an All Star closer and makes less than half what several premier closer's make. The Twins needed to do something to bring his monetary value more in line with his value to the team and the market.

    This is more about mutual respect than a cold hard deal about team control. I applaud the Twins for being human beings and fair about this rather than just cold hard business. It is far too rare that we see organizations do the right thing. That is why this deal makes sense IMO.

  19. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dman View Post
    I think that is why you have to look beyond the numbers for this to make sense. He worked with the Twins on his initial contract and gave them a favorable salary because he wanted to be here. He is an All Star closer and makes less than half what several premier closer's make. The Twins needed to do something to bring his monetary value more in line with his value to the team and the market.

    This is more about mutual respect than a cold hard deal about team control. I applaud the Twins for being human beings and fair about this rather than just cold hard business. It is far too rare that we see organizations do the right thing. That is why this deal makes sense IMO.
    Why exactly did they need to bring his monetary value closer to his market value? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but where exactly would you draw the line? Hughes is making around $8million a year, if he wins Cy Young this year would you propose ripping up the final 2 years of deal and giving him 5 years for $110 million? If Perkins would have lost the closer job last year due to performance, it would only be fair that he reduce the remaining years of his deal?

    Signing a player to a longer term deal involves risk from both sides, the player is risking that they could out perform the deal and undervalue themselves, the team is risking guaranteed money for a player that could get hurt or underperform.

    Perkins and the Twins knew of these risks in 2012 when they agreed to contract. That extension looked pretty good in hindsight for the Twins, sometimes the extensions don't work out as well (Blackburn).

  20. #57
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,994
    Like
    4
    Liked 124 Times in 90 Posts
    Blog Entries
    67
    This is a pretty cheap deal for a guy who in the post Mariano and soon post Nathan era, might be a top five closer. I really commend the Twins and Perkins for doing this. It also serves to give structure to the bullpen . . . not all of these potential fireballers coming up provide some very deep setup capability for 2015 and beyond.

  21. #58
    Twins Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    3,668
    Like
    944
    Liked 1,310 Times in 706 Posts
    Hughes is making around $8million a year, if he wins Cy Young this year would you propose ripping up the final 2 years of deal and giving him 5 years for $110 million?
    No, but if he won the CY Young I would certainly be thinking about extending him. The difference being Perkins has proven he can do it for years, for Hughes that would be an anomaly.

    If Perkins would have lost the closer job last year due to performance, it would only be fair that he reduce the remaining years of his deal?
    No, the last deal Perkins signed was mainly as a set up guy with some contingency pay if he became the closer. If he lost the closer job it still would have been pretty fair to both sides.

    Signing a player to a longer term deal involves risk from both sides, the player is risking that they could out perform the deal and undervalue themselves, the team is risking guaranteed money for a player that could get hurt or underperform.
    What's your point here? Never sign a long term deal in any circumstances on either side of the equation? This is nothing more than the inherent risk of doing business, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and just as often it works out both ways. In this case it's a pretty good educated guess for the Twins that it works in their favor.

    All the Twins have really done is lock up a player they feel will continue to have value for them for an additional two years at a pretty decent price in the long term. If he doesn't stay healthy or under performs that's the price of doing business. If he continues on his present trajectory they secured him for an additional two years for far cheaper than they would have in his contract year.

  22. #59
    This is such a good thing for TwinsTerritory that it is not even funny. Having another hometown guy to be a face of the franchise is great. Perk is such a kind guy to all the media and fans and is proving his worth over the last few years. I don't even care about the money, I feel having an elite closer is more important than most think and having one until '17 with Glen's status is simply great. Also I love how they didn't do this in a year or two, this shows that respect and love the organization shares with him. Great move for both parties.

  23. #60
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,298
    Like
    36
    Liked 137 Times in 83 Posts
    With the amount of unspent money the Twins have this should be considered a non-issue. And it's not even a lot of money. Yes, they could have brought in a Jamey Carroll type veteran for this kind of money but this sends a nice message to players (Twins and potential FA's) that the FO will take care of you.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.