Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: Article: Glen Perkins Signs Extension With Twins

  1. #1
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,014
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts

    Twins extend Perkins!

    Great move!

    The Twins announced that they have signed All-Star closer Glen Perkins to a new, four-year contract extension that runs through the 2017 season. MLB.com's Rhett Bollinger tweets the annual breakdown: Perkins will earn $4.025MM in 2014, $4.65MM in 2015, $6.3MM in 2016 and $6.5MM in 2017. The contract contains a club option for the 2018 campaign that is also worth $6.5MM. All told, Perkins is guaranteed $21.475MM, though it's not clear what sort of buyout is attached to the 2018 option, which would increase the guarantee.

    Perkins' extension overwrites his previous deal -- a three-year, $10.3MM extension signed prior to the 2012 campaign that included a $4.5MM option for 2016. Under his old contract, the Minnesota native and Relativity Baseball client was set to earn $3.75MM this coming season. By restructuring and extending Perkins' contract, the Twins have added an additional two years of team control. Darren Wolfson of 1500 ESPN reports (via Twitter) that Perkins approached the Twins about working out a new deal and received some trade protection in the extension, essentially signaling to his hometown club that he wants to retire as a Twin.
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald


  2. #2
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,165
    Like
    103
    Liked 278 Times in 201 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Very reasonable for a very good closer. I never could understand the $10-$15M a year guy that throws 60 innings. I like this deal though.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    197
    Like
    2
    Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    received some trade protection in the extension
    Interested to hear the details on this. As much as I like Perkins, I can't say I'd be happy if there is a no trade clause.

    Otherwise, seems like a good deal to me.

  4. #4
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,014
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tobi0040 View Post
    Very reasonable for a very good closer. I never could understand the $10-$15M a year guy that throws 60 innings. I like this deal though.
    Yup!

    This ends up being such a great deal because the Twins had to foresight to extend him early on a few years ago. If they wouldn't have done that he would have been a year away from FA I believe? Where he easily could have gotten 30+ mil on the open market.
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald


  5. #5
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    25
    Like
    40
    Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Awesome news. Should make sure he's a Twin for life. Love that he initiated the talks.

    I am a little frustrated with the FO though. Is this not a perfect chance to do exactly what some of us have been calling for them to do and frontload the deal? Give him the 12.5 million this year, and then you've only got to pay 3 mil per year the rest of the way. Oh well, maybe that makes him harder to trade so it means they'll keep him the entire contract.

  6. #6
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,014
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by S. View Post
    I can't say I'd be happy if there is a no trade clause.
    Why?
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald


  7. #7
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,014
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
    Awesome news. Should make sure he's a Twin for life. Love that he initiated the talks.

    I am a little frustrated with the FO though. Is this not a perfect chance to do exactly what some of us have been calling for them to do and frontload the deal? Give him the 12.5 million this year, and then you've only got to pay 3 mil per year the rest of the way. Oh well, maybe that makes him harder to trade so it means they'll keep him the entire contract.
    Teams don't front load contracts like that, and it would make no sense for the Twins to do so, it would set a really bad precedent.
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald


  8. #8
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,136
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Good for Perkins, good for the Twins. Glen gets some assurance that he'll remain a Twin, the organization gets a damned good closer for a great price.

  9. #9
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    25
    Like
    40
    Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    Teams don't front load contracts like that, and it would make no sense for the Twins to do so, it would set a really bad precedent.
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    197
    Like
    2
    Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
    I dont disagree with that assessment, but how does a no trade clause possibly help us? Whereas not having it certainly could help us if a contender is desperate for a cost controlled, elite closer at the trade deadline or All Star Break or whenever and is willing to overpay.

    Edit: in response to Dave

  11. #11
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,359
    Like
    1,315
    Liked 1,296 Times in 750 Posts

  12. #12
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,359
    Like
    1,315
    Liked 1,296 Times in 750 Posts
    Sounds pretty reasonable given the details available. It's clear that he and Mauer WANT to stay at home. Now the job is to get some talent around them before they are too far on the downward slide ... and yes, the Twins made a start but that's all it is. Pressure is on for prospects to mature and FA's to do their part.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    197
    Like
    2
    Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
    Well, my point is moot if the 3-team no trade clause part is correct. Like I said, I needed some more details, but if thats the case I have nothing even remotely bad to say about this.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
    I am a little frustrated with the FO though. Is this not a perfect chance to do exactly what some of us have been calling for them to do and frontload the deal? Give him the 12.5 million this year, and then you've only got to pay 3 mil per year the rest of the way. Oh well, maybe that makes him harder to trade so it means they'll keep him the entire contract.
    This kind of logic results from looking at the team payroll for each individual year in a vacuum. Front-loading contracts doesn't make financial sense for the team because of the time value of money. Even if you have cash up front, it always makes sense to pay for something later and invest the cash now.

    For example, here's some mental accounting TR and the Pohlad's could do: Set aside an extra $8.475M this year in a "Perkins contract fund" (to bring this year's "salary" up to $12M) and count it as part of this year's payroll. Then in future years pay Perkins out of this "fund" and don't count it against that future year's payroll. It has the same effect as front-loading the contract but they earn investment income in the mean-time.

    I'm sure they don't do anything exactly like this, but I imagine they actually do things much more sophisticated in an attempt to maximize both the financial value and competitive "value" of the team over the long term.

  15. #15
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,359
    Like
    1,315
    Liked 1,296 Times in 750 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sssuperdave View Post
    I'm sure they don't do anything exactly like this, but I imagine they actually do things much more sophisticated in an attempt to maximize both the financial value and competitive "value" of the team over the long term.
    I wish I shared your confidence.

  16. #16
    Twins Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    3,669
    Like
    945
    Liked 1,310 Times in 706 Posts
    Big thumbs up, it's a great deal for the team and I'm a big Glen Perkins fan. It will be great if he retires only wearing Twins colours.

  17. #17
    Does everyone here realize that Perkins was already under team control through 2016? Am I missing something? Why in the world would the team do this? Closers have short shelf life's, Perkins will be what, 35 in 2017? Why not wait 2 or 3 years and see if he is worth an extension. This is a head scratcher to say the least

  18. #18
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    25
    Like
    40
    Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    It's certainly true from the Polhad's point of view, paying tomorrow is better than paying today. I completely get that logic. But I don't care if the Polhads are getting the best deal they can get. I care about the Twins being the best team they can be, and from what they've said in the past about the 52% rule, the best thing for the Twins is to pay the money up front when they have it so they can use the revenue from next year on signing more guys. And Perkins would probably actually agree to less overall money if the deal was frontloaded.

    If there was any indication that they were putting aside money like you suggest, then I'd be all for that. But I'm with JB_Iowa, I have no faith they're doing that, in fact I believe they've said the opposite, that each year's revenue is treated as if it was in a vacuum (if I'm wrong someone please correct me, it would make me exceedingly happy to hear that I am wrong). So I wish TR would take that into account. But he doesn't. In a related note, the Polhad's will let TR run the team for however long he wants to. He has absolute job security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sssuperdave View Post
    This kind of logic results from looking at the team payroll for each individual year in a vacuum. Front-loading contracts doesn't make financial sense for the team because of the time value of money. Even if you have cash up front, it always makes sense to pay for something later and invest the cash now.

    For example, here's some mental accounting TR and the Pohlad's could do: Set aside an extra $8.475M this year in a "Perkins contract fund" (to bring this year's "salary" up to $12M) and count it as part of this year's payroll. Then in future years pay Perkins out of this "fund" and don't count it against that future year's payroll. It has the same effect as front-loading the contract but they earn investment income in the mean-time.

    I'm sure they don't do anything exactly like this, but I imagine they actually do things much more sophisticated in an attempt to maximize both the financial value and competitive "value" of the team over the long term.

  19. #19
    Twins Moderator All-Star ChiTownTwinsFan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,833
    Twitter
    @Sheradoodles
    Like
    1,428
    Liked 1,943 Times in 1,138 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sandbun View Post
    It's certainly true from the Polhad's point of view, paying tomorrow is better than paying today. I completely get that logic. But I don't care if the Polhads are getting the best deal they can get. I care about the Twins being the best team they can be, and from what they've said in the past about the 52% rule, the best thing for the Twins is to pay the money up front when they have it so they can use the revenue from next year on signing more guys. And Perkins would probably actually agree to less overall money if the deal was frontloaded.

    If there was any indication that they were putting aside money like you suggest, then I'd be all for that. But I'm with JB_Iowa, I have no faith they're doing that, in fact I believe they've said the opposite, that each year's revenue is treated as if it was in a vacuum (if I'm wrong someone please correct me, it would make me exceedingly happy to hear that I am wrong). So I wish TR would take that into account. But he doesn't. In a related note, the Polhad's will let TR run the team for however long he wants to. He has absolute job security.
    This is an early moderator warning to keep on topic about Perkins' contract. This is not a spending/payroll thread.

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

    ashburyjohn (03-14-2014)

  21. #20
    Twins Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    3,669
    Like
    945
    Liked 1,310 Times in 706 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by alarp33 View Post
    Does everyone here realize that Perkins was already under team control through 2016? Am I missing something? Why in the world would the team do this? Closers have short shelf life's, Perkins will be what, 35 in 2017? Why not wait 2 or 3 years and see if he is worth an extension. This is a head scratcher to say the least
    He was under team control through 2015 with a team option for 2016. Not every closer has a short shelf life and Perkins has been very durable. The Twins get an all-star closer for an extra two years, during which part of they might be competitive team, for a reasonable price. It also makes it easier for them to turn down his option in 2018 as opposed to 2016.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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.