Hunter's Future
This topic comes up repeatedly in comment threads everywhere, not just on this site. What are the options?
There are so many things to take into account when discussing a player's future with his current club. Ability of the player, statistical performance, age, roster space and possible replacements are just a few of the categories to cover. With guys like Torii the discussion becomes more personal, because he's been around for a few years, and while the faces of the organization continue to change, he remains a constant. Whether we want to or not, we become attached to the athletes who perform for our chosen teams. The question is whether or not, when the times comes, you can distance yourself from your personal feelings and make a decision for the future of the organization.
Contract Status
In 2006 Torii Hunter will make $10,750,000. 2007 is an option year in which he is scheduled to make $12,000,000 with a $2,000,000 buyout.
There's no doubt that Torii is extremely valuable to the Twins organization. What fans question is whether or not he's valuable enough to consume roughly 1/6 of the team salary this year. Even as the payroll increases to over $60 million dollars, it's hard to justify anyone consuming that much of the budget. It will become increasingly difficult to justify if we need to deal with the possibility of Torii's new...
Health Concerns
Torii Hunter ended 2005 dying on the sword he lived by. As he scaled the outfield wall in an attempt to chase down a home run, his cleats stuck in the lining of the padding, and the Twins' fate was sealed.
Sustaining the first major injury of his major league career, all eyes will be on the ankle of the high-flying center fielder. Only 30 heading into 2006, if the ankle is healthy there's no reason he can't resume his career where it left off. If it inhibits his burst or running speed, or even if he subconsciously attempts to protect the ankle, he'll have to adapt his game accordingly.
Statistical Performance
Year Age Games 2B HR RBI SB AVG OBP SLG OPS
1999 24 135 17 9 35 10 .255 .309 .380 .689
2000 25 99 14 5 44 4 .280 .318 .408 .726
2001 26 148 32 27 92 9 .261 .306 .479 .785
2002 27 148 37 29 94 23 .289 .334 .524 .858
2003 28 154 31 26 102 6 .250 .312 .451 .763
2004 29 138 37 23 81 21 .271 .330 .475 .805
2005 30 98 24 14 56 23 .269 .337 .452 .789
2005 Proj. 157 38 22 90 37 .269 .337 .452 .789
Career .267 .321 .458 .779
What becomes obvious if you take enough time to look at those numbers is that Hunter's abilities are not in decline. In fact, over the last 2 years he's been slightly above his career averages. If he was going into decline before the injury he had a funny way of showing it.
Discussing the obvious here has to be done. If Hunter's ankle is fine, then Hunter is fine. Turning 31 just after the All Star break, Hunter will not hit the typical physical decline until 2008 when he turns 33. Regardless, the bottom line is that until Hunter proves his ankle is hindering his ability to play center field, or until his numbers actually do drop off, there's no reason to believe his offensive or defensive prowess in on the wane.
Age
I've already mentioned that Hunter will turn 31 about halfway through the 2006 campaign. As for physical peak, each player is different and each position will vary in when decline typically occurs for an average performer, but as a general rule position players are considered at their "physical peak" between the ages of 26/27 and 32/33. Short and sweet.
Replacements
There is one candidate to speak enthusiastically about when talking about the eventual replacement of Torii Hunter, and that is Denard Span. Span is 22 this season. Minor league subjects I'm superficially familiar with, so I'll feed off what Roger said in regards to Span in a comment to an article a couple of months ago. Denard Span is the heir apparent to the center field throne, and will either be starting in Rochester or in Minnesota by 2007. He won't be riding the bench.
This means that if the Twins do buy out Hunter's contract in 2007, Span is ready or they're confident they have a short-term solution to the problem. This could be Lew Ford or a one-and-done free agent aquisition.
Possible Solutions
For keeping Hunter...
Following 2006 enter negotiations for a contract extension and renegotiation. While this may cost the organization money if Hunter has a highly impressive season, contracts can be back-loaded to free up space on the 2007 budget. Even if Span is ready to start in center field, Hunter's defensive abilities will allow him to shift outfield positions. After all, Shannon Stewart will be off the books following this season, and left field will be open to competition again.
Another option is that if, for some unforseeable reason, the Twins cannot move Hunter and they feel they do not have a replacement available or ready for 2007, they keep him and pick up the $12 million option. This scenario seems highly unlikely and I doubt it would come to fruition, but it's the only way I see the Twins retaining Hunter's services after this season without renegotiating.
For moving Hunter...
There is one option that helps the most in the short-term and hurts the most in the long-term, and that's allowing Hunter to play in Minnesota through 2006 and then buying out his 2007 option. Essentially it's asking for one last hurrah and then letting him walk as a valuable asset, allowing him to become a free agent, getting nothing in return.
Another option is to trade Hunter mid-season, whether it's this year or next year after picking up the 2007 option. This could be done if the Twins fall out of contention, especially early, in hopes that they could recoup some of the financial windfalls with trade compensation. A nagging issue with trades like this is that teams in the position of the Twins rarely get fair return on a player of Hunter's caliber.
Conclusions
At this point it's hard to take anything but a wait-and-see attitude. Wait-and-see how Hunter's ankle plays out. Wait-and-see how the team performs. Wait-and-see if there's a trade market. Wait-and-see if Denard Span is ready.
I've always been a fan of Torii and always will be. If he does go it will be the saddest departure for me since Kirby was forced into retirement. Hunter has expressed his desire to finish his career in Minnesota, and I'd like to think there's a financial way to make that happen without crippling the club's chances at being competetive. I want to be optimistic here, but I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place.
If 1 is an "absolutey not" and 10 is a "absolutey yes", I'd give the chance of moving Hunter in 2006 a 3, and I'd give the return of Hunter in 2007 a 5. I'm such an optimistic bastard...
See? Torii's optimistic, too.
0 recs |
19 comments
Comments
Two things
My view is we only buy out his option if his performance declines in a noticable way. Otherwise, $12 million is not that much more than $10.75 million, especially in a year when $14 million goes off the books with Stewart and Radke. And considering what the market is for top-tier centerfielders (as demonstrated by Damon's contract) $12 million is not out of line.
If we do buy out his option, we don't get nothing for him. We would likely get at least one first round draft choice, depending on who signs him. Considering that Span was a late first rounder, and we received Plouffe, Fox, Rainville, Waldrop, and Sanchez in recent compensation (either first round or sandwich), we would get something of value for him. But would rather have one year of Hunter at his current abilities than a whole career of Plouffe.
by cmathewson on Feb 22, 2006 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Compensation
by roger on Feb 22, 2006 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guzman
by cmathewson on Feb 22, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jones
by roger on Feb 22, 2006 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
If he performs poorly and the team does, we will either buy him out or deal him.
If he performs okay, we will likely keep him and possibly look to deal him next year (depending on Span).
If he performs very well and the team does as well (I expect both of these this year) then I see us picking up his option and possibly even working on a contract extension before next year.
His contract's really not that out of line in the end. He's better than Damon for instance as an overall player.
Oh, and we actually have 16 million coming off the books with Radke/Stewart, plus a few of the slouches (Castro/3bx) and maybe Lohse, a couple others. We're probably looking at more like 20 million, so his extra 2 still leaves us 18 to work with. For the Twins, that's a ransom.
by djskilbr on Feb 22, 2006 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Dont understand this line??
Isnt the reason Mays brings no compensation is because he was not offered arbitration?
by drnkmn on Feb 22, 2006 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Buy-out
by roger on Feb 22, 2006 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Buy-out
by drnkmn on Feb 22, 2006 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Clarification
There are two ways to receive free agent compensation. Either a player signs with the other team before the current team must offer arbitration (e.g. Guzman, Hawkins, Blanco), or the player is offered arbitration and still signs with the other team before a second deadline (E.g. Guardado, Koskie, and Jones). If that second deadline passes, the player cannot sign with his current club again until May 1, but is free to sign with any other club without compensation.
If the player does not sign with another team before the seond deadline, he tacitly accepts arbitration and must resign with the current team. The time frames between being eligible for free agency and each of the two deadlines is around 10 days.
Mays was signed after the second deadline. But even if the Royals had signed him after the first deadline, he would not have brought compensation because the Twins did not offer arbitration. If the Royals had signed him before the first deadline, he would have been a Type B free agent and the Twins would have received compensation.
by cmathewson on Feb 22, 2006 2:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Denard
by Nick Nelson on Feb 22, 2006 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Powerless
by roger on Feb 22, 2006 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Short
Moving him this year: 2
I expect the Twins the be competitive and Hunter to have a full season very similar to the partial one he had last year. AKA, the 2005 proj line would be identical to his 2006 line. Thus, he'll be important to the team. Once again, the only way we would move him this season is if the team totally sucks.
Keeping him in 2007:6
First, I do not see another long term deal being workable. 2008 is when guys like Mauer and Morneau are going to start making a TON more money, so there isn't going to be a ton left for a Hunter who will be then heading into his decline years. The only way I see him returning for 2008 is if we made a deal that would give him 12 mil in 2007 and 6 mil (or so) in 2008. A very strange front loaded contract. I can see the Twins picking up his optio thoguh. Although, keep in mind, that while we dump those big Radke, Stewart, and Lohse contracts, we'll need to resign Rincon, Nathan, and Silva, all who will get big raises. In addition, much of the rest will be eaten up by other player's graduating deals. Juat the same, I wouldn't be that surprised at all to see us pick up that option, or negotiate a contract that would give him about what he made this year (after the buyout).
by AdamOnFirst on Feb 23, 2006 12:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nathan
When is the last time the Twins re-signed a closer to a contract of incremental raises after age 33? Aggie's the only one, but by '98 he was actually earning less than in '94.
Don't go assuming Nathan in a Twins' uniform beyond this contract.
by Firpo Marberry on Feb 23, 2006 11:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm
by AdamOnFirst on Feb 24, 2006 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What one other?
I think Mo is about done, but I would put those three above Nathan. He is definitely good though. I could also see us not signing Nathan after his current contract, letting Crain assume the role and another setup man to step up.
I guess time will tell.
by djskilbr on Feb 24, 2006 4:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not Street yet...
Also, I might put Fransisco Rodriguez and Brad Lidge above Nathan, but I wouldn't put B.J. Ryan above or below Nathan.
by ubelmann on Feb 24, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lidge and Rodriguez
Both are excellent pitchers that perhaps strike out more than Nathan, but they are not always consistant enough to be unarguably better than Nathan. There are times when Rodriguez simply cannot throw his slider for a strike.
That is why I would argue the only closer who is clearly superior to Nathan is Rivera. Nathan is in the same boat with the other elite closers, none really cleary better, but I think Rivera muct be respected as tops.
by AdamOnFirst on Feb 26, 2006 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only thing holding Nathan back...
Of course, between Guardado and Nathan the last few years, maybe I'm just getting spoiled with good closers.
by ubelmann on Feb 26, 2006 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
in my opinion
by cortalekanak on Jan 5, 2007 6:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 














