Closer Extension Closer?

by Jesse on Feb 5, 2008 11:51 AM EST in News Comment 35 comments

Can the Twins offer a competetive deal?

According to Joe Christensen over at the Tribune, the Twins have gone back to work in an effort to re-sign Joe Nathan. Nathan has expressed a desire to remain with the Twins, which is a drastic change of pace after Santana pushed for the opposite through a long, drawn out winter.

Signing Nathan would necessitate Minnesota offering a contract that competes with other elite closer contracts, meaning any deal would likely be worth roughly $12-$16 million per season. Joe Nathan has been better than Mariano Rivera over the last four seasons, meaning Rivera's 3-year, $45 million contract he signed this winter is a likely starting point. Anything less than $15 million per season has to be seen as a relative bargain, since Rivera is the ESPN Baseball Standard for The Elite Closer.

Editorial

Here's the thing--I love Joe Nathan. Just like I love every other Twins player. Straight up, as a fan, I want him to stay. He's a great player, seems like a really good guy, and he wants to stay.....Minnesotans like it when their superstars express a desire to stay in Minnesota.

But analytically, I'm not sure if it makes sense. If you're going to sell the idea that you're building for 2010, you can't do it half way. We've already ditched three rather large parts--Hunter, Santana and Silva. An extension for Nathan will reach $10 million + per season. For me, even after I include the intangibles, that's money that can be better spent elsewhere...not to mention a solid return on the game's premier closer...which I think Joe is.

A lot of it depends on how much financial weight you're willing to put into intanglibles, into the luxury of knowing who you have in the bullpen at the end of the bench. This is such a young team, and apart from Redmond, Nathan is the oldest guy on the roster...he's only 33. He'd be a leader on this team, and he'd be a good one. He's never discussed the possibility of how much he'd like to play elsewhere, and he's always championing the team. Those things mean a lot.

It's often hard to separate who you're cheering for: the team or the players. Because the two aren't always the same. It's why we get upset when players leave, why we get upset that a commercial advertised the ballpark and not the players, it's why we leverage a player's worth on all levels against the long-range view of the team.

On my end, I have to tell myself that it's only about the team, because I know that I do have an attachment to the guys who PLAY for the team. Only by choosing the team can I rip a guy and not feel as bad about it, because I'm doing it in the name of a winning club and what I think is the best thing for it. I'll always play both sides of that line, but choosing sides makes it easier for me to talk about how awful someone's been playing when in reality that person is still lightyears better than I could ever be. It makes it less personal.

So, should Joe Nathan stay? I'd love to see him stay, but if the point is to build for 2010 and spend wisely, then it's probably best to trade him.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Terms

FYI - commentary on Baseball this Morning suggested a contract of 4 yrs / 40 million would be good for both parties.

I am all for keeping Nathan.

However, I hope we have learned the dangers of no-trade clauses!

by RJTWIN on Feb 5, 2008 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good question

I could go either way. I value closers more than most followers of Bill James. I think they provide intangible benefits to a team.

But to pay somewhere between Cordero's 4/46 and Rivera's 3/45 (plus one year) or 4/60 for a 33-year old closer is insane.

I guess if they sign him to a market-rate contract without a no-trade clause, they can always trade him.

The irony is, the year they need him the least they can most afford him. But in the years they figure to need him the most, they can least afford him.

I suppose if they signed him to a below-market contract and made up the difference with a signing bonus to be paid out this year, it might work. I don't know what the Players' Association would say about that, though.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 5, 2008 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I say offer...

...Three years at $10mm per year, with a $6mm signing bonus, that gives him $12mm per year. Toss in an option for 2012 at say, $14mm, strictly a team option and it would be fair to both sides IMO.

by roger on Feb 5, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rivera might be a special case

I don't think Rivera's contract is really indicative of the true market value for closers. I think the Yankees payed a fairly large premium for him due to his postseason reputation and his Yankee history - for an image-conscious franchise whose only on-field goal is a championship, it'd be a big PR failure to allow the best postseason closer in history (not to mention one of the few remaining "True Yankees") to get away.

My guess is, Nathan gets something like $12-14 million a year on the open market. I don't think the Twins should consider anything approaching that; even $10 million seems like a lot to pay for 70 innings a year from a guy who's not exactly a spring chicken. I'd rather not see the Twins devote 15% of payroll to the equivalent of Todd Jones in two years.

by BeefMaster on Feb 5, 2008 12:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Like I said in

and earlier post I believe they will offer him something like what they did with Morneau. Give him a big signing bonus because they can afford it this year and have the out years at a lower salary so they can afford to add more pieces later. Don't know if he will accept it, but I think they will make a competative offer.

richman

by anderson800 on Feb 5, 2008 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Of Course he would

Money now is always better than money later. If the Twins offered Nathan $20m up front and $3m per for 4 years, he would be crazy not to take it and start earning compound interest right away.

These largely incoherent thoughts were hurriedly scribbled down

by Victor on Feb 5, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

market is ALWAYS good for closers

Unless he gets injured, some team is ALWAYS looking for a closer down the stretch. I mean people were salivating over Eric Gagne last year and he was terrible. PLus what happens if we're not half bad next year? The season could go into a real tailspin if we don't have a good closer.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 6, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess i am saying

Sign him now you can always trade him later.

by JBrown2818 on Feb 6, 2008 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spread it out?

Could you spread it out a little more? Maybe give him the $50 million but make it for 5 years... at worst, he becomes a setup guy in the 4th and 5th years of his contracts (granted, expensive for a reliever but if he's still closer, he's cheap). At best, he still throws 90 plus until he's 38. He's in good shape, he hasn't had any recent arm troubles and like someone said, he only throws 70 innings per year...

by Chaddens on Feb 5, 2008 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Draft picks

If Nathan leaves after this year, would the Twins get the two draft picks like they would have with Santana?

by Jon Marthaler on Feb 5, 2008 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd think so

He's been one of, if not THE best, at his position of the last two years. I believe he'd have to be a class-A free agent.

by Jesse on Feb 5, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Linebrink is a class A...

Nathan must be.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 5, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who do we have in the wings......

Do you chance it with Crain or Rincon? Give it to Guerrier? Make the closer Neshek (who ahd success at both AA and AAA ball).

Korecky is the AAA closer. Probably will be so again. The Twins traded the potential AA closer away to Tampa Bay. The A ball guys still a ways away are Delaney and Slama.

Supposedly Tippett leads a host of others that might make a push around 2010.

So, realistically, the Twins have no closer potentials in the minors for this season or the next.

You can argue about the current bullpen. Does closer by committee work? Is one necessary if you aren't going to win anyway?

But I believe the young arms, with at least 4 runs a game in offense behind them, will stand a chance of wining, if the bullpen can keep the Twins in the game.

The big question: how much is Joe worth and how much will he ake to stay.

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Feb 5, 2008 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

sign Nathan

Jess-man, the Twins need to re-sign Nathan. There needs to be leadership and he has the credenials to accept that role. Rebuilding for 2010 is fine but you have to keep everyone interested in the team--fans and teammates. The Twins could find themselves in position to make a competative run this year and the experience of Nathan would help. Being a die hard Twins fan from the days of Vic Power and Tony O I always look for the silver lining. GO TWINS!!

by Barry on Feb 5, 2008 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I dunno...

He had no slider last year and I have my doubts about his ability to keep hitting 95+ mph when he's 37-38 years old. I'm ok with extending him, but I keep thinking grooming Boof to trim down the walks and work relief in high pressure situations and taking the draft picks might be a better plan for 08.

by TheMattWilke on Feb 5, 2008 3:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Boof.....

Has the stuff, if he just throws hard and tries not to be too cute.

I would say that words on Slama and Delaney are good. But, still, they would have to groom a season or two in the bullpen before getting handed the closer role, I would think -- at least with a team that is competitive.

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Feb 5, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, maybe not

I just have a real problem with this. I can totally identify with Joe C wanting to keep him because well he's great and it's fun to know if you're team has a lead going into the 9th the game is in the bag.

However, I look at how Eddie did here and how he didn't do so hot after leaving here. Same even with Hawkins to a certain extent. He always made you're heart jump in your throat but was still better here than he was after he left.

I guess I have to believe if Nathan leaves we'll be able to replace him with someone good given the pitching depth in the Twins farm system. ?

If they can sign him to a decent contract(10 or 12 a year) without a complete no trade clause I say go for it. Otherwise lets keep him til the break. I don't want to be over optimistic but this team could really surprise a lot of people. There's a whole lot of ifs but I'd like to have Nathan just in case we do find a way to compete this year. He'll have a lot of worth at the deadline as well if we don't compete.

by halfchest on Feb 5, 2008 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I guess I have to believe if Nathan leaves we'll be able to replace him with someone good given the pitching depth in the Twins farm system.

That's the key, to me. I know, most of the depth is starting pitching, but many (if not most) relievers, Nathan included, are converted or demoted starters anyway. I realize that a good starter is worth more than a good closer, but there are only so many slots in the rotation.

by BeefMaster on Feb 5, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Replacements

if Nathan leaves we'll be able to replace him with someone good given the pitching depth in the Twins farm system.

The options are either in the majors or this young Guerra kid we just got from the Mets. The other prospects in the system have just above average stuff, a best. Morlan was going to be the guy, but we traded him. McCardell might be an option. It's way too early to tell on that front.

Some think Neshek deserves a shot. I think he could develop into the guy, but he still has things to improve upon before I would say he's ready to be the guy. Crain could probably do decently when he's healthy. Rincon was the heir apparent until his career took a nosedive after Ruben Sierra took him deep in the 2004 ALDS.

There are a lot of question marks. I think they'll offer Nathan what they think he's worth to the Twins, along the lines of what Roger wrote above, and if he doesn't sign it before the season starts, they'll work to trade him before the All-Star break. By then, we should have more clarity about who would take over for him.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 5, 2008 5:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ideally

If we do trade him, we would get a closer prospect and a good position player for him--something like Jonathan Broxton, Tony Abreau and a prospect. If they could get that, I would trade him now. I doubt they'll get that until the All-Star break, however.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 5, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How aboout Andy LaRoche

by Jesse on Feb 5, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Unless Saito implodes in the first half of 2008, I don't see why the Dodgers would bother entering the Nathan picture. Saito had insane numbers last year and is earning pretty much nothing at the moment.

Am I missing something here?

Replace Nick Punto.

by rayken on Feb 5, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you're missing nothing...

...I just like LaRoche.

And Saito is 38...so he could implode. Right? Right?

by Jesse on Feb 5, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

I was indeed missing something. I had no clue he was that old.

So yeah, his arm totally needs to fall off in mid-July. =P

Replace Nick Punto.

by rayken on Feb 5, 2008 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers get injured...

Going into 2005, you would have said that the Dodgers didn't need a closer because Eric Gagne was the best in the business. Then, after June 12th, all of the sudden they needed a closer again.

Maybe the chances of Saito specifically getting injured aren't all that high, but once you add up the chances of all of the closers on every team that might be in contention near the All-Star break, there are going to be more teams looking for a Joe Nathan in July than there are right now.

by ubelmann on Feb 5, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would love LaRoche

But recent comments by Ned Colletti suggest he's the odds-on favorite to win the starting third base job and never let it go. I don't think he's available. Abreu might be. Here are his PCL-inflated numbersas a 22-year old shortstop:

PA:254 AB:234 H:83 2B:22 3B:5 HR:2 BB:14 K:34 .355/.399/.517/.916

Those numbers are not only inflated by the PCL, but by luck. He had a BABIP of .409 with a LD% of 22. So he was pretty lucky. But even with a .301 BABIP in the majors last year, he had a .271/.309/.404 line.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 6, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction

"Rincon was the heir apparent until (He got caught taking illicit substances and stopped)."

Parenthesis correction mine.

by Neil on Feb 5, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If

If the Twins actually pay Nathan and it isn't somehow clever, like a large amount this year in a bonus or an under-market deal, then I'll be very confused.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 5, 2008 8:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pay that man his money (Russian accent)

I say keep him. If you want to win games with a young rotation, you better have a bullpen that can give you 3 innings every night all summer/fall. And we want to win games, and we have a young rotation. Seems like a middle school logic problem to me.

I understand that we aren't exactly going to be favorites to go to the WS, but we do have a chance to compete within our division, and 5-7 wins could easily be the difference of an extra month or two of hope down the stretch. Who knows, maybe we do make the playoffs. This is why its seems worth it to keep Nathan, unless a bomb closing prospect and 3B prospect land in our lap. Plus, we can afford him now. So give him a nice contract, ask for a true hometown discount, and put in a clause that his contract automatically goes up if he gets traded, plus a limited no trade clause. I'm thinking 4 yrs $44 million extention ($4 m bonus this year makes $10 million each year for 5 years, when you include his contract for '08). If he is still a good pitcher in 4-5 years, this will seem like a bargain, and make him a great trade prospect, even with the "poison pill". If he isn't good, it will be something we can swallow.

by snolls on Feb 6, 2008 12:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

you sir are a smart man

would you like a job for the Twins?

by JBrown2818 on Feb 6, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

YES

Oh god yes.
gm of a baseball team sounds like the perfect job. all you have to do is completely insulate yourself from finding out that others are critical of you. I'm pretty dense, so I think I could handle it.

by snolls on Feb 6, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Proviso

keep Nathan, unless a bomb closing prospect and 3B prospect land in our lap.

I would add SS to that list. I don't see star-quality middle infield prospects in the system.

Casilla has plus tools and could be nice if he works out the rough edges. But he looks more like a second baseman to me.
Plouffe could take the next step, but BA projects him as a utility guy at this point, saying his only plus tool is his arm.
Paul Kelly could rebound to become a star-quality player. But who knows how his knee will respond?
Drew Thompson projects as a second baseman.
There are some really young guys who could become stars (e.g. de los Santos, Beresford, Williams, and Hidalgo). But none of those guys is out of rookie ball yet.

On the other hand, we do have some third base prospects. There is a chance Romero could become a star. You could possibly move Ramos there as well. And I'm happy with Lamb for a while, with Valencia helping out in a couple of years.

That's why I thought of Abreu. If a GM is willing to send us a star-quality middle infielder and a young closer candidate, I think we would have to listen. Until then, keep him in there helping the bullpen carry its heavy load this year.

If you can sign him to a reasonable deal, fine. You can always trade him for the right package when and if it comes along.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 6, 2008 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and

The Twins will keep Ramos at catcher until they find out whether Joe will ever stop growing. If Joe continues to grow, he'll need to move to 3rd at some point (6'-7" or so). If that happens, Ramos becomes the catcher. If Joe stops growing, you keep him at catcher and move Ramos to 3rd. Either way, you've got your catcher and third baseman of the future, with Romero as a good fall-back.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 6, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait until July

Move him at the deadline. This team isn't going to need a big-time closer for at least 2-3 years, so you might as well save payroll and get more of the beloved prospects. Maybe a AA catcher and a high A centerfielder with no power?

Point is, Neshek/Crain/Rincon can fill the gap until the Twins are able to contend, which won't be for at least two years. Save the cash and move Nathan in July.

by nathaneide on Feb 6, 2008 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

isn't going to need a closer if......

I think that statement could finish: "if they don't care about how many games they win".

I personally do care. I can have fun watching a team that all year has the ability to stay within 5-10 games of first place, and finish in the upper 80's in wins. If the team is 15 games out at mid-season, I'm less interested.

In conclusion, if they can get a closing prospect, and a high ceiling infield prospect, I'm on board. BUT, I have no problem with them signing Nathan.

It does get a little tricker if this money affects how they draft, but I don't know how much of an affect that will have anyhow. I think they can afford both, and I don't see them shelling out $10 extra million in signing bonuses, its just not their style.

by snolls on Feb 6, 2008 12:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs