Nathan Still Likes Twins

I can't see why the Twins would give him all that money.

He is one of the best closers in baseball but it seems like that money would be better spent for them elsewhere and that out of all of this young pitching talent that they have acquired in trades along with what they already had and what they will get by trading Nathan, they should be able to come up with an acceptable closer for the minimum.

It seems a bit silly to pay a closer that much for that long when in rebuilding mode. I agree with Blutarski, the Twins should let Nathan walk after 2008, take the draft picks when he signs elsewhere, and use someone from their plethora of young pitching to fill the closer gap.

I wonder if the Diamondbacks would be interested in Nathan? They did just trade Valverde, and their closing options (Brandon Lyon or Tony Pena) don't inspire a lot of confidence. With Webb/ Haren fronting their rotation and Nathan as their closer they'd be a legitimate threat, even if their offense is pretty weak.

That's a lot of "conventional wisdom" and under ordinary circumstances I would agree it's not worthwhile for the Twins to pay a closer megabucks. It's too easy to manufacture a replacement (as they have done several times before) and the Twins usually simply need that money elsewhere.

This is not the usual scenario in Minnesota, however.

Right now, the Twins have about $50 million in salary committed to 23 players. The signing bonuses for Morneau and Cuddyer bring the payroll commitment up to about $58 million. That's still about $20 million less than their "target" payroll and when you back out the bonuses, it's close to $28 million under. (not coincidence that the $20 million cushion was the same amount they were willing to pay Santana.) Granted they may not be done making deals, but money is really not going to be an issue this year.

But what about the next 3 years? The most expensive guys are locked up. The lineup is getting pretty settled with the exception of a couple of infield positions, which are not likely to involve bringing in huge contracts. The pitchers are nowhere near escaping their arbitration years.

You also can't discount the PR value of following up the loss of Santana with the signing of Nathan. If there's not a "no trade clause", it's a relatively risk free deal.

Just a thought.

The deals provided to closers this year have set the price already. Sure, there's a risk he doesn't maintain his level of effectiveness or gets hurt (thus the use of the term "relatively"), but that risk exists for all players, regardless of position and I think it's a safer bet for a closer than a starting pitcher.

Two-three years from now, the "going rate" for closers will be even higher and he'll be marketable to a significant number of teams. They need to avoid the NTC to keep him from being able to hold the team hostage the way Santana did, limiting their options.

I'm really indifferent to what they do with Nathan. I can understand the logic behind trading him (value for closers seems to be highest at mid season) and developing a new, cheaper, closer. I'm just saying that the Twins current payroll situation makes this situation totally unlike the years when they traded prior closers or allowed them to leave via FA. In those years, they literally had no choice but to let the guy go. This year, they do have the option of keeping him because the money is there and likely will be for at least 2-3 more years.

"Two-three years from now, the "going rate" for closers will be even higher and he'll be marketable to a significant number of teams. They need to avoid the NTC to keep him from being able to hold the team hostage the way Santana did, limiting their options."

Three years from now, he'll be a 10&5 guy. So he won't need a NTC to hold them hostage.

Oh, crap. My bad, you're right. It's ML service, not league service.

I'm not so sure the argument that a player didn't deserve a particular contract has much of an effect on whether it effectively sets a standard. I don't recall Santana's agent telling the Twins, "We know Zito's contract was an aberation and he didn't deserve it so don't worry about that being the standard we're shooting to beat."

That said, I totally agree that a good case can be made for letting the expensive guy go or trading him for a premium at the trade deadline and grooming a kid. That's what the Twins have done the last couple of times they've faced the situation and I'd have no issue if they did it again.

I also agree that four years is perhaps a bit much. I'm not sure why Tim thinks that's what it will take, but I suppose it could be. The 10/5 situation would clearly mean they'd need to make a decision as to whether to deal him before those rights kicked in.

If I were Smith, I'd probably make a "reasonable" offer now... maybe something like 3 yrs/$38mm. He could even afford to match Rivera's 3/$45mm. He can afford it and it might help out with the PR hangover from losing Santana.

NATHAN MY MAN!

mac_1103, no he won't. Nathan entered the AL in 2004; he wouldn't get to 10/5 until after the 2013 season.

I know we all like to diss the NL as being a minor league, but Nathan's years with the Giants still count as Major League service time. He's played in the majors in eight seasons. Three of his four Giants years were partial, so I can't tell you the exact date when his 10/5 rights kick in. But assuming he stays with the Twins, it will be sometime in 2011, not 2013.

"The 10/5 thing might actually be moot with Nathan: he's only got 6 years of ML service, so with the final year of his current contract and a 3-year deal, he still wouldn't be a 10/5 player unless he stayed another year after that. With a 3/45 deal, the Twins could trade him at any time."

Closer to the truth, but still off, I think. Service time doesn't get rounded off. 10/5 rights can kick in mid-season. Also, he's already under contract for this year. So with a three year deal starting in 2009, he'd have 10/5 rights for 2011 plus a bit of 2010. The 2010 part probably would be moot, since the effective date for his rights will probably after the trade deadline.

mac_1103, I wasn't dissing the NL; it was an error. I had been told that 10/5 required being in the same league for 10 years instead of simply ML service time. As I already posted, I went and checked, realized I was wrong, and admitted it in the very next comment on this page.

According to Cot's Baseball contracts, Nathan has 6.120 years of service time. Assuming that is right (and the site is very accurate), Nathan still has 3.88 years to go before he reaches 10-5. if the Twins gave Nathan a 3 year extension, then even taking into account the year left on his current contract, he wouldn't achieve 10-5 until after 2.88 years of the new contract had passed... sometime around the beginning of Sept. of that last year, by which point it would be moot.