Comments on: Twins ink Glen Perkins to three-year, $10.3 million extension http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/twins-ink-glen-perkins-to-three-year-10-5-million-extension/ Baseball. Baseball. And then a bit more baseball. Fri, 24 May 2013 18:22:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: hansob http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/twins-ink-glen-perkins-to-three-year-10-5-million-extension/comment-page-1/#comment-269747 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:49:27 +0000 http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=120753#comment-269747 I’d say it’s 50/50 that he’s even worth the minimum by 2015. That’s a long ways out. Injuries and the “decent relievers turning into garbage” phenomenom are just too prevelent to lock a guy like this up for around $4M four seasons from now. And it’s not like you got some huge discount on his arbitration years. Seems like an unnecessary risk that won’t really pay out that much even if it does work out.

]]> By: Ben http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/twins-ink-glen-perkins-to-three-year-10-5-million-extension/comment-page-1/#comment-269733 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:17:17 +0000 http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=120753#comment-269733 Uhhh..

Ok, I mean, I get it. The name of the game is locking up players at below-market prices, and the Twins’ bullpen is the epitome of suck, and Perkins had very real successes last year. But at the same time, he’s a reliever. Easy come, easy go, and it’s not really much below market. Why the need to spend 3.5 million a year on a reliever when there are so many other holes? Why the willingness to spend 3.5 million on a reliever, but not the 6 million to lock up JJ Hardy last year?

The only upside to this I see is if Perkins gets the “proven closer” label attached to him, and the Twins are able to extract a profit in prospects from a team seeing a label and a reasonable contract (for a closer).

]]>