From ESPN......

by tklawless on Sep 10, 2007 12:37 PM CDT

Twins' offer comes up short
Sep 4 - According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Twins late last month offered Torii Hunter a three-year deal worth $45 million, but Hunter -- a free agent at season's end -- is believed to be seeking a five-year, $70 million deal.

A little (?) less than I thought he might want....should the Ranger's be player's?....maybe with the 5th year vesting based on performance?

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well

$70 million is probably right about market value, considering Matthews' contract with the Angels last year and Hunters' offensive and defensive reputation, which is superior to GMJ's. If you want to fill a particular position and want what's probably pretty much the top name in that year's FA crop, expect to pay at least market price.

by Inkara1 on Sep 10, 2007 12:32 PM CDT reply actions

Addendum

Notice it's years he wants over dollars? Three years/$45 million is worth $1 million less per year than five years/$70 million.

by Inkara1 on Sep 10, 2007 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Hunter

yeah he's said he wants 5 yrs i believe.
I've been saying someone will give him at least 70min... with last years crazy market i wouldnt be shocked to see him get 16 - 17 per year.

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Sep 10, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions

last years market

I think it will have the exact opposite effect as what everyone here is predicting. I think GMJ,Zito, Eaton, and others ruined this year's free agent market for most free agents. Whether Hunter feels the effects is debatable but my guess is he feels it the wrong way (in his eyes, not ours). I bet he gets a 4 yr with a team option on 5th, which is great for him if he is still producing and great for the team he signs with.

by corbsclinton on Sep 10, 2007 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions

No way

Teams have plenty of cash and there are too few quality players available. Some terrible deals are going to be made and the few good players out there are going to get very rich.

The CF bidding should be interesting. Although there are several good players at that position, all of them have a question mark or two that affect their value. There is a long history, however, of teams convincing themselves to ignore the question mark or take the risk and sign someone to a huge contract.

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 10, 2007 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Addendum to addendum

I got the order backwards... the longer contract is worth $1 million less per year.

by Inkara1 on Sep 10, 2007 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Who are the major players

for CFs this offseason? I would say the Rangers, White Sox, and Padres, for sure. But the big money teams like the Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Blue Jays, Tigers, and Mariners are all pretty set. The notable exclusion is the Yanks, depending on ARod's decision. They could make a push for Jones, and the White Sox will be after Rowand, but I think the Rangers have to be considered the front runners for Hunter. The Padres will probably just resign Cameron or Bradley. The Giants could make a run, and the Astros would be wise to move Pence to the corner, but I still like our chances.

by clark on Sep 10, 2007 12:46 PM CDT reply actions

Boston.com

Crisp is good with the glove, but he has gone through some really rough times at the plate (OPS+ of 70 in April/May, 71 in June, and 74 in August). The Red Sox might try to dump him this offseason, and let Elsbury start in CF.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 11, 2007 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions

I would drink to that

but, I would drink to most anything.

by rldwb on Sep 10, 2007 12:58 PM CDT reply actions

Please no Torii,

but it doesn't matter what we say. I still have a bad feeling that he will be playing in Arlington next year whether we want him here or not.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Sep 10, 2007 5:16 PM CDT reply actions

hunter

i'm starting to come around. A 5 yr 14M contract wouldnt' be that bad.

But I think Kenny Williams will overpay for him. Lots of Hunter buzz in Chicago, and I'm sure many other places.

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Sep 10, 2007 7:11 PM CDT reply actions

Should the Rangers be players

No, if you step back from the upcoming hot stove and get over the heat dizziness. Torii's proclamations about wanting to play for Ron Washington combined with the Star Tribune's (and others') linkage to DFW being his residence have become hard circumstancial evidence he's on his way to the Rangers. I just hope Hicks and Daniels really probe what they've got, what they've not, and what they won't do this winter.

I'd accept the notion if he ends up here, but good or bad, it's two Mike Young contracts on the 25 if he does. That leaves six starting spots to try to fill with lasting excellence.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Sep 10, 2007 7:14 PM CDT reply actions

if the 5th year was a club option

i'd be ok with that at 14 mil a year......i wouldnt mind if the option was for 15

by slash on Sep 10, 2007 8:24 PM CDT reply actions

Why?

Why are people coming around on this? Hasn't it been discussed ad nauseum why he wouldn't be a good fit?

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by inactive lsb user on Sep 10, 2007 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed

it does seem some people have forgot why it was a bad idea in the first place, and those reasons have not changed, whether it is a 4 year deal or a 5 year deal it is still not a good idea- just my opinion.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Sep 10, 2007 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Ludicrous!!!

If I were Tom Hicks, I would stay so far away from the Hunter bidding war. Here's why:

Hunter
2007 - .861 OPS (32 years old), .302 EqA (.284 when adjusted for this season).

That's pretty good for a centerfielder. It's mediocre for a corner outfielder though, and if Hunter can't maintain quality CF defense for the life of his contract then you are paying a mediocre corner outfielder top dollar. Most reports have Hunter projecting as an above average defensive centerfielder for another three or four years max.

Byrd
2007 - .814 OPS (30 years old), .292 EqA (.275 when adjusted for this season).

That's nearly as good for a centerfielder, and the difference is not worth the extra 15 million per year.

If the Rangers are not satisfied with Byrd, then they need to look for a short term solution (i.e. Cameron or maybe Rowand if he comes cheap enough) until one of the guys on the farm is ready.

It makes no sense for the future of this team to pay above value for a centerfielder that is already nearing the age when effective defensive centerfielders start being forced to the corners.

by rangeressary on Sep 11, 2007 5:30 AM CDT reply actions

People doing these comparisons

make me a little crazy.

The difference of course is that Byrd is not a good defensive CF. Never has been, never will be. He'd need to stop eating double cheeseburgers for awhile to not be so poor defensively. I'd say you might as well put Botts out there, but then again, he can't hit as well as not being able to field.

Hunter is at least a competent, if overrated, defensive CF.

by DJCahill on Sep 11, 2007 6:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Sorry to make you crazy...

You're right the difference between them is that Hunter is better defensively, so be honest Dan, is the defensive difference when added to the slight offensive difference really worth 15 million per season?

Hunter is an average defensive centerfielder (2 RAA). Byrd is below average (-3 RAA).

The difference between Hunter and Byrd when you combine offense and defense is probably at most 3 wins. Is that worth the additional 15 million? No.

In three years, Hunter (who is already an average centerfielder), will surely be below average and headed toward the corners. Is it worth 15 million per season to have an above average defensive rightfielder who is well below average offensively?

Currently, Hunter has a 125 OPS+. You're the guy always preaching about how OPS+ can be bad because it isn't balanced by position. 125+ is great from a centerfielder...really great. It's average for a rightfielder. Now, consider the fact that this is clearly a career year for Hunter, and you are looking at a guy who will probably aim back towards his career 104 OPS+ over the next few years...that's well below average for a corner outfielder, and although it's still slightly above average for a centerfielder, is it good enough when combined with below average defense to be worth 15 million? There's no way.

by rangeressary on Sep 11, 2007 6:17 AM CDT up reply actions

What do you mean above

when you say adjusted for this season?

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 11, 2007 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions

Hey t ball

Baseball Prospectus gives you the regular EqA for any given player, but also gives adjusted stats for either the season or all-time. Here's there description of what that means for any individual season:

Statistics that have been adjusted for a single season are the best stats to use when you are only interested in that one season. In these, adjustments have been made to account for the home park and for the offensive level of the league as a whole. Hitters have an adjustment for not having to face their own team's pitchers; pitchers have a similar adjustment for not having to face their own hitters. Hitters in the AL since 1973 have a disadvantage in these statistics, since the league average is artificially inflated by the use of the DH and no adjustment is made for that.

by rangeressary on Sep 11, 2007 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions

So.....

kind of like EqA + the way OPS+ or ERA+ adjusts for those type of factors?

One of these days I'm going to get BP. Maybe after the house closing and furniture buying subsides and I have anything resembling disposable income again.

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 11, 2007 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd like to see Hicks do what the Jays owners did

Just tell JD he has a set amount of money to spend over the next 3 years, like say 270.

Then maybe we could stop worrying about all this "make a splash" crap.

We should pass on Hunter. And I bet we do.

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Sep 11, 2007 9:54 AM CDT reply actions

I love what the Toronto guys did

But with Hicks, he'd only change the total every couple of weeks anyway. 230, 90, 800, 5, it would be tough to adjust your plan accordingly to his dementia.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 11, 2007 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions