Twin Cities legal team comes up with a plan to rule the world.
If you have been reading the fine print in contracts, you will see that Twin Cities has been handing out team options like a mo-fo lately. All told, the Monsters hold 25 options on 13 different players over the next 3 seasons. This is a targeted strategy that we feel benefits the teams strengths as well as the current free agent climate.
On our end, I almost always built super versatile rosters. Majority of the players are viewed as interchangeable parts. But my GM style hasn't always been cohesive with my managing style. I often sign or trade for high salary players and get sucked into long term deals. Yet you always hear people say "no such thing as a bad one year deal". Well, what's better than a one year deal? Full autonomy over 3 straight one year deals.
I feel this is a good strategy made great by the current market. The BBA is grasping on to a generation of players now 35+. It's always a gamble when dealing with such a player. When will they regress? Who knows.
Ignacio Venegas was the prototype to this strategy. After his initial 3 year contract was set to expire after 2053 season, I was faced with a dilemma. He wanted a 3 year extension. Do I give him that pact, let him walk, or overpay to get him to accept one year? Little did I realize at the time, there was a fourth option. Now, I was fairly confident his 9 range(vital to him being a useful player) would hold up for his age 34,35 and 36 seasons. Maybe it drops to an 8, but at least he is still a good 2B who can play short in a pinch. But that is still a gamble I wasn't ready to dive into. By giving him one year and 2 straight team options, I now have the confidence to give him 3 years and know that once his range drops, I can tuck and roll out of the situation.
Of course the down side of this strategy is buyouts. I've gone into each of these deals weighing the pros and cons of this type of contract. In most cases they are low dollar deals where the buyout is not more than a million and change. I will also only sign them if I feel strongly that they are capable of playing the entirety of the contract. For example, I was in need of a centerfielder this winter. I could have gone after Bourges or Brisset and used this type of deal. But at the end of the day, they were 34 yr old+ CF'ers that would require 8 figures and a buyout well over $4 million. I didn't feel the risk was worth the reward there.
There are actually more advantages to this strategy that I haven't touched yet. These deals will enhance trade values. As the deadline approaches, some teams are looking for rentals, while others are looking for control. These players fit both needs. And if by some chance I want to tear it down and rebuild, we only have 8 players($50.5 mil) under guaranteed contracts next year, two totaling $6.8 million in 2056 and zero in 2057. Making this roster management just as flexible off the field, as it is on it.
