Burton, Perkins, and minor league prospects

Let me be clear, absent a trade (of Burton for a valuable SP) I would like the Twins to pursue the extremely unlikely closer by committee (of two) next year. But failing that:

Should the Twins lock one or the other as closer and the other as setup guy and then deal the likes of Guerra, Robertson, Oliveros, and/or Burnett (by "and" I don't mean ALL of them)? I ask because the Twins have a bunch of guys who may be capable in middle relief, ranging from Swarzak and Blackburn (lot of money for that role, but if he can be effective there, why not try it out?) on one hand to Slama, Perdomo, Vasquez, Thielbar, Sattler, Waldrop, Pugh, Watts, and Albers on the other hand.

This means taking what they know works and trading some guys who project as setup men or middle relievers given that there is depth in the system there.

None of those guys have much trade value at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

None of those guys have much trade value at all.

---

Maybe not by themselves. But with one of the general population (here) beloved trade figures, maybe they add something. Clearly Guerra and Oliveros are not bad prospects.

Or, with my view, the likes of Valencia, Guerra, and Oliveros together might mean they get one quality SP prospect who is going to be worth those three given Plouffe and the RP depth.

I am just trying to think out of the Span and Willingham ridiculous box.

Make Robertson your LH specialist, give Burton the 8th and Perkins the 9th next season. Duensing & Swarzak stay. Burnett probably stays & Gray goes. Replaced by............one of the young arms at AAA or Waldrop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Maybe not by themselves. But with one of the general population (here) beloved trade figures, maybe they add something. Clearly Guerra and Oliveros are not bad prospects.

Or, with my view, the likes of Valencia, Guerra, and Oliveros together might mean they get one quality SP prospect who is going to be worth those three given Plouffe and the RP depth.

I am just trying to think out of the Span and Willingham ridiculous box.

---

So throw a bunch of **** together and hope some other team likes it enough to give up a quality starting pitcher? Not going to happen.

Again, 4,000 lbs. of scrap metal will not get you 1 lb. of gold just because it weighs more.

According to recent studies, using a closer has increased team win percentage by zero percent, compared to pre-closer days....the Sox were actually succesfful a few years ago with their bullpen by committee approach, but abandoned it due to injury and intense pressure to have a "proven closer" apparently. I'd love, love, love it if the Twins went with their best pitchers in the right situations, rather than use a closer. Don't overpay for 45 innings of pitching.....frankly, having read the interview of the Nats third base coach, and his philosophy on managing, I'd love him to be the new manager too, but that's about as likely as my idea for how to use the pen....

As to trading a bunch of mediocre relief prospects for something, not sure why any team would do that. Don't most teams have a bunch of guys in their minors that will fail as starters and can be 6-8 inning guys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

According to recent studies, using a closer has increased team win percentage by zero percent, compared to pre-closer days....the Sox were actually succesfful a few years ago with their bullpen by committee approach, but abandoned it due to injury and intense pressure to have a "proven closer" apparently. I'd love, love, love it if the Twins went with their best pitchers in the right situations, rather than use a closer. Don't overpay for 45 innings of pitching.....frankly, having read the interview of the Nats third base coach, and his philosophy on managing, I'd love him to be the new manager too, but that's about as likely as my idea for how to use the pen....

---

You'd fit right in with the BYTO crew. Most of us fell in love with the Bullpen Ace model between 2004-2006 when writers first started talking about the idea (to my knowledge). Too bad that it's incredibly unlikely that the Twins will be the ones to prove it's a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

According to recent studies, using a closer has increased team win percentage by zero percent, compared to pre-closer days....the Sox were actually succesfful a few years ago with their bullpen by committee approach, but abandoned it due to injury and intense pressure to have a "proven closer" apparently. I'd love, love, love it if the Twins went with their best pitchers in the right situations, rather than use a closer. Don't overpay for 45 innings of pitching.....frankly, having read the interview of the Nats third base coach, and his philosophy on managing, I'd love him to be the new manager too, but that's about as likely as my idea for how to use the pen....

---

Last season Ozzie worked the Sox pen the way IMO a closer should be used. Couple lefties coming up he went with Sale, couple righties he went with Santos. Hell he'd start an inning with Sale getting 1 or 2 outs and end it with Santos (or vice versa)

It's how a bullpen should be managed, once this current crop of "old-school" managers get taken out back and put outta there misary like Old Yellow we'll soon see smart progressive managers begin to take over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

According to recent studies, using a closer has increased team win percentage by zero percent, compared to pre-closer days....the Sox were actually succesfful a few years ago with their bullpen by committee approach, but abandoned it due to injury and intense pressure to have a "proven closer" apparently. I'd love, love, love it if the Twins went with their best pitchers in the right situations, rather than use a closer. Don't overpay for 45 innings of pitching.....frankly, having read the interview of the Nats third base coach, and his philosophy on managing, I'd love him to be the new manager too, but that's about as likely as my idea for how to use the pen....

As to trading a bunch of mediocre relief prospects for something, not sure why any team would do that. Don't most teams have a bunch of guys in their minors that will fail as starters and can be 6-8 inning guys?

---

In some ways, I agre with this. It always baffles me when the heart of the order comes up in the 8th inning of a close game and rather than going to the closer (arguably the best arm in the pen) a team goes with their setup man (arguably the 2nd best). Why would you not use your best relief pitcher against the other teams best hitters when the game is on the line?

I really like the way Gardy has been mixing Burton and Perkins lately. Certainly makes more sense than saving the best guy for the 9th. I'd like to see them continue to manage this way.

First, I agree with the view about closers in general here.

Second . . . Scott Diamond. Billy Bullock.

Now I understand that a rule 5 pick and a later trade is not the same situation as a straight trade, but I don't think it is out of the question to trade a minor league reliever for a minor league starter of decent value ("quality" does not equal "gold" by the way--more straw-manning tactics!).

So rather than acknowledge you overstated your argument to the point of ridiculousness....you double down? Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I really like the way Gardy has been mixing Burton and Perkins lately. Certainly makes more sense than saving the best guy for the 9th. I'd like to see them continue to manage this way.

---

I like it a lot too. Gardy has really stumbled into a solid way to close out bullpens by using Burton or Perkins depending on matchups. The question is whether he can maintain that for a full season or if he has to have a designated closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

So rather than acknowledge you overstated your argument to the point of ridiculousness....you double down? Heh.

---

Are you denying that a Danny Valencia and Lester Oliveros could be traded for a decent starting pitching prospect?

Do you deny that Scott Diamond was picked and later traded for Billy Bullock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I really like the way Gardy has been mixing Burton and Perkins lately. Certainly makes more sense than saving the best guy for the 9th. I'd like to see them continue to manage this way.

---

Is there really a best guy. Gardy's gut reaction formed by watching these guys pitch and knowing what the can and can not do should be the basis for the bullpen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Are you denying that a Danny Valencia and Lester Oliveros could be traded for a decent starting pitching prospect?

Do you deny that Scott Diamond was picked and later traded for Billy Bullock?

---

Diamond, Santana. Who else have the Twins picked up s rule 5 starting pitcher that worked? Trading minor league players for potential stud pitchers? They got Lohse and dumped him. Nobody else comes to mind. They traded a bit part major leaguer and got Joe Mays.

I hope they keep on thinking of Burton and Perkins as the guys who pitch the 8th & 9th inning of close games, in whichever order. Outside of Burton, I would consider any of the Twins' upper level RH relievers to be expendable. By themselves, they wouldn't bring much, but adding one to a package should raise the overall value of the return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Are you denying that a Danny Valencia and Lester Oliveros could be traded for a decent starting pitching prospect?

Do you deny that Scott Diamond was picked and later traded for Billy Bullock?

---

Um yes - Valencia has zero trade value at this point. He was demoted from one of the worst teams in baseball because he couldn't hit or field. Someone would take him for nothing, but they're not giving up something quality for him. Oliveros has some value, but not enough for what you're suggesting.

Bullock was a much different case than Anthony Slama or Kyle Waldrop. Your argument is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Um yes - Valencia has zero trade value at this point. He was demoted from one of the worst teams in baseball because he couldn't hit or field. Someone would take him for nothing, but they're not giving up something quality for him. Oliveros has some value, but not enough for what you're suggesting.

Bullock was a much different case than Anthony Slama or Kyle Waldrop. Your argument is ridiculous.

---

I just want to be clear. You think that Billy Bullock had/has more value than Danny Valencia and Lester Oliveros? You actually believe that? Two guys who have actually played in MLB?