Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Alex Meyer

  • Please log in to reply
204 replies to this topic

#21 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,747 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 11:08 AM

 

No matter the reason, trading Meyer was a stupid decision by an inept organization that hadn't won didly squat since 1991.

It was dumb. Period.

I was one of the few people lukewarm on the trade but given how Santiago has pitched and the fact the Twins are in contention in part because of his performance, it's too early to make a call on that deal.

 

We've seen flashes of competence from Meyer in the past. One game isn't going to drastically alter how I view him.

  • Oldgoat_MN, HitInAPinch, howieramone2 and 1 other like this

#22 DaveW

DaveW

    Aaron Hicks update (5/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS

  • Members
  • 12,790 posts
  • LocationNYC aka Aaron Hicks Ville

Posted 17 May 2017 - 11:10 AM

A rebuilding team shouldn't trade away young arms with upside. It was dumb.
  • Thrylos likes this

Aaron Hicks 2017 stats so far (5/17/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS  7 HR 19 RBI 6 SB 22 BBs 1.8WAR
 


#23 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,221 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 12:21 PM

 

A rebuilding team shouldn't trade away young arms with upside. It was dumb.

Meyer is 27 years old. He's made 10 starts in the majors. He's worth negative value so far this season. I mean, if you think the Twins shouldn't move on from guys before they're 28, that's ok. But otherwise, it was over. Move on.

  • DJSim22, ThejacKmp, Oldgoat_MN and 4 others like this

#24 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,747 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 01:19 PM

 

Meyer is 27 years old. He's made 10 starts in the majors. He's worth negative value so far this season. I mean, if you think the Twins shouldn't move on from guys before they're 28, that's ok. But otherwise, it was over. Move on.

The Twins knew Meyer better than anybody so I'm viewing this trade purely results-based.

 

If Meyer succeeds, the Twins evaluated him incorrectly and got burned because of it.

 

If Meyer flounders and Santiago keeps the Twins in the race through September, the Twins made the right call. It's that simple.

 

I don't believe this is a process decision in the vein of the Meyer/Span trade, which I supported. Meyer was a high risk, high reward guy and it didn't pan out. Sometimes that happens but I liked the thinking behind the move.

 

Whereas now Meyer is 27 years old and the Twins watched him closely for 4+ seasons. What he becomes in MLB, good or bad, will tell us whether the trade was smart or dumb.

  • Mike Sixel, gunnarthor, beckmt and 4 others like this

#25 Thrylos

Thrylos

    They Finally fired ’em. Play Ball!

  • Members
  • 8,787 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 17 May 2017 - 01:28 PM

 


If Meyer flounders and Santiago keeps the Twins in the race through September, the Twins made the right call. It's that simple.

 

I think that you are forgetting something ;)

 

It was not a Meyer for Santiago trade. Here are the numbers of the people who were involved since the trade:

 

With Angels:
Nolasco: 3.64 ERA, 3.87 FIP, 1.154 WHIP, 7 K/9, 2 BB/9
Meyer: 5.59 ERA, 4.53 FIP, 1.466 WHIP, 9.9 K/9, 5.9 BB/9

$

 

With Twins:
Santiago: 4.82 ERA, 5.36 FIP, 1.364 WHIP, 5.8 K/9, 3.4 BB/9
Busenitz: AAA

 

Based on Nolasco's performance alone, this trade is a loss for the Twins.Based on the fact that they paid to get a lesser pitcher, it is a disaster.

 

So far.If Meyer develops to be better than Busentiz (what are the chances of that? ;) ), it could very well end up being one of the worst trades in Franchise history

Edited by Thrylos, 17 May 2017 - 01:29 PM.

-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#26 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,565 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 May 2017 - 01:55 PM

 

I think that you are forgetting something ;)

 

It was not a Meyer for Santiago trade. Here are the numbers of the people who were involved since the trade:

 

With Angels:
Nolasco: 3.64 ERA, 3.87 FIP, 1.154 WHIP, 7 K/9, 2 BB/9
Meyer: 5.59 ERA, 4.53 FIP, 1.466 WHIP, 9.9 K/9, 5.9 BB/9

$

 

With Twins:
Santiago: 4.82 ERA, 5.36 FIP, 1.364 WHIP, 5.8 K/9, 3.4 BB/9
Busenitz: AAA

 

Based on Nolasco's performance alone, this trade is a loss for the Twins.Based on the fact that they paid to get a lesser pitcher, it is a disaster.

 

So far.If Meyer develops to be better than Busentiz (what are the chances of that? ;) ), it could very well end up being one of the worst trades in Franchise history

 

I appreciated Santiago's contributions to getting the #1 pick last year. But on a more direct point, the performance of either last year didn't matter. It was time for Nolasco to go.

 

I do agree that if Meyer turns into a consistent mid-rotation starter, this trade is a disaster.

  • jud6312 and bighat like this
Papers...business papers.

#27 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,221 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:21 PM

 

I think that you are forgetting something ;)

 

It was not a Meyer for Santiago trade. Here are the numbers of the people who were involved since the trade:

 

With Angels:
Nolasco: 3.64 ERA, 3.87 FIP, 1.154 WHIP, 7 K/9, 2 BB/9
Meyer: 5.59 ERA, 4.53 FIP, 1.466 WHIP, 9.9 K/9, 5.9 BB/9

$

 

With Twins:
Santiago: 4.82 ERA, 5.36 FIP, 1.364 WHIP, 5.8 K/9, 3.4 BB/9
Busenitz: AAA

 

Based on Nolasco's performance alone, this trade is a loss for the Twins.Based on the fact that they paid to get a lesser pitcher, it is a disaster.

 

So far.If Meyer develops to be better than Busentiz (what are the chances of that? ;) ), it could very well end up being one of the worst trades in Franchise history

And just a few more stats

Nolasco, ERA+ 91, -0.2 fWAR, 0.4 bWAR

Santiago, ERA+ 108, 0.6 fWAR, 0.6 bWAR

  • birdwatcher, Oldgoat_MN, howieramone2 and 1 other like this

#28 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 23,109 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:27 PM

 

The Twins knew Meyer better than anybody so I'm viewing this trade purely results-based.

 

If Meyer succeeds, the Twins evaluated him incorrectly and got burned because of it.

 

If Meyer flounders and Santiago keeps the Twins in the race through September, the Twins made the right call. It's that simple.

 

I don't believe this is a process decision in the vein of the Meyer/Span trade, which I supported. Meyer was a high risk, high reward guy and it didn't pan out. Sometimes that happens but I liked the thinking behind the move.

 

Whereas now Meyer is 27 years old and the Twins watched him closely for 4+ seasons. What he becomes in MLB, good or bad, will tell us whether the trade was smart or dumb.

 

Agreed.

  • HitInAPinch likes this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#29 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,747 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:34 PM

 

I think that you are forgetting something ;)

 

It was not a Meyer for Santiago trade. Here are the numbers of the people who were involved since the trade:

 

With Angels:
Nolasco: 3.64 ERA, 3.87 FIP, 1.154 WHIP, 7 K/9, 2 BB/9
Meyer: 5.59 ERA, 4.53 FIP, 1.466 WHIP, 9.9 K/9, 5.9 BB/9

$

 

With Twins:
Santiago: 4.82 ERA, 5.36 FIP, 1.364 WHIP, 5.8 K/9, 3.4 BB/9
Busenitz: AAA

 

Based on Nolasco's performance alone, this trade is a loss for the Twins.Based on the fact that they paid to get a lesser pitcher, it is a disaster.

 

So far.If Meyer develops to be better than Busentiz (what are the chances of that? ;) ), it could very well end up being one of the worst trades in Franchise history

I'm intentionally writing off Nolasco because it became apparent he simply wasn't going to pitch well in Minnesota. I have no idea why he imploded - maybe it was the old front office's fault - but he was a terrible pitcher nearly every time he took the mound for the Twins. Given that he started 56 games with the team, I have absolutely no reason to think he'd be any different in 2017 than he was in 2014-2016 if he was still wearing a Twins jersey.

  • D.C Twins likes this

#30 Thrylos

Thrylos

    They Finally fired ’em. Play Ball!

  • Members
  • 8,787 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:43 PM

 

And just a few more stats

Nolasco, ERA+ 91, -0.2 fWAR, 0.4 bWAR

Santiago, ERA+ 108, 0.6 fWAR, 0.6 bWAR

 

Not sure where you found those stats, but since the trade:

 

Nolasco: ERA+ 110, 1.8 bWAR

Santiago: ERA+ 87,0.9 bWAR

Edited by Thrylos, 17 May 2017 - 02:43 PM.

-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#31 Thrylos

Thrylos

    They Finally fired ’em. Play Ball!

  • Members
  • 8,787 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:58 PM

 

 

I'm intentionally writing off Nolasco because it became apparent he simply wasn't going to pitch well in Minnesota. I have no idea why he imploded - maybe it was the old front office's fault - but he was a terrible pitcher nearly every time he took the mound for the Twins. Given that he started 56 games with the team, I have absolutely no reason to think he'd be any different in 2017 than he was in 2014-2016 if he was still wearing a Twins jersey.

 

It was not so apparent to me.He was hurt in 2015, and was the Twins' second best pitcher in 2016. Looking quickly in 2016, he started 21 games with the Twins.His game score was > 50 (average) in 10 of them, about half. In 3 games he pitched into the 8th inning, in 6 into the 7th,in 8 into the 6th, and only in 2 games he did not make it into the 5th.He was not the biggest problem last season.

 

I would not doubt that there were "acclimation" issues and potentially difficulties between him and the coaches, due to different backgrounds; but I would get rid of the coaches before Nolasco in that horrible team, esp. that pitching coach...

 

Believe it or not, he was not that bad.He was an average number 3-4 starter for the Twins, who got plagued, among other things, by a .330 BABIP, 62.8 % LOB% and a horrible team.I suspect that at some point he became uninterested as well... 

Edited by Thrylos, 17 May 2017 - 02:59 PM.

-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#32 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,108 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:36 PM

That Nolasco had a career 1/3 of a season last yearfor the Angels should have no bearingon if the trade was good or not. That Nolasco is in a contract year and is pitching to league average is an indication of where he is at. The Twins traded a player that under performed for them in Nolasco for a player that could perform better than what Nolasco was giving them. Meyer for the Twins was a riddle wrapped in an enigma covered in medipore tape that they could not solve. They did the guy a favor. They got a player back.The winner of the trade? The Twins subtracted Nolasco, Meyer got a fresh set of coaches. The short term winner at this point by bwar is the Angels. The winner for this year's production is the Twins. By 2019 the net effect is likely insignificant for both teams. Nolasco and Santiago will move on, Meyer will still tease potential and Busenitz might be a5th inning pitcher.

  • Mike Sixel, DJSim22, beckmt and 2 others like this

#33 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,108 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:48 PM

 

 

It was not so apparent to me.He was hurt in 2015, and was the Twins' second best pitcher in 2016. Looking quickly in 2016, he started 21 games with the Twins.His game score was > 50 (average) in 10 of them, about half. In 3 games he pitched into the 8th inning, in 6 into the 7th,in 8 into the 6th, and only in 2 games he did not make it into the 5th.He was not the biggest problem last season.

 

I would not doubt that there were "acclimation" issues and potentially difficulties between him and the coaches, due to different backgrounds; but I would get rid of the coaches before Nolasco in that horrible team, esp. that pitching coach...

 

Believe it or not, he was not that bad.He was an average number 3-4 starter for the Twins, who got plagued, among other things, by a .330 BABIP, 62.8 % LOB% and a horrible team.I suspect that at some point he became uninterested as well... 

He appears to be unintrested as an Angel this year. Why would anyone want uninterested players on a roster? Yes, he was the second best pitcher on the Twins last year.That would be like finishing second in a King Ugly contest.Nolasco, despite a great 1/3 season in California, was still well below league average as a starting pitcher.


#34 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Baseball Games. Life is good!

  • Members
  • 1,783 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:26 PM

 

True.

But even then I still think he would make a potential solid closer or 8th inning guy (something the Twins don't exactly have in spades these days...)

Wow,I don't know Dave...

 

Meyer has a WHIP of 1.603 this year. Career MLB WHIP of 1.690. Even with 9.8 K/9 that is usually considered to be a awful lot of base runners. Certainly more than you want in a close game.

  • Dozier's Glorious Hair likes this

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because it has a name or a photo you recognize.

- Abraham Lincoln


#35 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Baseball Games. Life is good!

  • Members
  • 1,783 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:39 PM

 

That Nolasco had a career 1/3 of a season last yearfor the Angels should have no bearingon if the trade was good or not. That Nolasco is in a contract year and is pitching to league average is an indication of where he is at. The Twins traded a player that under performed for them in Nolasco for a player that could perform better than what Nolasco was giving them. Meyer for the Twins was a riddle wrapped in an enigma covered in medipore tape that they could not solve. They did the guy a favor. They got a player back.The winner of the trade? The Twins subtracted Nolasco, Meyer got a fresh set of coaches. The short term winner at this point by bwar is the Angels. The winner for this year's production is the Twins. By 2019 the net effect is likely insignificant for both teams. Nolasco and Santiago will move on, Meyer will still tease potential and Busenitz might be a5th inning pitcher.

I like all of this.

 

The only part you missed is that Santiago had a career worst 1/4 of a season for the Twins last year. In 5 of his last 7 starts last year he gave up 5 runs in 33 1/3 innings (1.35 ERA).

SSS, but as long as we're picking and choosing...

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because it has a name or a photo you recognize.

- Abraham Lincoln


#36 bighat

bighat

    Sombrero Grande

  • Members
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGuatemala

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:42 PM

I think the Twins had to get rid of Nolasco because he pretty clearly didn't enjoy playing for the team.  Just not a happy camper in Minneapolis.  As for Meyer, I think the Twins were frustrated with his development and weren't interested in dealing with another complicated project.  They had enough on their hands and found a taker.  Neither Nolasco or Meyer will win the Cy Young this year.  Or next.  There are "bad trades" and then there are trades that are minorly unbalanced.  

 

My guess is that the trade is pretty meaningless overall for both teams in the end. 

  • DJSim22, Dozier's Glorious Hair, Bill Brown69 and 1 other like this

#37 LA VIkes Fan

LA VIkes Fan

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 835 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:48 PM

Guys, I live in LA and the Angels are only starting Nolasco for lack of anyone else. He rarely goes beyond 6 innings, usually less, has an ERA solidly over 4, and was born in 1982 by the way. Math isn't my strong point, but if Nolasco was born in 12/82, doesn't that make him 34 this year and pretty close to done while Santiago is 29 and in his prime? The Angels wold love to replace Nolasco but can't because they have no other options. The papers talk about how he should be doing better but just has "bad luck", only "a couple of bad pitches away", "needs better help from his defense". And then every now and then he'll have a quality start that makes you think that maybe there's something there.  But there isn't. Sound familiar to anyone?

 

Look, we all know how this trade factored out. The Twins got the better established player - Santiago is a much better starter than Nolasco - and the Angels got the better prospect - Meyer is a much better prospect than Busenitz. Right now, this year, we have the better side and its not even close.  If Meyer (who is only 2 years younger than Santiago) becomes a 1 or 2 starter, the Angels win. If Meyer becomes a mid-rotation starter and Busenitz becomes a decent bullpen arm, its a draw. Simple as that. 

  • Dozier's Glorious Hair, bighat and D.C Twins like this

#38 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,632 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:38 PM

Did somebody just argue that Nolasco was the Twins 2nd best starter last year as if that had some sort of meaning or relevance? Or that Nolasco was somehow good based on 19 starts?

I need to see a little more...

  • bighat likes this

Is 2016 2017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis


#39 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 3,682 posts

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:26 PM

Doesn't Nolasco have an option/vesting year that kicks in if he gets enough starts in years 3 and 4 of the deal (or something like that)?  


#40 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,759 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 20 May 2017 - 11:39 PM

 

Doesn't Nolasco have an option/vesting year that kicks in if he gets enough starts in years 3 and 4 of the deal (or something like that)?  

 

400+ innings in 16/17 to vest his option. So he'd need 202 1/3 this year.

  • glunn and PseudoSABR like this