Twins' Trade Bait and Why the Twins Should Sell

[Dman]

I question when it was said. That chatter is out there for the 2012 offseason, not for July. Your evidence is of low demand but multiple and varied reports say demand was high. The Twins just weren't letting the supply out.

 

I looked for info on Willingham 2012 as well. Most articles had interest as high but no mention of what was really being offered. The following link does highlight the notion that they weren't going to get a high level prospect for him though.

 

http://paullebowitz.wordpress.com/tag/will-the-twins-trade-josh-willingham/

 

Hard to say what his exact value was then but if he has a good year this year his value should technically be higher because the contract is only through this year. If the Twins still get something for him this year all is not lost. If he under performs then his value goes down but that is the risk of keeping older players.

[TheLeviathan]

Maybe it's just me but I walked away from the Boston series with a positive outlook. Was it frustrating? Absolutely... but playing that team straight-up in Boston and shutting down their offense bodes well for the rest of the season.

 

The pitching has been rolling very well, but Boston's offense isn't a high measuring stick. They're 8th worst in RS this season. We also happened to catch Toronto during a particularly good time.

 

So we need to see it keep going, but I wouldn't draw any huge conclusions from this road trip.

[TheLeviathan]

I looked for info on Willingham 2012 as well. Most articles had interest as high but no mention of what was really being offered. The following link does highlight the notion that they weren't going to get a high level prospect for him though.

 

http://paullebowitz.wordpress.com/tag/will-the-twins-trade-josh-willingham/

 

Hard to say what his exact value was then but if he has a good year this year his value should technically be higher because the contract is only through this year. If the Twins still get something for him this year all is not lost. If he under performs then his value goes down but that is the risk of keeping older players.

 

At least that's something. Even still it seems like speculation. I have trouble believing there would be high demand and the best you could get is roughly equivalent of what we did for Drew Butera. That strains credulity.

 

It seems more likely that Ryan put him on "Available...but only if you're out of your damn mind" status and it never went anywhere.

[Dman]

At least that's something. Even still it seems like speculation. I have trouble believing there would be high demand and the best you could get is roughly equivalent of what we did for Drew Butera. That strains credulity.

 

It seems more likely that Ryan put him on "Available...but only if you're out of your damn mind" status and it never went anywhere.

 

Most of the stuff I read was wishy washy about him truly being available. It seems you might be correct that the FO was only interested in an "unreal" desperation offer that never came.

 

At the time I didn't want them to trade him. We needed right handed power and had found someone for decent money to handle that. It seemed foolish to me to give that away so soon. Then came 2013 and now I think differently. Hindsight is 20/20. Hopefully they still get something decent for him this year.

[tobi0040]

Correia and Willingham are trade-able. It would be crazy to trade Hughes, Morales and Suzuki.

 

 

I see the guys that would get something in value as next to off-limits (Hughes, Dozier, Perkins, etc.). I am on board with keeping these guys.

 

I think you have Josh, Corriea, Suzuki, several bullpen guys, and maybe Morales. I am not overly optimstic about getting anything of value at this point for any of them except for Morales if he gets hot.

 

Willingham has played in 29 games this year and is a complete liability defensively. I think we had to make several calls after Corriea's 4.18 ERA last year and we didn't like what we heard then, I don't see how that would be better now. With respect to Correia and the bullpen guys like Guerrier, Fien, and Burton....I think we would be better off trading them now and bringing up the likes of Meyer, May, Tonkin, Achter, etc. I don't see the market for these guys changing drastically from June 19th to July 31st.

 

Look back at Kyle Gibson last year. He got in 100 IP, got hit around pretty good and now the jitters are gone and he knew what adjustments he had to make. I would rather get that season out of the way this year with our good prospects this year. That is where the value to this organization will be, over waiting for some bonanza for a bunch of mostly mid-level at best MLB players. The players that aren't mid-level have fleas (injuries, haven't played in 3 months, etc).

[SheboyganBrats]

Great discussion here. I don't think I can add anything to what's been said about Willingham's trade status in 2012, and I'm not sure how the question gets resolved in any event.

 

I am surprised, however, that some folks have been willing to include Suzuki in the "expendable" category. Although he's on a one year contract, I don't know what we're left with if we trade him. I personally don't think Pinto is ready defensively to handle a major league staff full time. I think Suzuki should be given at least a little credit for the pitching staff's recent success. In addition, I'm not as sure as some are about Pinto's hitting ability. Maybe he was just in a little slump before he got sent down recently, but I have to entertain the possibility that the mlb scouts and mlb pitchers had caught up to him somewhat and may have found a flaw in his swing. In any event, he is valuable enough that I don't want the Twins to do to him what's been done to Hicks and give him the job before he's ready to take it. And, if they trade Suzuki and Pinto gets injured, what then? Are we really ready to endure the rest of the season with Fryer and Hermann behind the plate? I'm not. The memories of trading Wilson Ramos and Mauer getting injured are just too fresh in my mind.

[jorgenswest]

The return will for their veteran corner players or relievers will not look exciting and certain to be criticized. They still need to make the trades. I would look for guys 23 and younger that play SS, CF, C or SP and have been at least 2 years younger than their leagues. They won't have good numbers otherwise they would be a good prospect. They will have the upside of age and positional value.

 

I hope they can get a little more for Suzuki. They can get above value if other catchers join Weiters on the disabled list.

[jay]

We're really re-hashing some old history with this Willingham debate. Regardless of what we think the Twins could or should have done, how many examples exist of trading a player 3 months in to a 3+ year contract? I can't think of any and couldn't find any that stood out in searching through mlbtraderumor's transaction tracker. The real world of GMs doesn't support this fan/fantasy baseball/commodity perspective.

 

On the original post, moving Willingham or Morales would be fine. I'm less sold on moving Suzuki -- this Twins just sent Pinto down to work on defense, so I don't see how moving Suzuki in the next few weeks and plugging in Pinto full-time is going to fly... not to mention the lack of depth it would cause. On Hughes, I'll echo the general sentiment... no -- barely into a multi-year contract, can contribute to the next winning team, and GMs just aren't dumb enough to assume he's now a #1/#2 forever and pay the price for that.

[MWLFan]

Sad that we are having this conversation again. It is becoming a ritual. That being said. A lot of good viewpoints and passion as always on the Twins Daily site around this. Here is one scenario I will throw out, but there are many others. I call it go young! First I would not touch Hughes. If he could become what was expected of him as a Prospect, odds against it but not out of the realm of possibility, we have a cheap Ace for a few years with Gibson, Meyers and May ready to go asap and Berrios, Stewart and others on the horizon. The adage is you can never have enough good pitching and it is hard to find and devil to replace. So shore up the Bullpen and look for young hitting. That means Willingham, Morales, Suzuki, and yes Dozier are all in play for me. Willingham and Morales are not much of a thought for me. They are luxuries that a last place team does not need. Bring up Danny Ortiz and or Wilkin Ramirez and let them finish of the season with Fuld/Hicks/ Rosario in Center. (Anyone know WTF is up with Buxton, the guy has dropped off the web radar.) Suzuki is one I balk at. Pinto at this point is a liabilty behind the plate that could diminsh the strength of the team, starting pitching. (god that was weird to write.). We have no replacement available at AAA or AA ball. Turner is at A ball but still a couple years away probably. So unless there is a plan I just think it creates a huge hole. Dozier is I think is the greatest opportunity, he might be at his highest value this year. He is old for his service time and the Twins have replacements available coming in Rosario (stop gap if needed this year.) and Jorge Polanco who should go back to 2nd and prep to take over for Dozier in the next couple of years. (Nick Gordon is two steps behind Polanco and starting in E-Town makes me think the Twins see him as a fast mover.) Vargas takes Morales spot, Rosario takes over for Hicks, Ortiz comes in for Willingham, Suzuki stays. Late July the lineup is Santana SS- Rosario- CF, Mauer 1b, Vargas DH, Arcia/Parmalee RF, Plouffe 3b, Suzuki C, Ortiz LF, Escobar 2b. Drop Florimon as fast as you can, bring up Beresford and he and Ramiriz and Fryer are the bench unless you want Pinto to come back up and sit. Hopefully Corriea stays hot and someone wants him, dreaming good thoughts here. Nolasco...5th starter. Deduno, see you in the 6th innings of blowouts Sammy. So July rotation, Hughes, Gibson, May, Meyer, ugh Nolasco. In the pen Perk, Fien, Burton, Deduno, Swarzek and fill in the blanks.

 

12 man staff- 4 man bench with a Utility guy that can play anywhere in the infield, a couple of outfielders, A guy at SS that can play CF if needed and a CF that can play 2b. Vargas and Parmalee can play 1B. Now the quality of their defensive capabilities is another question. But considering we had Collabello, Kubel and Bartlett roaming, that is a relative term by the way, the outfield this year I would consider this a upgrade. Only one back up catcher for his lame duckness, but I don't see Suzuki or Fyer DHing with this collection of career DH's.

 

Plenty of holes to be punched here I know. (lLike they would promote Vargas and Rosario over Collabello and Hermann.) Maybe some 40 man considerations around some guys, I bet you can find some floatsam in the 40 man if needed. What do you get back? I don't have any clue there. I would expect decent returns from Willingham and Morales, but not someone we would all praise. Dozier, that has potentiel to bring something nice I would hope. But then again I could be fully delusional and living in my Twins rube bubble. Also if you need to throw in a Minor leaguer we do have some assests down there that are touchable.

 

Of course the Twins could go on a 10-0 run like the Royals and make all this part of some thread we will quickly forget. But then again...

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm not making excuses for not trading Willingham. I don't know what the offers were and what Ryan asked in return but it's a mistake to look at a 2+ year contract at the deadline and expect a fair return. It just doesn't seem to happen that way.

 

Personally, I think it's really dumb.

 

The reason for this, in my opinion, comes down to risk. There was risk priced into that contract to begin with. If Hammer had a history of health instead of his history, there's no way he signs a 3/21M deal. It's much bigger. 3 months into it, that risk hasn't been mitigated. GMs know they are picking up a guy with 2 1/2 years left on the contract, and odds are good he's going to get hurt... and guess what, he did. That risk is largely mitigated this offseason. He doesn't have to go another year, he has to go a few more months. Teams will pay for that if he's an impact bat, which right now, he is. They'll pay... not a superstar prospect, but something with more upside than what we'd have gotten in 2012. My guess is that it would be a Trevor May type guy (not 2014 Trevor, but December 2012 Trevor).

 

I know my position in 2012 was not to trade him if the results are underwhelming. What they were offered, we'll never know, but I highly doubt there was a ton on the table for him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The pitching has been rolling very well, but Boston's offense isn't a high measuring stick. They're 8th worst in RS this season. We also happened to catch Toronto during a particularly good time.

 

So we need to see it keep going, but I wouldn't draw any huge conclusions from this road trip.

 

Absolutely, but it's impressive to hold any MLB offense to 5 (?) runs over three games.

 

Well, maybe not 2003 Detroit but you get my point.

[DaveW]

Absolutely, but it's impressive to hold any MLB offense to 5 (?) runs over three games.

 

Well, maybe not 2003 Detroit but you get my point.

They are the world champs, and have plenty of nice bats in the lineup: Ortiz, Napoli, Holt, Boegarts, Pedroia, A.J., Victorino (injured)

 

Not the 27 Yankees, but a solid lineup, no doubt.

[Willihammer]

Who can the Twins acquire? Any catchers or center fielders on the trading block?

[The Wise One]

Show me. I can't find that. I find a little of that when they start talking the offseason after 2012, but NOTHING about that at the July deadline that year. Everything I read says there were suitors lined up for him but the Twins demands basically scared people away out of their ridiculousness or flat-out refusal to talk about him.

 

I keep producing evidence, it'd be swell if some of you would start to suggest some counter-evidence you claim exists.

 

That is not evidence of a Willingham trade. It might be considered evidence of why teams were unwilling to give up much for Willingham as they cited his injury history.

[jokin]

That is not evidence of a Willingham trade. It might be considered evidence of why teams were unwilling to give up much for Willingham as they cited his injury history.

 

What are you talking about? There was a line-up of articles of teams actively expressing interest in exploring the idea of a Willingham acquisition. And I believe he asked for counter-evidence.....tick, tick, tick.....

[DaveW]

Who can the Twins acquire? Any catchers or center fielders on the trading block?

 

I think one way or another if the Twins are still in it come the trade deadline, then Pinto is going to be back up regardless as the back up C. (unless he totally starts flaming out in AAA)

 

As far as CF: Jon Jay is on the block apparently but the asking price is very high, best bet is to hope Hicks can come back and be adequate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The reason for this, in my opinion, comes down to risk. There was risk priced into that contract to begin with. If Hammer had a history of health instead of his history, there's no way he signs a 3/21M deal. It's much bigger. 3 months into it, that risk hasn't been mitigated. GMs know they are picking up a guy with 2 1/2 years left on the contract, and odds are good he's going to get hurt... and guess what, he did. That risk is largely mitigated this offseason. He doesn't have to go another year, he has to go a few more months. Teams will pay for that if he's an impact bat, which right now, he is. They'll pay... not a superstar prospect, but something with more upside than what we'd have gotten in 2012. My guess is that it would be a Trevor May type guy (not 2014 Trevor, but December 2012 Trevor).

 

I know my position in 2012 was not to trade him if the results are underwhelming. What they were offered, we'll never know, but I highly doubt there was a ton on the table for him.

 

Agreed. Willingham was a big risk in 2012, still having ~17m owed to him. I doubt the return offered was anything of enormous value, or Ryan probably would have taken that deal. After all, he didn't hesitate to trade two (!) centerfielders just a few months later.

 

And despite Ryan's sometimes apparent faults, I prefer a GM who sits on a player for two long, asking for a good return over a GM who hands away talent like it's no big deal (eg. a certain GM that succeeded Ryan for a few years).

 

In the end, we'll never know what was offered for Willingham so it's really a moot point. Giving him away for the equivalent of what can be had for him in the next six weeks wouldn't have thrilled the fanbase, just as sitting on him and watching him struggle through 2013 didn't thrill the fanbase.

[GoGonzoJournal]

I am sooo tired of hearing how the Twins should have traded Willingham after his career in 2012. Who was clamoring then to trade our best HR RBI threat when that season ended? Nobody I'd say. 20-20 backwards vision is always a great thing. Now? If he keeps producing he might bring something to a team making a move. I'm not opposed. But he's just going to bring back a top prospect at this point. Is he more valuable to us this season or an A prospect. Heck, he might even be an option for us next season on a 1 year deal.

 

Willingham on a one-year deal will NOT happen! He'll be 36 and be even more useless in LF. We have DHs coming out of our ass. That 3-year deal was one of the most team-friendly contracts ever for a guy with 35 HR and 110 RBI...on a team that lost 96 games and wasn't going to compete that year or the next. Hindsight is 20/20, but when a man outplays his career averages like that you can't say NOBODY was thinking about trading him. I certainly was and Terry Ryan probably was too. Bill Smith even had to. He should have been moved in 2012.

[Thrylos]

Trade Suzuki? Who will play catcher? Pinto is barely adequate as a backup catcher. .

 

Based on? What Perkins said when he threw him under the bus regarding pitch framing? If you read Mike Berardino's article, you'd see that when MB gave the real numbers, Suzuki was worse that Pinto in that respect. Sucks when people like Perkins open their mouths up and spew stuff that a. do not understand and b. do not even bother to check facts before they spew them, especially as far as teammates go.

 

Pinto is at least as good as Suzuki with the glove and better with the bat.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Based on? What Perkins said when he threw him under the bus regarding pitch framing? If you read Mike Berardino's article, you'd see that when MB gave the real numbers, Suzuki was worse that Pinto in that respect. Sucks when people like Perkins open their mouths up and spew stuff that a. do not understand and b. do not even bother to check facts before they spew them, especially as far as teammates go.

 

Pinto is at least as good as Suzuki with the glove and better with the bat.

 

Uh... Per game, Suzuki is a better framer. Not good but he's better than Pinto.

 

http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php

[The Wise One]

Based on? What Perkins said when he threw him under the bus regarding pitch framing? If you read Mike Berardino's article, you'd see that when MB gave the real numbers, Suzuki was worse that Pinto in that respect. Sucks when people like Perkins open their mouths up and spew stuff that a. do not understand and b. do not even bother to check facts before they spew them, especially as far as teammates go.

 

Pinto is at least as good as Suzuki with the glove and better with the bat.

 

On the radio show wasn't the conversation about Pinto. Did anybody ask Perkins what he thought of Suzuki. Can't find it anywhere. By the numbers Pinto needs to work on his pitch framing. Perkins is not wrong about that. That Pinto is less bad than Suzuki wasn't part of any question. So what is Perkins spewing about that was factually incorrect about Pinto? Nothing. Now if your complaint was that he didn't throw Suzuki under the bus, too I could understand. But your a/b analysis looks real bad, like you have yet another axe to grind about somebody.

[jorgenswest]

Suzuki is a better catcher today. In terms of framing and throwing he has been below average for years. That isn't going to change.

 

Pinto did better last September in his call up when he was getting more consistent play and the numbers weren't anchored down with the bias of catching primarily Deduno.

 

In any case, Suzuki isn't a good solution for 2015. We need to know if Pinto can be a solution. Assuming the a Twins are not within a few games of the wild card, he needs to catch 6 games a week starting August 1.

[jorgenswest]

On the radio show wasn't the conversation about Pinto. Did anybody ask Perkins what he thought of Suzuki. Can't find it anywhere. By the numbers Pinto needs to work on his pitch framing. Perkins is not wrong about that. That Pinto is less bad than Suzuki wasn't part of any question. So what is Perkins spewing about that was factually incorrect about Pinto? Nothing. Now if your complaint was that he didn't throw Suzuki under the bus, too I could understand. But your a/b analysis looks real bad, like you have yet another axe to grind about somebody.

 

I don't see how the organization, Pinto or Perkins are better off with his comments. Perkins has some repair to do in that relationship. I hope he has started that repair and it takes place in house.

 

In any case, Pinto is not the problem. He was signed by the Twins at 16 years old. He had 8 seasons of training in the minor leagues. Framing pitches is a skill that can be taught if it is a priority to the organization.

[JB_Iowa]

I believe you can listen to the Perkins interview here:

http://www.1500espn.com/ondemand/judd

 

 

Monday, June 16, 2014 Hour 3 (bottom of the page) or download from iTunes

[TheLeviathan]

I know my position in 2012 was not to trade him if the results are underwhelming. What they were offered, we'll never know, but I highly doubt there was a ton on the table for him.

 

That's just it, by all accounts the Twins scared away suitors with their demands. Brock suggests he'd rather have someone who doesn't give away players....as if we must have one or the other.

 

Just because you don't hand players out for crappy value, doesn't justify ridiculous demands either. In both respects you artificially suppress the market for your own player by your own approach. If teams are coming to you and your demands for the player are set so high it's described as laughable.....then you've gone too far to the other extreme.

[The Wise One]

I believe you can listen to the Perkins interview here:

http://www.1500espn.com/ondemand/judd

 

 

Monday, June 16, 2014 Hour 3 (bottom of the page) or download from iTunes

 

Should have made it clearer that there was no print version available.

[The Wise One]

I don't see how the organization, Pinto or Perkins are better off with his comments. Perkins has some repair to do in that relationship. I hope he has started that repair and it takes place in house.

 

In any case, Pinto is not the problem. He was signed by the Twins at 16 years old. He had 8 seasons of training in the minor leagues. Framing pitches is a skill that can be taught if it is a priority to the organization.

 

Perkins undoubted told Pinto several times when Perkins lost strikes what Pinto has to do better. Pinto would have known what he needs to do long before Perkins was on the air. What is the harm in truth?

 

Can you find any data that would say that pitch framing occurs regardless of what the game situation is?

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's just it, by all accounts the Twins scared away suitors with their demands. Brock suggests he'd rather have someone who doesn't give away players....as if we must have one or the other.

 

I made it pretty clear that I wasn't defending Ryan for not trading Willingham because - again - we do not know what was offered for him.

 

If the return was crap, it was the right move. If he turned down a solid prospect, it was the wrong move.

 

We simply do not know.

 

What we do know is that Ryan, when offered value for two centerfielders just a few months later, did not hesitate to trade them both and leave a hole at the position.

[Thrylos]

I believe you can listen to the Perkins interview here:

http://www.1500espn.com/ondemand/judd

 

 

Monday, June 16, 2014 Hour 3 (bottom of the page) or download from iTunes

 

Thanks! Good stuff. Starts a bit after the half point.

 

Here is something else that Berardino did not pick up:

 

This is what Perkins said about Pinto:

 

"He is young, he came up the minor leagues fast"

 

Fact: Pinto came up as a 24 year old last season, after 8 minor league seasons

Fact: Perkins himself came up as a 23 year old, after 3 minor league seasons (and we all remember that he sucked pretty much for 2-3 season)

 

Another fact checking that should had happened before opening mouth and throwing a teammate under the bus, but did not happen.

 

And do you know what the ultra ironic kicker is?

 

Perkins is the Twins' Players' Union rep.

[Thrylos]

What is the harm in truth?

 

Perkins' "facts" were not facts. That's part of the problem here.

 

Biggest part of the problem? Here. Play this scenario:

 

You are working a job that is unionized. And you are the Union rep for your plant/unit/whatever. The management took action against one of your union colleagues and they demoted him. You then go to the radio and say publicly in so many words that "he sucks".

 

How well would that play with your coworkers who voted you as their representative?

 

Just sayin'