Twins' Trade Bait and Why the Twins Should Sell

[Brock Beauchamp]

"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.

 

These statements are not contradictory and Perkins uses very relative terms in "young" and "fast".

 

What I'm most curious about is why you're trying to hard to go after Perkins. He's one of the most stat-savvy players I know of, yet you accuse him of "not understanding" the metrics when, in fact, his statements about Pinto were accurate. Pinto is an awful pitch framer. He's second to last in the league but you don't even have to use a metric to know that... he looks bad. This shouldn't even be an argument.

 

Should Glen have said that about Josmil? Dunno. I find it odd, for sure... But I'm not going to bash him for it, either.

[jorgenswest]

With Pinto catching, Perkins has struck out 11 and walked 3 guys in 10.1 innings this year. I guess those strikes must have all been swinging strikes.

[TheLeviathan]

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

 

The circumstances are different, namely the recently signed contract. Either way, the problem here isn't that he "turned down" anything. It's that, by all reports, his stance turned away buyers.

 

So if you go back to the original point.....a mid 30s, injury prone guy, in the middle of a career year? If all those reports are accurate (and typically they are, or very close) - it was the wrong approach. And it was the wrong approach for the same reasons then as they are in hindsight now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

So if you go back to the original point.....a mid 30s, injury prone guy, in the middle of a career year? If all those reports are accurate (and typically they are, or very close) - it was the wrong approach. And it was the wrong approach for the same reasons then as they are in hindsight now.

 

I can't call it the wrong approach without actually knowing what happened.

[Guest]

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).

 

We have to get over the "blame Bill Smith" mentality and the implication that he represents everything bad in a GM.

 

1. He wasn't an individual cowboy. He worked within a system and had many of the same advisors, including the present GM, who are running the team today.

2. Under his direction, the team went out and got Miguel Sano. It may have been less money than the free agent contracts for Willingham and Nolasco, but it was still the biggest signing in Twins history.

3. People I know who got to know Bill Smith while he was GM say that he is one of the most decent people they know. Other stories suggest that he is and was very hard working.

4. It's hard to say that he is the only "GM who hands away talent like it's not big deal." Kyle Lohse was a good starting pitcher on playoff teams when he was here, then ran into social issues with management (there's another theme) before being given away for an old-for-his-league A-ball pitcher with low strike-out rates. Last year's opening game starter was given away for a small stipend. David Ortiz was handed away for . . . nothing.

 

Besides, if you truly believe Bill Smith was a terrible GM, comparing TR to him and considering TR a success for exceeding the low grade you give to Bill Smith still does not mean that TR is any great shakes as a GM. How about instead comparing him to other good GM's around the league? Off the top of my head, I consider Ryan to be a worse GM than Mozeliak, Beane, Sabean, Jocketty, Friedman, Cherington, Epstein (although let's see what he does with the Cubs), Rizzo, Wren, Dombrowski and Daniels (can't tell with Luhnow or Cashman; the only ones I consider clearly worse are Moore and Towers). Perhaps we can do a more statistical analysis of success in bringing up young players, picking up free talent off the waiver wire, attracting free agents, and upgrading the team through trades, but it does seem that these GM's and possibly others produce better results in many of these areas than TR. We can't blame Bill Smith for that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I actually think Smith did some very smart things as GM. You probably shouldn't assume you know my opinion of the man and how he did his job. He made what were possibly the two worst trades in Twins history. That doesn't mean he was awful at everything or that you need to defend him for his obvious mistakes.

[TheLeviathan]

I can't call it the wrong approach without actually knowing what happened.

 

I would venture to guess you should probably reduce your posted opinions by a sizable percentage then if you truly only want to comment on things you "actually know happened" or why they happened. There is always a degree of mystery behind everything.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I would venture to guess you should probably reduce your posted opinions by a sizable percentage then if you truly only want to comment on things you "actually know happened" or why they happened. There is always a degree of mystery behind everything.

 

No, but I require some facts or information to form an opinion, of which you have none.

 

You don't have names of players offered. You don't have details on what was offered or even how much interest the team really had in Willingham. You don't even have the names of teams potentially involved in a potential Willingham trade or a single substantial quote from an MLB GM about the situation.

 

Yet you call Ryan's approach wrong. You realize how obviously biased that sounds, right?

 

At the time, I was 50/50 on the Willingham trade situation. I thought that it'd be tough to get good value for him. I still don't know if Ryan did the right thing, nor do I claim to know.

[Guest USAFChief]

I don't think it's at all realistic to think the Twins, or any team, would sign a player for 3 years to fill a need, have the player succeed for half a season, and then trade him. No matter the W/L record.

 

They signed him because they needed RH power. They were getting it. It would be a breach of good faith to operate that way, and other players/agents would notice.

 

I don't think it was ever seriously contemplated, nor do I think it should have been.

 

2014 is a different story of course.

[TheLeviathan]

You don't have names of players offered. You don't have details on what was offered or even how much interest the team really had in Willingham. You don't even have the names of teams potentially involved in a potential Willingham trade or a single substantial quote from an MLB GM about the situation.

 

If Berrios doesn't get a call-up....do you truly "know" why they haven't done that? You can say you've limited your criticism of the Twins to situations in which you only know with absolute certainty all that transpired?

 

Color me dubious of such moral high ground.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think it's at all realistic to think the Twins, or any team, would sign a player for 3 years to fill a need, have the player succeed for half a season, and then trade him. No matter the W/L record.

 

That's a fine point. If, at the end of the day, Ryan basically shut down all trade talks for that reason I get it. I don't like it, I'd like to see more aggressiveness with selling high on a player with as many red flags as he had, but I get it.

 

I just don't agree with it for precisely the reasons I laid on in 2012. That was his peak value.

[The Wise One]

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'

 

Baseball and the rest of the unionized world are two different things.

Name me one similar situation in baseball where the union rep said the guy should not have been demoted? Quibling on age now on what is young and what is not? Pinto's rise from being promoted AA to the majors took less than 2 years. I guess in your idea that is not fast.

More axe grinding on Perkins?

[DocBauer]

I bow my head in apology for my comments about Willingham after 2012, trade options, 20-20 hindsight, etc. I guess from reading here there were those of you asking for a trade at the time. I guess I don't recall. I guess at least one of us has a failing memory. Lol

 

You know, if he remains healthy the rest of the season, and can simply maintain his normal career numbers per AB, he will not only be a huge asset for us, but in retrospect, his deal would once again be considered a good value.

 

FYI, when I have mentioned re-signing Willingham to a one year deal, IF healthy and productive the rest of the year, it's not because that is my preference. Merely an option to consider. It is very possible that next ST will see Hicks, Rosario, some decent but not overly expensive veteran FA acquisition, (even Fuld possibly) to compete for the CF position in 2015. And we can't discount Santana as well, even though his future is probably as a SS. (Possibly interesting utility reserve).

 

So who is in LF next season? That is my consideration for a 1 year deal on Hammer. Though ultimately I believe a younger FA is probably the best option on a 1 or 2 year deal. (Yes, FA, don't trade young talent to fill that spot unless a steal)

 

I have to wonder if the Twins are sellers, even if they would slide.

 

I say again, is Willingham's trade value, if he maintains, worth an A level prospect? Or are the Twins ultimately better having his veteran and RBI presence for the balance of the year?

 

Morales? As has been pointed out, I wonder at negotiations behind the scenes before his signing. As I understand it, he can not be rendered any deal that would restrict him after this season. So he might be playing out the season to improve his contract status for next season. I don't know that that would preclude re-signing with the Twins. There may indeed be an agreement that he is open to a trade at some point to a contending team. He might bring a decent return considering his past history. Again, I'm highly in favor of re-signing him if possible. He would bring a big, steady bat to the team next season while we await the likes of Vargas.

 

Correia? IF he continues his current trend, he might have some value to a team needing to flush out its rotation. I don't believe the return would be great. But his trade might be more about just creating a spot on the roster and in the rotation.

 

Dozier? No way!

 

Plouffe? Again no way. Injury aside, he's just coming in to his own. Sano isn't ready, of course. When he is, maybe then. But he might, as has been pointed out, be Cuddyer part 2 or close.

 

Suzuki? Again, I say no. I so want Pinto to be the guy. And hopefully he will be. But whether he catches 50-60-70% of the games next season, there has to be a backup you can count on. He continues to be an integral part of this year's team. I think his presence is important. And while the Twins have Pinto, backup options are limited unless someone has a good idea who might be available elsewhere. I'm a Herrman fan, but he needs consistent playing time, which he hasn't had lately. And while I believe the Twins have some really solid C prospects in the minors, they are just too far away.

 

Again, other than maybe Morales who I'd love to re-sign, I just don't know that we are sellers.

[The Wise One]

That's a fine point. If, at the end of the day, Ryan basically shut down all trade talks for that reason I get it. I don't like it, I'd like to see more aggressiveness with selling high on a player with as many red flags as he had, but I get it.

 

I just don't agree with it for precisely the reasons I laid on in 2012. That was his peak value.

 

I would still like to know what information you have that there were any offers out there in 2012 for Willingham. I could speculate and claim there are teams interested in a player. If it were a plausable senario, people would not question it. You repeatedly through out that there should have been a trade when Willingham's value was high in 2012. Yet the only evidence you have provided was an article stating the Cleveland team offered him a 2 year contract when he was a free agent. Many others have laid out why there would not have been offers. They sound far more reasonable than repeating sell high.

[Thegrin]

Suzuki may be tradeable but he seems to be responsible for the great pitching performances of Twins pitchers.

" No No. Please not Suzuki. Anybody but Suzuki."

"Anybody?"

"NO No. Please don't trade Hughes either. Anybody but Hughes and Suzuki."

"Anybody?"

"No no. Please don't trade Hammer. Anybody else but Hammer and Hughes and Suzuki."

and so on and so forth thru the lineup ...

[Brock Beauchamp]

If Berrios doesn't get a call-up....do you truly "know" why they haven't done that? You can say you've limited your criticism of the Twins to situations in which you only know with absolute certainty all that transpired?

 

Not all that transpired but some information is useful to make a judgment. We have virtually no information about 2012 Willingham past some anonymous person saying "Ryan is asking too much". That's not enough on which to base an opinion because we don't even have perspective on that person's definition of "too much".

 

As for Berrios, I'm also hesitant to bash the Twins for call-ups because I don't get to see the player. Can I be disappointed that someone isn't called up? Absolutely. I was disappointed when May didn't get the call earlier this week. But at least with prospects, we have extensive stat sheets that give us a good indication of how that player is performing in the minor leagues. While not all the information possible, it's often enough to form a somewhat informed opinion on the matter.

 

Color me dubious of such moral high ground.

 

It's not moral high ground. It's shrugging my shoulders because I don't have enough information to state an intelligent opinion.

 

Take last July, for example. I remember saying something along the lines of "while I can't complain that Ryan didn't trade any individual player, I'm really disappointed that essentially nobody was traded". I haven't been a big fan of Ryan's recent deadlines. He's definitely not above criticism in my mind, I simply don't believe that we can declare any move that didn't happen a mistake without more information.

[Major League Ready]

I would venture to guess you should probably reduce your posted opinions by a sizable percentage then if you truly only want to comment on things you "actually know happened" or why they happened. There is always a degree of mystery behind everything.

 

IMO volume of content is not relevant. These topics are of interest to all of us and we all have opinions. Therefore, much is written. Nothing wrong with exploring what our favorite team is doing in depth.

 

However, we have limited information and much of the conversation is speculation. We know relatively little about the decision process. We also don’t have the experience and perspective of people who have been in MLB for 20-30 years. Therefore, while volume of content is great, we are not in a position to judge with the degree of certainty that is often demonstrated here. If someone were to judge any of us, who had far less professional experience in whatever it is we do, especially with partial information, I think we would tell that person to take a leap. I can say with certainty that is what would happen in a professional environment.

[TheLeviathan]

Not all that transpired but some information is useful to make a judgment. We have virtually no information about 2012 Willingham past some anonymous person saying "Ryan is asking too much".

 

Many of the things discussed here are based on some anonymous person talking to someone. It's the basis for a very large percentage of what beat writers discuss and is subsequently discussed here.

 

And while you can argue about minor league stat sheets, we also know how completely misleading those can be. The minors are a different animal and most organizations (including the Twins) seem to rely more on what their coaching staffs are seeing for readiness than what their stat lines are telling them for readiness.

 

You can pretend this is some higher level of information, but it's not. It's one piece of a puzzle you're trying to put together in the dark. I think you can draw reasonable conclusions and opinions from this sort of information...but I'm not so foolish as to demand certainty or transparency as you're doing. It's not possible. What I provided was a variety of sources identifying the same thing: Willingham was not being entertained. Not in any kind of serious way. (More in the: sure, I'll take your Carl Yzstremski card for this Omar Vizquel card!)

 

That's the mistake and there is ample evidence to know it happened. The why it happened is what people like Chief are speculating on. There may have been a good reason why they didn't want to pull the trigger on a deal. However, there is no good reason to put up a front that scares away suitors.

[Brock Beauchamp]

but I'm not so foolish as to demand certainty or transparency as you're doing.

 

Really, Levi? Foolish?

 

I'm not demanding transparency, I'm acknowledging that I don't have enough information to declare something "the wrong approach".

[cmathewson]

I defended Pinto's defense earlier. But after his stint up here, it is pretty clear he is not ready defensively. Not only was he awful at pitch framing, he had tons of passed balls, errors and wild pitches. And he failed to throw out a single runner. He seemed to get worse as his playing time at catcher decreased. Hopefully, he can iron out those things in AAA. But he has a lot of work to do.

[WLFINN]

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.

 

 

If Klutchuki can continue anywhere near the numbers he is having and the pitchers have no gripes working with him I have no problem at all with him being a solution for 2015. If Pinto can force the Twins hand to get him back up to the Majors that will be a good problem.

[cmathewson]

I think we should trade all the veterans for Low A prospects. Not.

[jorgenswest]

Suzuki's performance this year is the definition of sell high.

 

He is out performing all of his recent seasons. He plays a position where decline comes earlier. He is 30 years old. His contract is up at the end of the year.

 

The Twins have some options.

 

They can sell high.

They can buy high.

They can let his contract run out.

 

I am certain Suzuki would listen to an extension offer. If I were him, I would be looking for three years. This will be his last good contract. He is not going to sign a team friendly one year deal in season. Like we saw with extensions given to Burton and Doumit, players often don't age well into their thirties. It is even more likely for Suzuki given his outlier season and workload at catcher. Sign him to a multiyear deal and they could be watching him hit .220 with league bottom defense for the next three years.

 

Assuming the Twins don't go on a Royal like streak in the next month, I am selling high and taking the best offer. I will look for another one year option in the winter to mix with Pinto.

[TheLeviathan]

Suzuki's performance this year is the definition of sell high.

 

I would totally agree. They should at least entertain what people are willing to give for him.

 

One thing working in favor of retaining/extending him is that the available catching options next season are very slim. Given Pinto's defensive deficiencies that could be a factor we can't ignore. (Although, on the flip side of that, keeping Suzuki around only inspires our manager to play him instead of Pinto)

[Doug Y]

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

 

I agree. I don't like trading away good pitching if you don't have to. Morales will have some trade value, but if you pick him up in June and trade him in July, do you run the risk of scaring away other free agents who may think we just picked them up as trade bait.

[Beezer07]

The only way Suzuki is the definition of "sell high" is if the Twins can trick someone into thinking that what he's doing isn't a total outlier. Easier to sell high on a young guy than a savvy veteran.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The only way Suzuki is the definition of "sell high" is if the Twins can trick someone into thinking that what he's doing isn't a total outlier.

 

Therein lies the rub. The notion of "selling high" is a flawed concept much of the time, particularly when it's bandied about on internet forums.

 

If you, as a fan, can recognize the potential lapse of a player, don't you think professional MLB GMs can do the same?

 

That doesn't mean you can't get peak value out of a guy but it does mean that GMs are going to lowball their offers to mitigate the risk of player collapse.

[jorgenswest]

Sell high is a term relative to each player. Suzuki has raised the bar on his value with his performance this year. The Twins have an opportunity to sell and that return will likely have more value than he 2.75 million they committed last winter.

 

If "sell high" is not the right term, I struggle to find something better.

[jokin]

Sell high is a term relative to each player. Suzuki has raised the bar on his value with his performance this year. The Twins have an opportunity to sell and that return will likely have more value than he 2.75 million they committed last winter.

 

If "sell high" is not the right term, I struggle to find something better.

 

Excellent analysis, his outstanding performance this season will pique lots more interest in Suzuki as a rental player than would have been the case at this time last year in the identical contract situation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Sell high is a term relative to each player. Suzuki has raised the bar on his value with his performance this year. The Twins have an opportunity to sell and that return will likely have more value than he 2.75 million they committed last winter.

 

If "sell high" is not the right term, I struggle to find something better.

 

In my opinion, expiring contracts don't really apply. There is virtually no risk on an expiring contract whether the player is high or low. The player simply goes away at the end of the season.

 

My comments were more directed at the concept of "selling high or low" on players with considerable time left on their contracts. I should have been more clear in my post.

 

I don't think a team is going to do an extensive risk analysis on the $75 owed Suzuki for the rest of 2014 or how his career trajectory has looked over the past 3-4 years. They care about how he's playing right now and little else. The Twins are probably the only team that really cares about whether Suzuki is playing over his head right now, as they're the ones most likely to retain his services for 2015.