Article: Trade Glen Perkins

[diehardtwinsfan]

Perk is one of the faces of the franchize. While I don't think people go to watch him pitch in particular, they go to see them win games, and Perk usually helps with that. There's plenty of value that he brings to the table, especially from a merchandizing standpoint and what not.

 

I don't have a problem trading him persay, but I do think that the return would have to be pretty overwhelming (probably 2 top 100 prospects with one being well into the top 50). I don't see a team giving up that much for him.

 

There's definitely some question as to how he ages, and that's certainly fair to speculate, but I'd have to guess that TR is going to need to be pretty blown away by an offer for Perk, and I woudln't be shocked in the least if that's why the NTC was structured the way it was.

[Thegrin]

"Trading Glen Perkins is not going to significantly affect attendence or the team's bottom line. End of story." - chopper0080

 

Having Perkins pitching for the Twins means that Twins fans have a reasonable expectation that the Twins will win the game when Perkins pitches in the 9th with a lead. Perk is one of us, just like Joe Mauer. Never underestimate positive thoughts when it comes to fan attendance numbers and Twins merchandise. The more positive vibes the Twins put out there the higher the overall attendance and TV ratings the Twins will have. We need Perkins in our bullpen when it the Twins salesmen are selling season tickets. Trade any other pitcher, but don't trade Perkins.

[drock2190]

Tigers got a very nice haul for their closer. A potential closer and a number 2/3 starter.

 

If anything Perkins is better as hes fairly reasonable cost wise here on out so he could net something similiar or better. Listening to offers cant hurt.

[TheLeviathan]

Tigers got a very nice haul for their closer. A potential closer and a number 2/3 starter.

 

If anything Perkins is better as hes fairly reasonable cost wise here on out so he could net something similiar or better. Listening to offers cant hurt.

 

Tigers have a weak farm...but still a nice haul for a guy they 2/8 to on a gamble.

[Thrylos]

It's a bad trap to fall into - trading off everyone who shows some promise just because the win record doesn't reflect his value to the team. That's how you find yourself on a 27-year rebuilding program, like Kansas City.

 

Don't look now, but the Twins are on their 23rd year of their rebuilding program, and whatever they tried for those 23 years apparently is not working, so they should probably try something else, like trading people on the top of their value (i.e. selling high), like Perkins is now or Willingham was 2 off-seasons ago, or Span was before his concussion. What they are doing is not working, either on the sort run (4 years) or on the long one. Got to change. That little almost there run in the 00s got them Target Field. They need to bring more back.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Don't look now, but the Twins are on their 23rd year of their rebuilding program

 

Except for all those division titles and playoff appearances last decade.

 

Unless you're only counting WS wins, in which case most of baseball has been rebuilding for two decades or better... including teams like Tampa Bay and Texas. Were they both rebuilding over the past five years?

 

This argument is such nonsense yet you continue to use it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Tigers got a very nice haul for their closer. A potential closer and a number 2/3 starter.

 

If anything Perkins is better as hes fairly reasonable cost wise here on out so he could net something similiar or better. Listening to offers cant hurt.

 

Just to clear up: Rangers got the haul for Soria, the Tigers gave it up. (I was confused by this, and looking around for Joe Nathan trade information! )

 

I think these closer returns, while appropriate for Street and Soria, and probably not acceptable for Perkins given his contract etc. And it suggests that this may be the upper bound for closer deals, which would pretty much bury any chance of trading Perkins at this point. (We'd probably be looking for something more like the last two Garza trade returns, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen that for a closer -- heck, we don't see that kind of return for any player very often anymore.)

[chopper0080]

Because you said so? I'm not buying it. He's a very popular player, and there aren't a lot of reasons to go see the Twins right now unless you're a diehard. Not saying people go to games to see him pitch (they probably don't), but getting rid of him would be another tick in the "why should I go see the Twins?" column.

 

You bought it with your own statement. The majority of fans do not go to Twins games to see Glen Perkins. Fact. You may be a fan, but you are not purchasing a ticket in the hope of your 90 loss Twins being in a position where he can impact a game.

 

Why should I go see the Twins? Because it is summer, tickets are cheap because they suck and there isn't a ton to do in Minnesota as far as sporting events during the summer.

[chopper0080]

"Trading Glen Perkins is not going to significantly affect attendence or the team's bottom line. End of story." - chopper0080

 

Having Perkins pitching for the Twins means that Twins fans have a reasonable expectation that the Twins will win the game when Perkins pitches in the 9th with a lead. Perk is one of us, just like Joe Mauer. Never underestimate positive thoughts when it comes to fan attendance numbers and Twins merchandise. The more positive vibes the Twins put out there the higher the overall attendance and TV ratings the Twins will have. We need Perkins in our bullpen when it the Twins salesmen are selling season tickets. Trade any other pitcher, but don't trade Perkins.

 

"one of us"

 

"positive thoughts"

 

"positive vibes"

 

and you proceed to talk about jersey sales, attendence, and selling tickets.

 

Come on. None of these are driving forces on the moves made by winning teams. Loyalty and sentimentality have no business in professional sports when there are salary caps and bottom lines involved. Perkins has been a really good relief pitcher for us and I like him as a Twin. However, none of those are reasons to hold onto him while our is floundering for a fourth straight season.

[tobi0040]

"one of us"

 

"positive thoughts"

 

"positive vibes"

 

and you proceed to talk about jersey sales, attendence, and selling tickets.

 

Come on. None of these are driving forces on the moves made by winning teams. Loyalty and sentimentality have no business in professional sports when there are salary caps and bottom lines involved. Perkins has been a really good relief pitcher for us and I like him as a Twin. However, none of those are reasons to hold onto him while our is floundering for a fourth straight season.

 

If the 2015 or 2016 team is competitive, we will likely have exactly 3 of 25 players that are both non rookie/young players and better than average players. Dozier, Mauer, and Perkins. If anything, that is a very low young player to veteran ratio. I think team atmosphere and leaders are typically overblown, but even 3/25 seems a tad low to me.

 

Note I left off Nolasco and we may have a reliever or two that are veterans. I personally believe young players look up to guys that are good, all star caliber. These guys don't fit that description. I think Mauer will return to being better than average and either way, 3 batting titles, all star appearances, and an MVP award gets you credibility.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Come on. None of these are driving forces on the moves made by winning teams. Loyalty and sentimentality have no business in professional sports when there are salary caps and bottom lines involved.

 

To put it bluntly, I despise this thinking. The notion that business and basic morality/ethics cannot coexist is a bad one and it does a lot of damage to everyone involved, excepting those at the top who make piles of money by betraying the trust of those below.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the signing of Jason Bartlett? That's bad business and pretty dumb on all fronts.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the retention of an elite employee, one that signed well under market value because he wants to work with your organization? That's good business and should be applauded. Everyone wins financially, performance-wise, and morale is high. Right now, both parties are getting exactly what they want from the other. Perkins is playing for his childhood team and his hometown. The Twins are getting an elite player for millions less than it would cost to replace him on the open market.

 

Maybe trading Perkins in the future is the right move for everybody... But to do it less than 12 months after he signed an under-market deal to play for his hometown team is, as I put it in another thread, just like walking straight up to him and kicking him in the nuts.

 

These are human beings, not cattle to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It doesn't hurt to take that into account from time to time. It's one of the things about Ryan that I most respect, as he seems to genuinely care about his players.

[tobi0040]

To put it bluntly, I despise this thinking. The notion that business and basic morality/ethics cannot coexist is a bad one and it does a lot of damage to everyone involved, excepting those at the top who make piles of money by betraying the trust of those below.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the signing of Jason Bartlett? That's bad business and pretty dumb on all fronts.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the retention of an elite employee, one that signed well under market value because he wants to work with your organization? That's good business and should be applauded. Everyone wins financially, performance-wise, and morale is high. Right now, both parties are getting exactly what they want from the other. Perkins is playing for his childhood team and his hometown. The Twins are getting an elite player for millions less than it would cost to replace him on the open market.

 

Maybe trading Perkins in the future is the right move for everybody... But to do it less than 12 months after he signed an under-market deal to play for his hometown team is, as I put it in another thread, just like walking straight up to him and kicking him in the nuts.

 

These are human beings, not cattle to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It doesn't hurt to take that into account from time to time. It's one of the things about Ryan that I most respect, as he seems to genuinely care about his players.

 

I agree, Terry has a ton of credibility and respect in the baseball community. It is hard to quantify in the way Chopper is trying, but some players want to play here. Other GM's take his calls. He is a guy that you can shake his hand and know what you are getting. He will tell you exactly where you stand with him/our team. These things have value.

[chopper0080]

To put it bluntly, I despise this thinking. The notion that business and basic morality/ethics cannot coexist is a bad one and it does a lot of damage to everyone involved, excepting those at the top who make piles of money by betraying the trust of those below.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the signing of Jason Bartlett? That's bad business and pretty dumb on all fronts.

 

Sentimentality that leads to the retention of an elite employee, one that signed well under market value because he wants to work with your organization? That's good business and should be applauded. Everyone wins financially, performance-wise, and morale is high. Right now, both parties are getting exactly what they want from the other. Perkins is playing for his childhood team and his hometown. The Twins are getting an elite player for millions less than it would cost to replace him on the open market.

 

Maybe trading Perkins in the future is the right move for everybody... But to do it less than 12 months after he signed an under-market deal to play for his hometown team is, as I put it in another thread, just like walking straight up to him and kicking him in the nuts.

 

These are human beings, not cattle to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It doesn't hurt to take that into account from time to time. It's one of the things about Ryan that I most respect, as he seems to genuinely care about his players.

 

However, just because you despise it doesn't mean it is not the best move for the future of the team.

 

Let me put it this way...Glen Perkins will be 33 years old prior to the 2016 season which is our closest CHANCE of competing. Would you be willing to offer a 33 year old closer in 2016 a 3 year deal worth 19.3 million? Maybe. Are you willing to guarantee that money now when the contract is guaranteed and could affect your ability to add talent to your team when they are more likely to be competitive? You shouldn't.

[tobi0040]

However, just because you despise it doesn't mean it is not the best move for the future of the team.

 

Let me put it this way...Glen Perkins will be 33 years old prior to the 2016 season which is our closest CHANCE of competing. Would you be willing to offer a 33 year old closer in 2016 a 3 year deal worth 19.3 million? Maybe. Are you willing to guarantee that money now when the contract is guaranteed and could affect your ability to add talent to your team when they are more likely to be competitive? You shouldn't.

 

In 2016, we will owe Perkins $12.8M over two years and hold an option on 2018 for $6.5M. This is nothing for a closer and likely cheaper than it would be if we traded him and had to find a replacement. In 2014, almost 30 relievers make more than Perkins does. My guess is that number is more like 40-50 in two years. It is possible that we find an internal replacement that is cheap for a few years, but a 7-8-9 of Achter/Tonkin, Burdi, and Perkins gives us the best chance to shut down games like we used to.

 

Lastly, if that $6M a year owed to Perkins is an any way limiting any other baseball decisions going on at that point, we have a bigger set of problems.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Let me put it this way...Glen Perkins will be 33 years old prior to the 2016 season which is our closest CHANCE of competing. Would you be willing to offer a 33 year old closer in 2016 a 3 year deal worth 19.3 million? Maybe. Are you willing to guarantee that money now when the contract is guaranteed and could affect your ability to add talent to your team when they are more likely to be competitive? You shouldn't.

 

Glen Perkins is not going to hinder this team's ability to add talent. This team has oodles of money available and nobody is due to get a significant raise for three years. Expiring contracts are going to be replaced by internal guys at the minimum.

 

If anything, this team's payroll is going to continue to decline and they're already well under their payroll ceiling.

 

Besides, Glen Perkins' value is no higher today than it will be in 12 or 18 months unless his arm falls out of its socket. For the reasons you just listed, teams will balk at his length of contract, particularly because the contract option flips to a player option if he's traded.

 

Trading Glen Perkins right now is a good way to burn bridges for no real reason. He made a good faith gesture to the team by signing a very friendly contract. There's no reason to piss all over that goodwill.

[jokin]

Tigers got a very nice haul for their closer. A potential closer and a number 2/3 starter.

 

If anything Perkins is better as hes fairly reasonable cost wise here on out so he could net something similiar or better. Listening to offers cant hurt.

 

If the Twins aren't seriously listening to other teams, after the Soria deal from Texas to Detroit, than they aren't doing their full due diligence.

 

Would it really be a "betrayal" to Glen Perkins if he is given the opportunity to pitch in the World Series this year for the Dodgers or another perennial contender? Seems like he's going to have to wait a much longer time for that chance with the Twins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Would it really be a "betrayal" to Glen Perkins if he is given the opportunity to pitch in the World Series this year for the Dodgers or another perennial contender?

 

That's a question only Glen Perkins and Terry Ryan can answer.

[zenser]

Let me put it this way...Glen Perkins will be 33 years old prior to the 2016 season which is our closest CHANCE of competing. Would you be willing to offer a 33 year old closer in 2016 a 3 year deal worth 19.3 million? Maybe. Are you willing to guarantee that money now when the contract is guaranteed and could affect your ability to add talent to your team when they are more likely to be competitive? You shouldn't.

 

If Perkins tells Terry Ryan he wants out then so be it. If other teams call and blow Terry Ryan away, I think he has to listen. If neither of those happen, you don't actively shop him. Being 33 prior to the 2016 season means nothing.

 

Player A: 4 seasons removed from leading the league in IP accumulated 55, 45, and 44 saves at ages 35-37.

 

Player B: At age 33-34 accumulated 39 and 47 saves before injuring his arm which he sat out his age 35 season and returned to pitch in his age 36 season and was an all star his age 37 and 38 seasons.

 

Player C: Accumulated 40, 53, and 43 saves in his 33-35 age years and continued his dominance until age 43.

 

Player A: John Smoltz

Player B: Joe Nathan

Player C: Mariano Rivera

 

Considering what the Twins will owe Perkins in 2016, I would hang onto him. He could have some great years yet after this contract is up. He is a proven closer who is cheap and allowing the Twins payroll flexibility to possibly go get a bat or another arm if needed. To flip him now for a wild card IMO would be foolish.

[zakprior]

I totally disagree with the idea that a 90 loss ,team of prospects, doesn't need a dominant closer like we know Glen can and will be. I would in fact argue the opposite, when bringing prospects through I think it is a great position of safety to have a good closer. You can say to the younger guys, go out there and win it in 8, because the 9th is Glen's and we will be totally safe.

 

If we were to allow the closer spot to be taken by someone more inexperienced who is more likely to give up the save, it will not give particularly good team moral, making those new prospects think that they don't have a chance to win. Where as with a dominant closer like Glen, they will know they can win. Not to mention, if we get rid of players like Glen, then we contribute to the team that continues to lose 90 games. He is a piece worthy of a winning team. The fact that he is signed through 2018 means he needs to stay around to be on the next winning Twins team. The Twins need him and he needs/wants the Twins.

[Twins Fan From Afar]

I really do understand the argument about Perkins leaving millions on the table in order to stay here, and why that matters both to the Twins and Perkins, and also in other future deals.

 

That being said, a few of these comments come close to making Perkins sound like a potential victim, or a martyr. And that's simply not the case. He's an absurdly highly paid professional athlete. And, because he approached the Twins, he has more guaranteed years and more guaranteed money than he did a year ago at this time. Yes, it's under what his open market value would be (if he was eligible for free agency now), but it's still tons of money for pitching 60 innings a season. Guaranteed money.

 

I am a little bothered that people think this (this, meaning the "hometown discount") should be the paramount reason not to trade him. For sure, it is an important consideration, but it's still a business. He made a deal for more years, more guaranteed money, but with a stupidly inadequate trade clause. There's no "gentleman's agreement" or "handshake deal" -- it's a 3-team no trade clause, which indicates to me that the Twins want the ability to shop this contract at some point. Yes, I absolutely agree that there's no hurry to move Perkins, but if that magic deal comes tomorrow -- and not in 2016 -- I want the team to move on it.

 

Of course, it's stupid to treat players like cattle. I'm not suggesting that should be the case. For any deal. Ever. I am suggesting, however, that if the right offer (a no-doubt home run absurd offer) comes along, it really doesn't matter to me that Perkins signed under value to stay here. That's far from a "kick in the nuts" to Perkins. That's the business of being a major league baseball player without a full no-trade clause.

[uigalbi]

If twins trade him, what team would he go? I think it would be Athletics because A's released their closer. Any other opinion?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I really do understand the argument about Perkins leaving millions on the table in order to stay here, and why that matters both to the Twins and Perkins, and also in other future deals.

 

That being said, a few of these comments come close to making Perkins sound like a potential victim, or a martyr. And that's simply not the case. He's an absurdly highly paid professional athlete. And, because he approached the Twins, he has more guaranteed years and more guaranteed money than he did a year ago at this time. Yes, it's under what his open market value would be (if he was eligible for free agency now), but it's still tons of money for pitching 60 innings a season. Guaranteed money.

 

I am a little bothered that people think this (this, meaning the "hometown discount") should be the paramount reason not to trade him. For sure, it is an important consideration, but it's still a business. He made a deal for more years, more guaranteed money, but with a stupidly inadequate trade clause. There's no "gentleman's agreement" or "handshake deal" -- it's a 3-team no trade clause, which indicates to me that the Twins want the ability to shop this contract at some point. Yes, I absolutely agree that there's no hurry to move Perkins, but if that magic deal comes tomorrow -- and not in 2016 -- I want the team to move on it.

 

Of course, it's stupid to treat players like cattle. I'm not suggesting that should be the case. For any deal. Ever. I am suggesting, however, that if the right offer (a no-doubt home run absurd offer) comes along, it really doesn't matter to me that Perkins signed under value to stay here. That's far from a "kick in the nuts" to Perkins. That's the business of being a major league baseball player without a full no-trade clause.

 

To be clear, I stated multiple times that Perkins should not be offered in trade, not that he shouldn't be traded if someone approaches you with a blockbuster deal. Several people have suggested that he should be put on the open market. I don't agree.

 

There's a significant perception difference between those two things. If a GM calls you and blows you out of the water, you listen to him (in fact, I said just that earlier in either this thread or the Trade Percentages thread). It never hurts to listen to someone talk.

 

But to openly dangle Perkins on the market after he just signed a team-friendly deal to stay in the home town he grew up in, a community he and his wife have embraced with their charitable work?

 

That's a slap in the face.

 

Of course, all of this hinges on talking to Perkins first. If he's okay with it, then obviously it's okay but I don't believe it's good business to treat your best employees badly just to get a leg up on the competition. To me, it's completely irrelevant whether Perkins makes $20m a year or $20,000 a year. He made a decision based on more than money and that should be respected, even if it only means you keep that guy in the conversation and let him know what's happening.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interesting take on relief pitcher value:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/joakim-soria-and-the-value-of-a-postseason-relief-ace/

 

Basically, relievers are far more valuable in the postseason (which means far less valuable to the 2014-2015-and-probably-2016 Twins).

 

They also touch on reliever WAR and "chaining" as discussed here:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/4/29/856308/bullpen-chaining-and-reliever-war

[DaveW]

Interesting take on relief pitcher value:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/joakim-soria-and-the-value-of-a-postseason-relief-ace/

 

Basically, relievers are far more valuable in the postseason (which means far less valuable to the 2014-2015-and-probably-2016 Twins).

 

They also touch on reliever WAR and "chaining" as discussed here:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/4/29/856308/bullpen-chaining-and-reliever-war

 

I love how you have already told us how 2015 and 2016 are going to play out...

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think we can all agree we wouldn't deal Perkins right now for either the Street or Soria returns.

 

But, hypothetically, what about the combined Street+Soria returns? Sickels pegs that at:

 

1. Thompson, RHP starter, 20 y.o., just reached AA, preseason B-, midseason rank ~76-158

2. Knebel, RHP reliever, 22 y.o., already reached MLB, preseason B- and 136 rank, also midseason rank ~76-158

3. Lindsey, LHB 2B, 22 y.o., already reached AAA, preseason B ranked ~150-175

4. Alvarez, RHP reliever, 23 y.o., dominating AA, preseason C+

5. Rondon, RHB SS, 20 y.o., playing in high-A, preseason C+

 

(Those rough midseason ranks just indicate they were listed among 83 "considered" for Sickels' mideseason top 75. Also I'll leave off the 4th player from the Street deal as the Angels sent a similar player to the Padres in return.)

 

What do you think? Very rough Twins prospect equivalents, per Sickels grades/ranks:

 

1. Trevor May (albeit only in AA)

2. Michael Tonkin

3. Eddie Rosario

4. Zack Jones (pre-surgery, assuming he was dominating AA?)

5. Polanco/Goodrum? Less power, but great glove

 

No top/elite prospects, but one reliever who can slot in your pen right away plus another within a year, a young mid-rotation candidate already in the upper minors, a young 2B albeit scuffling at AAA, plus another high-A middle infielder.

 

Normally I'd say no to trading for more prospect depth, but... that would be a lot of prospect depth! And most of it ready or close to MLB.

[Brock Beauchamp]

At this point, the Twins need impact prospects, not a bunch of flyers with upside. When combined, that's an impressive group of kids but if the Twins were to deal Perkins, I'd want one blue chipper and a couple of lesser guys, not a slew of question marks. The Twins are already loaded with question marks in the system.

 

Perkins is a very good MLB player. The Twins already have a bunch of guys in the low minors with significant upside. I'm not interested in trading a very good MLB player for guys who won't reach the majors until 2018. They need to start the MLB rebuild now, not continue to rebuild the farm system at the lower levels.

 

If they continue to sacrifice MLB players to rebuild the lower farm levels, then we're in a situation where they easily waste half of Buxton, Meyer, and Sano's service time as the lower minor guys catch up. That's a bad strategy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I love how you have already told us how 2015 and 2016 are going to play out...

 

I didn't say we couldn't contend, or maybe even sneak into the postseason with some good fortune. Just that in the context of this thread, we are in no position to hold onto a shutdown reliever now anticipating a likely postseason appearance in 2015-2016.

 

There are plenty of reasons not to trade Perk; this isn't one of the better ones.

[Otto von Ballpark]

At this point, the Twins need impact prospects, not a bunch of flyers with upside. When combined, that's an impressive group of kids but if the Twins were to deal Perkins, I'd want one blue chipper and a couple of lesser guys, not a slew of question marks. The Twins are already loaded with question marks in the system.

 

Perkins is a very good MLB player. The Twins already have a bunch of guys in the low minors with significant upside. I'm not interested in trading a very good MLB player for guys who won't reach the majors until 2018. They need to start the MLB rebuild now, not continue to rebuild the farm system at the lower levels.

 

I hear you. But to be fair, the guys listed above are mostly NOT low-minors guys with 2018 ETAs. Heck, one of the two relievers has already reached MLB, and the other is ready for AAA -- should see them both in MLB, if not established as closer, by the end of 2015. The 2B has spent the season in AAA (albeit scuffling at the plate). The starting pitcher is basically at the same age/level as Berrios, and could open 2015 at AAA. Only the SS is a low minors guy, although given his defense and contact skills, if he was on a 40-man roster he could be a Polanco-style promotion candidate right away.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If they continue to sacrifice MLB players to rebuild the lower farm levels, then we're in a situation where they easily waste half of Buxton, Meyer, and Sano's service time as the lower minor guys catch up. That's a bad strategy.

 

Aside from the fact that the players above generally aren't in lower farm levels, and possibly match or beat Buxton/Meyer/Sano in terms of MLB ETA...

 

Have the Twins sacrificed any MLB players to rebuild the lower farm levels? Meyer was high-A when we got him, but he was also a college draftee turning 23, a good combo for a quick ascent through AA and AAA (a la Gibson pre-surgery, or even Meyer pre-injury last year). Everybody else we've acquired has been AA or AAA, and we honestly haven't sacrificed any MLB talent the last few years in trade except maybe Span.

[bird]

Tigers got a very nice haul for their closer. A potential closer and a number 2/3 starter.

 

If anything Perkins is better as hes fairly reasonable cost wise here on out so he could net something similiar or better. Listening to offers cant hurt.

 

I wouldn't have taken this deal for Perkins. Jake Thompson is a 3-4 starter according to a few of the reports I've read, and the other guy doesn't stack up to be better than Perkins is in the future. I'd say that we might have a half-dozen starters in our system with higher ceilings than Detoit's formerly best pitching prospect. So, listen, but get more!