Span and Ramos for Capps and Meyer

[drjim]

 

Bonnes posted on it a few weeks ago on this site....

 

Have to admit I don't read his stuff, I"ll find it.

[Blake]

One of the cardinal rules of baseball: Never trade a position player straight up for a pitcher. 

 

I would not have done the Ramos for Capps trade. Too little return for an MLB ready catcher.

 

As for Span, I don't know. Probably not, see the cardinal rule.

[Oxtung]

Judging a trade in hindsight without taking in to account the circumstances at the time has little value.

 

At the time of the Meyerr for Span trade the Twins didn't have a single pitcher that projected higher than a backend starter. On the other hand they had a system with Hicks a first round pick coming off a good year, they had Revere already up with the Twins as well as joe benson in the minor leagues. They traded from an area of spparent strength trying to fill the hardest position to find. Let's not forget that the Twins were mired in back to back 90 loss seasons.

 

Making a trade was the right move at the time. I'm not going to rip the FO for choosing a the wrong guy since he was highly touted by all prospect hounds. Sometimes prospects don't turn out and that sucks, but it doesn't mean the decisions that lead to the trade were wrong.

 

The Capps Ramos trade on the other hand.......

[Twins33]

Pretty much what everyone else has said. Ramos for Capps was bad the minute it happened. There aren't many trades where 100% of fans agree that it was either good or bad. This one everyone agreed it was bad.

 

Span for Meyer, I liked it, but figured that it could hurt us. Losing Revere was a lot easier, even if May or Worley both wouldn't have worked out. It's a good thing that May has. Right now, I'd definitely want to undo the Span/Meyer trade, but I still loved the attempt. 

 

Hopefully Meyer turns it around. I still have faith in him.

[bird]

 

Judging a trade in hindsight without taking in to account the circumstances at the time has little value.

At the time of the Meyerr for Span trade the Twins didn't have a single pitcher that projected higher than a backend starter. On the other hand they had a system with Hicks a first round pick coming off a good year, they had Revere already up with the Twins as well as joe benson in the minor leagues. They traded from an area of spparent strength trying to fill the hardest position to find. Let's not forget that the Twins were mired in back to back 90 loss seasons.

Making a trade was the right move at the time. I'm not going to rip the FO for choosing a the wrong guy since he was highly touted by all prospect hounds. Sometimes prospects don't turn out and that sucks, but it doesn't mean the decisions that lead to the trade were wrong.

The Capps Ramos trade on the other hand.......

 

 

This. The decision was a high-quality decision, especially given the historical context. The "tall pitcher" thing is specious. The result is obviously incomplete, but for those inclined to bring the jury in now, the verdict is guilty of a far less onerous crime than some would portray it.

[Linus]

I would also add that, other than they involved the same two teams, the trades have little in common.  Different times, different needs, different GM.

 

Plus, I mean I hated the Ramos / Capps trade as much as anyone but I do think its more than time to move on.  I mean, the Greg Nettles trade was a bad one too.

[Steve Lein]

No on Ramos for Capps.

 

Still yes on Span for Meyer.

 

With the Span trade, we sold high on a guy to try and get something our system was lacking, a top-flight pitcher. I wish the Twins would do this more.

 

Everyone and their mother hated Ramos for Capps for the opposite reasons.

[jimmer]

 

No on Ramos for Capps.

 

Still yes on Span for Meyer.

 

With the Span trade, we sold high on a guy to try and get something our system was lacking, a top-flight pitcher. I wish the Twins would do this more.

 

Everyone and their mother hated Ramos for Capps for the opposite reasons.

I'm not sure we actually sold high on Span. He wasn't at his peak value (in fact he's arguably having his best year ever, offensively), and his contract was very favorable.

 

Overall, though I think it ends horrendously, though I liked the thought process behind it.  I think we could have gotten more though, for a player of Span's caliber and contract. 

[Jham]

 

I'm not sure we actually sold high on Span. He wasn't at his peak value (in fact he's arguably having his best year ever, offensively), and his contract was very favorable.

 

Overall, though I think it ends horrendously, though I liked the thought process behind it.  I think we could have gotten more though, for a player of Span's caliber and contract. 

 

This was my thought as I read through the thread.  Is Span worth more or less now than he was 3 years ago?  Could we have held Span, made Hicks work his way up, then perhaps move him at one of the trade deadlines?  Or kept him?  It seems like the use of the metrics which show Span to be a superior player are more widely accepted now than they were then.  As such, I imagine his value may have been higher.  

On Gomez and Ortiz, I don't think anyone could have predicted their other worldly success.  Ortiz at least had shown an ability to hit for power and average.  Gomez, not so much.
 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Judging a trade in hindsight without taking in to account the circumstances at the time has little value.

At the time of the Meyerr for Span trade the Twins didn't have a single pitcher that projected higher than a backend starter.

It doesn't take hindsight to question the deal.

 

The Twins had Gibson healthy at AAA (ranked just behind Meyer on BA's Top 100, lower upside by higher floor), had just drafted Berrios (plus Duffey, Baxendale, and Rogers), had just signed Thorpe and Hu, were a week away from trading for May, and had ensured the draft position for 2013 that enabled them to take Stewart (plus Eades and Gonsalves), plus the international bonus pool that enabled them to hand out a top 10 bonus without penalty (although they gave it to a position player).

 

Was it really necessary to give up an affordable MLB asset for the next 3 years, without an immediate replacement, in a one-for-one trade for one more lower-level (high-A ball), not yet elite SP prospect?

[Steve Lein]

 

I'm not sure we actually sold high on Span. He wasn't at his peak value (in fact he's arguably having his best year ever, offensively), and his contract was very favorable.

 

Overall, though I think it ends horrendously, though I liked the thought process behind it.  I think we could have gotten more though, for a player of Span's caliber and contract. 

 

Maybe that's a bad term for it, but they definitely traded someone who was actually worth enough to get something potentially useful back.

[Oxtung]

It doesn't take hindsight to question the deal.

 

The Twins had Gibson healthy at AAA (ranked just behind Meyer on BA's Top 100, lower upside by higher floor), had just drafted Berrios (plus Duffey, Baxendale, and Rogers), had just signed Thorpe and Hu, were a week away from trading for May, and had ensured the draft position for 2013 that enabled them to take Stewart (plus Eades and Gonsalves), plus the international bonus pool that enabled them to hand out a top 10 bonus without penalty (although they gave it to a position player).

 

Was it really necessary to give up an affordable MLB asset for the next 3 years, without an immediate replacement, in a one-for-one trade for one more lower-level (high-A ball), not yet elite SP prospect?

Are you trying to say because the Twins had a handful of lottery tickets in the rookie leagues, some just drafted relievers going to be turned starters and a AAA pitcher coming off of tommy john surgery they were so talented they didn't need upside pitchers that would slot into AA immediately? If that is your point than I guess I disagree.

 

The fact that some of those pitchers might turn out is great but at that point in time every single one was a huge question mark.

[SwainZag]

 

It doesn't take hindsight to question the deal.

 

The Twins had Gibson healthy at AAA (ranked just behind Meyer on BA's Top 100, lower upside by higher floor), had just drafted Berrios (plus Duffey, Baxendale, and Rogers), had just signed Thorpe and Hu, were a week away from trading for May, and had ensured the draft position for 2013 that enabled them to take Stewart (plus Eades and Gonsalves), plus the international bonus pool that enabled them to hand out a top 10 bonus without penalty (although they gave it to a position player).

 

Was it really necessary to give up an affordable MLB asset for the next 3 years, without an immediate replacement, in a one-for-one trade for one more lower-level (high-A ball), not yet elite SP prospect?

 

I think you are reaching.  Gibson was a year removed from TJ, Berrios was an undersized 18 year old, Thorpe had just turned 17 and Hu was 18 and neither had even pitched in the system yet, the May trade hadn't happened, and they were still 8 months from drafting Stewert, Eades and Gonsalves.  At the time they had very, very little when it came to upper level pitching prospects in the entire system.....not to mention just came off back to back very awful seasons.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Are you trying to say because the Twins had a handful of lottery tickets in the rookie leagues, some just drafted relievers going to be turned starters and a AAA pitcher coming off of tommy john surgery they were so talented they didn't need upside pitchers that would slot into AA immediately? If that is your point than I guess I disagree.

 

I think you are reaching. 

 

You're both misinterpreting what I wrote.  I was responding specifically to this claim by Oxtung: "At the time of the Meyer for Span trade the Twins didn't have a single pitcher that projected higher than a backend starter."

 

That is either demonstrably false, or requires such a ridiculously strict standard as to be almost meaningless.  If Kyle Gibson, healthy again and a consensus top 70 overall prospect at the time, does not "project as more than a backend starter", I would guess most teams in most years fall into that same boat.  Thus not so dire as to compel a team to swap a long-term MLB asset one-for-one for another prospect.

I am not saying the trade was obviously wrong or bad, but it was "iffy" at the time, and not just because all prospects are "iffy."  I think there was some combination of:

 

-- under-estimating the value of Span (which was largely in position/defense at that moment, although with demonstrated offensive upside from his first 2 MLB seasons)

-- over-estimating the value and readiness of Meyer (who had a similar draft position and prospect rank as Gibson, and was also behind Gibson's level at the same age)

-- over-estimating the ability and readiness of Hicks

 

All of which were known factors at the time.  Again, doesn't necessarily sink the trade, but questioning it is definitely not just a hindsight thing.

 

I guess the other factor was how long we were planning to rebuild -- if you're looking to punt the next couple seasons anyway, losing Span isn't as big of a deal, although still he was unlikely to lose much value playing in Minnesota another year (I think years of cost control are not as important as current ability on the trade market, which is why Glen Perkins and his contract would be unlikely to net significantly more than closers on shorter deals).

[Oxtung]

You're both misinterpreting what I wrote.  I was responding specifically to this claim by Oxtung: "At the time of the Meyer for Span trade the Twins didn't have a single pitcher that projected higher than a backend starter."

 

That is either demonstrably false, or requires such a ridiculously strict standard as to be almost meaningless.  If Kyle Gibson, healthy again and a consensus top 70 overall prospect at the time, does not "project as more than a backend starter", I would guess most teams in most years fall into that same boat.  Thus not so dire as to compel a team to swap a long-term MLB asset one-for-one for another prospect.

I am not saying the trade was obviously wrong or bad, but it was "iffy" at the time, and not just because all prospects are "iffy."  I think there was some combination of:

 

-- under-estimating the value of Span (which was largely in position/defense at that moment, although with demonstrated offensive upside from his first 2 MLB seasons)

-- over-estimating the value and readiness of Meyer (who had a similar draft position and prospect rank as Gibson, and was also behind Gibson's level at the same age)

-- over-estimating the ability and readiness of Hicks

 

All of which were known factors at the time.  Again, doesn't necessarily sink the trade, but questioning it is definitely not just a hindsight thing.

 

I guess the other factor was how long we were planning to rebuild -- if you're looking to punt the next couple seasons anyway, losing Span isn't as big of a deal, although still he was unlikely to lose much value playing in Minnesota another year (I think years of cost control are not as important as current ability on the trade market, which is why Glen Perkins and his contract would be unlikely to net significantly more than closers on shorter deals).

One should never use absolutes. Shame on me.

 

Gibson was more highly thought of, though he was not considered a top of the rotation starter even at that point. However he had also thrown just 29 innings that season because of TJ surgery. He was absolutely a huge question mark.

 

Regardless, do you think 1 pitcher with upside was enough in the system? I stand by my point. The twins were terrible and didn't have enough pitching talent. They needed an influx and CF was the place with excess talent available for a trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

One should never use absolutes. Shame on me.

Gibson was more highly thought of, though he was not considered a top of the rotation starter even at that point. However he had also thrown just 29 innings that season because of TJ surgery. He was absolutely a huge question mark.

Regardless, do you think 1 pitcher with upside was enough in the system? I stand by my point. The twins were terrible and didn't have enough pitching talent. They needed an influx and CF was the place with excess talent available for a trade.

Gibson's 29 innings were coming back from TJ surgery, which he did more or less successfully.  Hence why he returned to his #68 rank on BA's top 100.  He didn't have Meyer's upside, but he got a similar rank because he was closer to MLB and his floor was higher.

 

And I bet the Twins thought Berrios had upside when they drafted him, as well as Thorpe, as well as Stewart and Gonsalves the next summer.  Even if they were further away than Meyer, it doesn't mean that the only method of acquiring upside pitching prospects was trading good long-term MLB assets.

 

(And CF didn't really have excess talent once they traded Revere a week later, which was a much better trade because Revere was a much worse player than Span.  They especially didn't have the depth in the OF overall at that point -- think of all the awful guys we trotted out in the corners the past few years.)

 

Again, this was far from Bill Smith's worst trades, but it certainly looks like TR was pushed out of his comfort zone when he made this deal, no hindsight required.  (I would guess a candid TR would agree with that statement.)  Doesn't make it a bad deal, but it does mean it was questionable, both then and now.

 

I really don't see what's so controversial about that.

[Oxtung]

Gibson's 29 innings were coming back from TJ surgery, which he did more or less successfully. Hence why he returned to his #68 rank on BA's top 100. He didn't have Meyer's upside, but he got a similar rank because he was closer to MLB and his floor was higher.

 

And I bet the Twins thought Berrios had upside when they drafted him, as well as Thorpe, as well as Stewart and Gonsalves the next summer. Even if they were further away than Meyer, it doesn't mean that the only method of acquiring upside pitching prospects was trading good long-term MLB assets.

 

(And CF didn't really have excess talent once they traded Revere a week later, which was a much better trade because Revere was a much worse player than Span. They especially didn't have the depth in the OF overall at that point -- think of all the awful guys we trotted out in the corners the past few years.)

 

Again, this was far from Bill Smith's worst trades, but it certainly looks like TR was pushed out of his comfort zone when he made this deal, no hindsight required. (I would guess a candid TR would agree with that statement.) Doesn't make it a bad deal, but it does mean it was questionable, both then and now.

 

I really don't see what's so controversial about that.

Span doesn't solve the corner outfield problem of the last few years and the fact that Revere was traded the following week has no bearing on the span-Meyer deal. Just like whom the Twins drafted in 2013 doesn't affect this 2012 trade. You can't use future events to justify past actions. Unless you think that the Twins are omnipotent.

 

So in the end it comes down to, do you think a bunch of arms in the rookie leagues and one projected middle of the rotation pitcher at AAA are enough. Personally I don't. YMMV of course.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Just like whom the Twins drafted in 2013 doesn't affect this 2012 trade. You can't use future events to justify past actions. Unless you think that the Twins are omnipotent.

I think you completely misunderstood my point there.  The goal is talent acquisition, and the Twins were in a prime position for acquiring more top talent freely in 2013 thanks to their draft position and international bonus pool.  (And probably in 2014 too, given their projected 2013 MLB record.)  High-cost trades were not the only or even the best way to restock our system.  Granted, Meyer was closer than the arms we drafted/signed in 2012 and would go on to add in 2013 -- but that closeness advantage is perhaps neutralized by giving up a 3-4 WAR MLB player signed cheaply for the next 3 seasons.)

 

My other point is that given the poor condition (pitching-wise) of our system at that point in time, while the absolute benefit of adding any prospect is real, the *marginal* benefit of adding one non-elite prospect set to debut at the AA level probably wasn't that great.  (Similar to how the *marginal* benefit of, say, Greinke to the 2013 Twins would not have been as great as to the 2013 Dodgers.)  Perhaps it's fairly outweighed by the marginal cost of losing a long-term MLB asset, but I think you can also make a valid argument otherwise, without any need for hindsight.

[Sarah]

Haha, I just posted about the Ramos/Capps trade in response to the article about Kurt Suzuki before I even saw this. Good to know I'm not the only one still bitter about that one.

[ashbury]

Throw in Tommy Herr for Tom Brunansky and I'll think about it.

[h2oface]

I wouldn't have done it then - hated both trades -  and I certainly wouldn't do it now.