Trading Relief - What Could Have Been

[JaleelWhite FanClub]

Did anybody see what the Astros gave up for RP Ken Giles? The Phillies got 4 players back for the reliever with two solid years of MLB performance. The Phillies have taken a lot of shots over recent years in terms of roster management. But you have to give them credit for this move: a good RP, especially a closer, is the most wasted asset on a bad team.

 

Which takes me to what could have been done several years ago. With the Twins in the middle of their 4-year hiatus from relevance, one of the shining lights for the team was the emergence of a left-handed reliever into a dominant All-Star closer. For all his strides, the Twins continued losing 90 games a season, but more importantly for the long term, the team failed to actually get value for their asset by trading him "when his stock was at his highest."

 

I can only imagine what the Twins could have gotten in return for Perkins. Good left-handed relief is hard to come by (heard this a lot recently, huh?) and "selling high" is much better than "selling low" (two words I never would have thought I'd hear Terry Ryan said, but he did, yesterday, about Ricky Nolasco, heading into 2016). Only a few years late. Now with back-to-back years of Perkins falling off a cliff in the second half, it seems that's all the Twins are left with.

 

Ah, what could have been.

[gunnarthor]

Yeah, there were a lot of debates about trading Perkins and I understand the reasoning.  But the Twins are now competing for a playoff spot and Perkins is a good part of that bullpen signed to a reasonable team friendly deal. 

 

But I agree that Philly made a really nice trade there.

[USAFChief]

 

Yeah, there were a lot of debates about trading Perkins and I understand the reasoning.  But the Twins are now competing for a playoff spot and Perkins is a good part of that bullpen signed to a reasonable team friendly deal. 

 

But I agree that Philly made a really nice trade there.

I think Houston made a really nice trade, too.

 

The point is to win games at the big league level.  

[dgwills]

I always wanted the Twins to go into full rebuild mode back then, but I understand why they didn't. Hard to cut payroll and go with young players right after getting the new ballpark they always said they needed. Relievers really didn't have the same value back then either.

[Vanimal46]

 

I think Houston made a really nice trade, too.

 

The point is to win games at the big league level.  

 

Concur. I'm leaning towards Houston getting the better part of this trade. They would know the importance of needing plentiful, quality options in the bullpen after their collapse in Game 4 against the Royals. 

[DaveW]

TR refuses to ever go into "full rebuild mode" and refuses to ever "go all in" this is why we had 4 straight 90 loss seasons (but no 100 loss seasons) but also why we haven't won a single playoff game in a decade or so.

 

Good on Houston, good on Philly.

 

Also, good on Arizona and good on Atlanta.

 

It sure must be nice to follow a team that actually has a clear plan of a lot of success either now or a couple years down the road.

[DaveW]

 

 

I always wanted the Twins to go into full rebuild mode back then, but I understand why they didn't. Hard to cut payroll and go with young players right after getting the new ballpark they always said they needed. Relievers really didn't have the same value back then either.

Closers absolutely had the same value back then.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Ken Giles just turned 25 years old and has 5 seasons of team control remaining, including the next 2 at league minimum salaries before 3 years of arbitration.

 

The Twins never had a chance to trade Perkins with those supporting factors. By the time Perkins had a MLB relief resume even close to that of Giles, he was almost 30 with only 2 seasons of team control left at arbitration (or arb buyout) salaries.  Buying him out and extending him with a hometown discount was a fine approach to take, given the situation.  You weren't going to get a haul of 4 prospects like this.

[Mike Sixel]

I disagree. I think you could have received 1-2 legit prospects, and a filler guy. I'd be surprised if Perkins is on a Twins' roster that wins a playoff series at this point.

 

The issue, as DaveW points out, is that the Twins seemed to choose the middle ground, which is not usually the best strategy.

[dgwills]

 

Closers absolutely had the same value back then.

Really? This was only a couple years ago. I seem to remember a lot of people in baseball discussing how overrated the closer position was. Often referenced in these forums when discussing the Matt Caps trade. Seems to me the Royals success brought the value back up. I don't know any baseball executives though, so I certainly could be wrong.

[DaveW]

 

Really? This was only a couple years ago. I seem to remember a lot of people in baseball discussing how overrated the closer position was. Often referenced in these forums when discussing the Matt Caps trade. Seems to me the Royals success brought the value back up. I don't know any baseball executives though, so I certainly could be wrong.

The Matt Capps trade proves my point, teams were overpaying for closers back then via dollars in free agency and via trades. This is nothing new.

 

There has been  more focus now on "set up men" due to the Royals success, but Closers have been in hot demand for more than 10 years.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I disagree. I think you could have received 1-2 legit prospects, and a filler guy.

For perhaps 2 years of not-young Perkins at arb salaries?  Not so clear on that.  Matt Capps got 1 good prospect for 1.5 years of arb salaries, in a widely panned deadline deal.  When quality FA relievers often sign for 2/12, 3/15, 3/18, etc., teams are generally pretty hesitant about surrendering talent to get a guy for a slight discount over an already modest market rate.

 

What makes Giles special is that he basically offers you two years free first, then gives you the option to retain him on something like 2/7 of 3/15 or whatever deal.

[gunnarthor]

 

I think Houston made a really nice trade, too.

 

The point is to win games at the big league level.  

I think they could have put Velasquez in the pen and gotten the same value.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think they could have put Velasquez in the pen and gotten the same value.  

That's what I thought too, although Velasquez is only a year behind Giles in terms of service time.  Velasquez would have to achieve pen dominance pretty rapidly to catch up in expected value, they are almost on the same control/salary schedule.

 

Not sure I would have made this trade, but beyond Velasquez, the other prospects don't look that great.

[gunnarthor]

 

That's what I thought too, although Velasquez is only a year behind Giles in terms of service time.  Velasquez would have to achieve pen dominance pretty rapidly to catch up in expected value, they are almost on the same control/salary schedule.

 

Not sure I would have made this trade, but beyond Velasquez, the other prospects don't look that great.

I just like Velasquez a lot - when I was kicking around Plouffe trade ideas, I was wondering if he could come back to us.

 

But Velasquez for Giles straight up is reasonable (although I'd still prefer the starter).  But Fischer could be a nice lottery ticket and Olbie is a #5 starter. That's not nothing.  They gave up a lot for a proven closer.

[REPETE]

Perkins was an anomaly, in the fact he signed an extremely team friendly contract to stay in MN,  I don't disagree with TR keeping him on the roster one bit, as he's now an integral part of the bullpen as we start to compete again.

Also, If you sign a guy to a team friendly contract because he wants to stay here, you don't trade him away.  That's how you end up with players NEVER signing a team friendly contract with you.  During the lean years, he wasn't keeping the team down with his contract.  Should they have given him more money, then traded him?  Sure.  They would've gotten good return, but you can't have it both ways.    

[d-mac]

Not trading Perkins was a HUGE missed opportunity (or mistake) to maximize talent for a future playoff run. He was literally the lowest of low hanging fruit when it came to tradeable assets. The value he provided to a losing team was rather meaningless and given his age, he didn't fit into the Twins' timeline- he's in his decline phase now- when the team is finally opening it's window for contention. Having a large and deep pipeline of young talent is the #1 factor in determining both the height and duration of contention for low-mid level payroll teams like the Twins. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But Velasquez for Giles straight up is reasonable (although I'd still prefer the starter).  But Fischer could be a nice lottery ticket and Olbie is a #5 starter. That's not nothing.  They gave up a lot for a proven closer.

Interestingly, Giles is barely a proven closer, just 2 months in that role.  That brief experience helps, but I think they just like that 11.7 K/9, 2.8 BB/9, and 0.2 HR/9.  Even in some alternate universe where Papelbon stayed in Philly, I could see the Astros targeting setup man Giles to be their new dominant closer.

 

I endorse the trade for Philly, and probably don't do it if I'm Houston, but I respect that they are at least aiming high here.  Like Velasquez, Giles is super-cheap with a ton of team control, but he's also been absolutely dominant in an MLB pen for an extended time already.  Put another way: would you give up those other 3 guys (in some kind of Faustian pact, I guess ) if it guaranteed Velasquez 2016 would perform like Giles 2014-2015?  That's kind of what the Astros did here.