Grading The Deadline

[gunnarthor]

 

I think (and very well could be wrong) that they value Suzuki much more than any other team in the league.  I feel like they should've been able to get something for him, but probably aimed too high. 

 

I think you're right that the Twins value him quite highly.  I thought they should have traded him but perhaps some people in the org felt that they needed him to play out the year and they expect to bring him back next year?  At the same time, the new GM will be the final decision maker on that (I think.  Unless Molitor has even more power).

 

In any event, I do think Suzuki will be a Twin in 2017.

[alarp33]

 

I think you're right that the Twins value him quite highly.  I thought they should have traded him but perhaps some people in the org felt that they needed him to play out the year and they expect to bring him back next year?  At the same time, the new GM will be the final decision maker on that (I think.  Unless Molitor has even more power).

 

In any event, I do think Suzuki will be a Twin in 2017.

 

Well, he's a FA come October either way. So they certainly could've traded him and signed him in the offseason

 

I'm hopeful the new regime isn't as high on him as the old regime. 

[Vanimal46]

 

I generally endorse the trades too, but I'm curious -- what exactly do the letter grades mean?  Brandon has them A, B+, and A-.  What would a "B" trade look like?  C, D, F?  A+?  Just curious.

This is my thought too. The trades were fine, and I don't have anything bad to say about them. But are they worthy of being such a high grade? I consider acquiring Lucroy an A... Or acquiring Matt Moore an A.. 

Making trades that needed to happen and getting a little better return than expected? IMO is a B. 

[SwainZag]

 

I think you're right that the Twins value him quite highly.  I thought they should have traded him but perhaps some people in the org felt that they needed him to play out the year and they expect to bring him back next year?  At the same time, the new GM will be the final decision maker on that (I think.  Unless Molitor has even more power).

 

In any event, I do think Suzuki will be a Twin in 2017.

 

The only reason I question him being a Twin next year is that contract.  He won't hit the vesting option which means he is destined for free agency. With his play this year he is probably looking at least a 2 year deal.  Personally I don't like the idea of a multi year extension.

[Vanimal46]

 

The only reason I question him being a Twin next year is that contract.  He won't hit the vesting option which means he is destined for free agency. With his play this year he is probably looking at least a 2 year deal.  Personally I don't like the idea of a multi year extension.

Couldn't agree more. If Suzuki wants multiple years, then we need to move on. I would be okay if it's another 1 year deal. 

[alarp33]

 

Plenty of "experts" on MLB network, ESPN, and even right here.

 

When a team has the best farm system in baseball, more resources available than anyone in baseball, and all bad contracts coming off the books just in time to line-up with perhaps the greatest FA class of all time... I think it's reasonable to conclude that they are pretty likely to be successful in the future. 

[Brandon Warne]

One thing to consider about Meyer: he may very well be 27 the next time he throws a pitch. Has just one more option year left. 

 

To get anything with a pulse, let alone left-handed and with a track record of beating his FIP at a reasonable cost? I'm in. 

[ThejacKmp]

 

DFA'ing Ricky means eating the salary. The narrative isn't finished with this deal. Suppose Santiago gets traded in the coming off-season for a single-A prospect of some mild promise - a Chih-Wei Hu type, someone with mixed reviews from scouts, just to be concrete. Then you have in essence a trade of Meyer for Busenitz plus Hu plus $9M of freed up money to apply to some need. Sound more enticing? For me, Meyer's high ceiling combined with his risks add up to less than this return. If Santiago just has to be non-tendered, it's a closer outcome but I'm still fine with it, ASSUMING the freed up money is used well in combination with other assets.

 

My issue with this is your assumption that it's either trade Santiago or release him. The most likely outcome is the Twins keeping him for his last year of team control. That's the big reason to DFA Ricky - you have an extra rotation spot open for young guys/reclamation projects instead of a "they are who we thought they were" veteran. They saved no money and instead of an easily-released/long reliefed Ricky they have a guy they're going to be tempted to hand the ball to 32 times.

[Brandon Warne]

As for defense behind him, Santiago is sixth-best in baseball over the last four years (min. 500 IP) at inducing popups. 

 

Sano jokes aside, that makes it easy on pretty much any defense. 

[Brandon Warne]

Besides that, he's a fly ball guy, so he didn't really benefit from Andrelton Simmons as much as say.....Mike Trout.

 

An outfield of Rosario-Buxton-Kepler plays into his favor here, I think. 

[SwainZag]

 

Plenty of "experts" on MLB network, ESPN, and even right here.

 

It was based upon the new rejuvenated farm system as well as Tex, Arod, Sabathia coming off the books and the slew of good players who are set to hit free agency in 2018.  Harper, Machado, Kershaw, etc.

 

I think the main piece was from a New York writer who just assumed emerging prospects, getting rid of deadweight and the Yankees being the Yankees shelling out 200+M on free agents.  Fun to create the next dynasty on paper, but having it come to fruition is a different beast. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Well, he's a FA come October either way. So they certainly could've traded him and signed him in the offseason

 

I'm hopeful the new regime isn't as high on him as the old regime. 

I agree but I don't think Molitor does and I think Molitor has a huge amount of say right now. If he didn't want Suzuki traded, he wasn't going to get traded.  If he wants Suzuki back - and they don't sign a top FA catcher (and they won't), he'll probably be back on another two year deal no matter who the new GM is.  

[Brandon Warne]

Doogie said reports on Suzuki were that most teams were scared off by the arm. 

 

Mike Berardino said on my podcast yesterday that he wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki retired. He didn't say that it was likely, but he hinted that it *could* happen. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This is my thought too. The trades were fine, and I don't have anything bad to say about them. But are they worthy of being such a high grade? I consider acquiring Lucroy an A... Or acquiring Matt Moore an A.. 

Making trades that needed to happen and getting a little better return than expected? IMO is a B. 

Value relative to what was being given up... that's my 2 cents at least.  Don't have too much of an issue with his grades. Only trade I didn't like was Nolasco, and not that it wasn't a bad one from everyone's standpoint, just that I'd rather have eaten the contract and DFAd him and kept Meyer.

[jimmer]

In regards to whether or not we should have traded E Santana, in today's chat, Dave Cameron talks quite a bit about how teams pay more at deadline than offseason.

 

One example:

 

 

Jack: I don’t understand why you think the White Sox may lost value in holding onto Sale until the winter. He’s signed for 3 more years (team friendly contract) and the FA market is awful this off-season.

 

 

Dave Cameron: Any buyer at the deadline would have gotten him for 3.5 years, plus one whole extra postseason run. So now Sale gives any buyer less than he would have. And they’ll have more options this winter.

 

Dave Cameron: Plus, teams don’t pay the same prices in the winter as they do in the summer, since they have less confidence that their acquisitions will impact the postseason race.

 

[ashbury]

My issue with this is your assumption that it's either trade Santiago or release him. The most likely outcome is the Twins keeping him for his last year of team control. That's the big reason to DFA Ricky - you have an extra rotation spot open for young guys/reclamation projects instead of a "they are who we thought they were" veteran. They saved no money and instead of an easily-released/long reliefed Ricky they have a guy they're going to be tempted to hand the ball to 32 times.

I think you are baking assumptions into your conclusion as well, namely that the Twins retooled FO will be foolish in how they evaluate Santiago some months from now.

 

My previous post explored the options if he leaves. But, if he exceeds our modest expectations the rest of the way in 2016, I have no problem with hanging on to him IF the talent evaluators believe it's not a fluke - trading him at the next deadline isn't ruled out by this. Or, if his 2016 performance with us is good, it could increase what we could get for him in the coming off-season. These just represent additional scenarios.

 

What I keep saying is that this trade increased the team's flexibility. Keeping Nolasco, there would be only two scenarios, cut him or play him (or else another trade like this one).

 

It's true that a good strategy for the coming six months is not enough - it has to be executed well, including but not limited to proper player evaluation/scouting. I'm hopeful in that regard, but if we end up with poor players on the 2017 roster then the flexibility will not have been used well. But even that would not invalidate the thinking I believe to be behind this trade.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Flexibility is an under rated asset in most companies....

[Brock Beauchamp]

In regards to whether or not we should have traded E Santana, in today's chat, Dave Cameron talks quite a bit about how teams pay more at deadline than offseason.

 

One example:

 

 

Jack: I don’t understand why you think the White Sox may lost value in holding onto Sale until the winter. He’s signed for 3 more years (team friendly contract) and the FA market is awful this off-season.

 

 

Dave Cameron: Any buyer at the deadline would have gotten him for 3.5 years, plus one whole extra postseason run. So now Sale gives any buyer less than he would have. And they’ll have more options this winter.

 

Dave Cameron: Plus, teams don’t pay the same prices in the winter as they do in the summer, since they have less confidence that their acquisitions will impact the postseason race.

Either intentionally or not, I think Cameron is ignoring the diminished perceived value on a contract at the deadline. Yes, teams are looking for a postseason run and will pay for it... But does anyone really believe that next July, Sale's value at 2.5 years won't closely mirror his value last week at 3.5 years?

 

Sure, there's a risk in Sale imploding or getting injured but I believe Chris' 2017 deadline value will be nearly identical to his 2016 deadline value.

 

Once you get past 1.5 years of control on a deadline deal, the increased value seems to stop being proportionate to length of control.

[jimmer]

 

Either intentionally or not, I think Cameron is ignoring the diminished perceived value on a contract at the deadline. Yes, teams are looking for a postseason run and will pay for it... But does anyone really believe that next July, Sale's value at 2.5 years won't closely mirror his value last week at 3.5 years?

Sure, there's a risk in Sale imploding or getting injured but I believe Chris' 2017 deadline value will be nearly identical to his 2016 deadline value.

In Chris' case yes.  I imagine most people see that getting him now is much more valuable since his salary is way less than what he's worth and it will be one less postseason run to go for.  To get his kind of production now as opposed to next deadline means another year AND a postseason run at what his salary is (which is low).  Getting him next year (at the deadline) means one less year at such a cheap price and one less postseason run has less value.  I think most teams would highly value having Sale for a postseason run, along with just another year of him at about 12M (half of this year's salary and the first half salary of next year)

 

And, BTW, he's talking about trade deadline cost versus offseason cost, not this deadline versus next deadline.

[gunnarthor]

I have no idea if it's true or not but I do wonder if off season sets the price for the deadline. Did the haul the Phillies got for Giles set the price for Miller or Chapman?  I have no idea.  I suppose one could go through trades, year by year, to see if there's any effect but I would think - right now, anyway - that baseball seems to be valuing prospects slightly less than a few years ago.  And that could be b/c I'm wrong or ML teams are younger or that the current minors top prospects aren't what they were just a few years ago.  

 

I also think - but could be wrong - that the trade market for starting pitching this offseason will remain a seller's market b/c of the really bad FA class.  

[markos]

 

Norris has multiple years of control, the Padres had no reason to move him if they didn't find an offer to their liking.  Suzuki leaves for nothing in 2 months. 

And this implies that there was a contender willing to acquire Suzuki how exactly? You seem to have missed my point. Sorry about that; I will try again:

 

I could see an argument for blaming Antony if, for example, the Phillies were able to trade Carlos Ruiz or the Braves were able to trade Pierzynski. But they didn't. No one was able to trade any catcher other than Lucroy. Norris was available. McCann was mentioned. Butera and Hundley are also pending free agents on sub-.500 teams. There were catchers available, but no one moved. So I have a hard time believing that there was a market for Suzuki but Antony blew it by asking too much. No other team could find anyone willing to pay for crappy catching despite equally strong incentives to do so.

[diehardtwinsfan]

From the sounds of things, we almost traded Erv...  I'd really like to know what was on the table, but I don't think the Twins were allergic to trading him. I suspect Toronto just didn't want to pay the price as we would have walked away with Reid-Foley and likely one or two other prospects.

[alarp33]

And this implies that there was a contender willing to acquire Suzuki how exactly? You seem to have missed my point. Sorry about that; I will try again:

 

I could see an argument for blaming Antony if, for example, the Phillies were able to trade Carlos Ruiz or the Braves were able to trade Pierzynski. But they didn't. No one was able to trade any catcher other than Lucroy. Norris was available. McCann was mentioned. Butera and Hundley are also pending free agents on sub-.500 teams. There were catchers available, but no one moved. So I have a hard time believing that there was a market for Suzuki but Antony blew it by asking too much. No other team could find anyone willing to pay for crappy catching despite equally strong incentives to do so.

You implied no one liked any available catcher, since Norris wasn't moved either. I simply pointed out Norris is a far different case than Suzuki. No parallel. Padres had no need to move him.

 

I'm not a Suzuki fan, but he's been a well above avg hitting catcher for 2+ months. Pierzynski comparison? He's almost 40 and has his OPS reached .500?

[alarp33]

From the sounds of things, we almost traded Erv...  I'd really like to know what was on the table, but I don't think the Twins were allergic to trading him. I suspect Toronto just didn't want to pay the price as we would have walked away with Reid-Foley and likely one or two other prospects.

Ditto, I have not the slightest idea what th market would've been for him. I have a very hard time believing a team would've given up a higher end prospect and taken on the entire contract

[gunnarthor]

 

From the sounds of things, we almost traded Erv...  I'd really like to know what was on the table, but I don't think the Twins were allergic to trading him. I suspect Toronto just didn't want to pay the price as we would have walked away with Reid-Foley and likely one or two other prospects.

From some of the tweets that were out there (and what the Jays did do) it seems like they were probably offering Hutchinson plus a prospect.  I wonder if they were offering Hutchinson and Reid Foley and the Twins wanted more of if they wouldn't agree to put Reid Foley into the deal.  But I'm with you, I'd love to know.

[beckmt]

 

Where in the world did you get this?

 

I have him marked down as chronic shoulder problems that will likely end his career.

Heard yesterday he will start throwing in the next week.  Seems like a fast change.

[bird]

 

All results. Some statisticians.

 

 

All advanced stats people do is count. Sometimes.

[HitInAPinch]

 

This is a weird sentence, dawg. Sometimes....or all?

Sssshhhh.......  I think that was jack morris in troll-mode........  

 

Just kidding!  I'm not really all that up on the Advanced Stats, but learning.  Sloooooowly....

[kab21]

 

My issue with this is your assumption that it's either trade Santiago or release him. The most likely outcome is the Twins keeping him for his last year of team control. That's the big reason to DFA Ricky - you have an extra rotation spot open for young guys/reclamation projects instead of a "they are who we thought they were" veteran. They saved no money and instead of an easily-released/long reliefed Ricky they have a guy they're going to be tempted to hand the ball to 32 times.

 

The problem with this entire analysis is that the Twins don't have pitching prospects that are ready and blocked next year. The AA/AAA rotations are full of non prospect pitchers (and Gonsalves and Stewart - not ready next year). The only prospect that I want to see brought up next year is the recently acquired Mejia.

 

Nunez/Mejia (A-) Someone made an argument that Mejia is not a sure thing and risky. The counterpoint to that is that they traded Nunez. Great value.

 

Abad/Light ( B ) More of a shoulder shrug. Neither has much value.

 

The Nolasco trade ( B ) - It is an odd trade. They lose on potential upside but I think they prevent the FO from signing an aging solid starter to a multiyear contract. The rotation is so bad next year that they almost need to bring in a stopgap. Don't worry there will be plenty of chances for any prospects that are decent at all to earn a spot.

[HitInAPinch]

 

Doogie said reports on Suzuki were that most teams were scared off by the arm. 

 

Mike Berardino said on my podcast yesterday that he wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki retired. He didn't say that it was likely, but he hinted that it *could* happen. 

Interesting.  Thanks!