Berardino: Suzuki on Trade Waivers

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well, we have 3 years of the Twins plus Suzuki to evaluate.  And only once in that time did the Twins make a move to really threaten Suzuki's starting job, with the acquisition of Murphy after Suzuki's poor *offensive* 2015 season.  (I also don't think they planned on Murphy starting at any point in 2016, although he could have worked toward a more equitable split.)  They also demoted Murphy fairly quickly this year, and waived John Hicks who has a pretty good defensive rep in the minors, and instead went to Centeno who was zero threat to take away Suzuki's starting job (much like our other MLB catchers in 2014-2015).  For that matter, they originally paired Suzuki with Pinto, suggesting they thought Suzuki would provide the defensive value in that arrangement.

 

Obviously we will never know for sure, but I think it's fair to speculate that the Twins evaluation of Suzuki's defense hasn't matched the league's evaluation of his defense.  (Not to dwell on the extension, but that might have been another benefit of letting him hit the open market that offseason -- we could have seen more clearly how other teams valued his defense.)

 

Hopefully by generating such little trade interest despite a solid 103 OPS+, it serves as a bit of a wake-up call in their planning at the position for 2017.

This is all fair.  But it's criticism that isn't germane to him passing through waivers.  It's criticism that's been repeated ad naseum in every Suzuki thread for three years.   Not every event in the transactional time-line should occasion what's already been said and is generally agreed upon.  

 

I wish posters (not necesarrily you) would pick their battles (or places to criticize) with some discretion. There's too much neener-neener, see I told you the Twins were stupid about this that and the other thing around here.  The losing season is bad enough, but the haughty hindsight criticism in nauseating.

[Thrylos]

 

Might be nice to get a little data on how our pitchers respond with a different receiver too.

 

With Suzuki:  Pitchers have 5.13 ERA and opponents hit .287/.338/.471  (663.7 IP)
With Centeno: Pitchers have 4.81 ERA and opponents hit .290/.338/.474  (293.7 IP)

 

methinks, it's on the pitchers... Eerily similar numbers

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is all fair.  But it's criticism that isn't germane to him passing through waivers.  It's criticism that's been repeated ad naseum in every Suzuki thread for three years.   Not every event in the transactional time-line should occasion what's already been said and is generally agreed upon.  

I think it is germane.  This is our best piece of evidence yet that other teams don't see Suzuki as a viable defensive catcher.  Which has some value when re-evaluating past decisions, and is something we really need to consider if we are looking at re-signing him, or even letting him play out the string as starter this year.

[d-mac]

 

He does offer value, but it's just through the end of the year. Org Filler offer no value ever. You don't trade something of value for something with none, just to do it. I would take a 20-30 team rank prospect for Suzuki, but not a nonprospect.

 

In a season where we're losing 90 games why does it matter? I'd take whatever we can get even if it is a bag of balls and can of warm Coors Light.

[nicksaviking]

 

Suzuki also costs $1.5 mil through the end of the year, and could be preventing someone else from getting reps behind the plate in MLB.  Murphy was the chief candidate and hasn't exactly made a case for himself at AAA, but Garver has hit well in his first few games there and might deserve at least a look in September, and Turner might too if we plan to protect him on the 40-man roster anyway.

 

Might be nice to get a little data on how our pitchers respond with a different receiver too.

 

Particularly if the Twins put any value in what their pitches think of a guy like Garver's catching. It's a unique position, but if Garver is going to be a consideration next year, it's probably a good idea to see how he meshes with the pitchers.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Particularly if the Twins put any value in what their pitches think of a guy like Garver's catching. It's a unique position, but if Garver is going to be a consideration next year, it's probably a good idea to see how he meshes with the pitchers.

Yeah.  Heck, it might be less about evaluating catchers, and more about evaluating our pitchers away from Suzuki.  Some of them have hardly ever known another MLB catcher.

[SwainZag]

 

Particularly if the Twins put any value in what their pitches think of a guy like Garver's catching. It's a unique position, but if Garver is going to be a consideration next year, it's probably a good idea to see how he meshes with the pitchers.

 

Is Garver even a realistic option next year at this point?  He was just promoted to AAA after only playing 95 games in AA and catching a little less than half of them.  The chances of him being an everyday catcher next season seem unreasonable slim.  Why rush him the pros at this point?  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Is Garver even a realistic option next year at this point?  He was just promoted to AAA after only playing 95 games in AA and catching a little less than half of them.  The chances of him being an everyday catcher next season seem unreasonable slim.  Why rush him the pros at this point?  

Probably not a realistic option to start coming out of spring training, but he could be a very realistic option during the season.  In which case, you might as well see him this fall, it could inform what kind of veteran starter you need to target.  (Remember, Garver has to be added to the 40-man in November anyway, so it costs virtually nothing to promote him now.)

 

It doesn't even have to produce much data to be a more valuable course of action than letting Suzuki play out the string as the starter.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think it is germane.  This is our best piece of evidence yet that other teams don't see Suzuki as a viable defensive catcher.  Which has some value when re-evaluating past decisions, and is something we really need to consider if we are looking at re-signing him, or even letting him play out the string as starter this year.

Everyone agrees that Suzuki isn't a good defensive catcher; but the contention that I took issue was that the Twins are somehow blind to it.  The Twins can both understand Suzuki's pronounced defensive limitations and still be stuck with him for the lack of having better options (yes, somewhat their own doing).  But we're already going back in-time to criticize the Twins for things that happened years ago.  If you feel vindicated by Suzuki passing through waivers for your assessment of his defensive ability, I guess bully for you.  But professing that vindication--ad naseum--does nothing to advance any kind of conversation, and is chest-thumping I told you so masquerading as germane analysis.

 

I mean it almost seems like those who were angered that the Twins didn't trade Suzuki before the deadline are now the ones telling everyone how worthless he's always been.  

 

(I think the waiver process and tactics are far more complex than this conversation is willing to concede.  Again, because we are blind to 95% of the information, people will espouse themselves Wise Masters based on the known 5%).

 

My own take is that teams knew what the Twins were currently demanding for Suzuki and that a deal was less likely to get down in a 48 hour window than over a course of weeks if he passed through waivers.  The timing of the waiver probably had something to do with informal discussions between the Twins and other teams.  

 

And what if he actually gets traded for something of value, does that confirm that his defense is somehow viable? Heck no. Yet somehow, the inverse is true....

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Is Garver even a realistic option next year at this point?  He was just promoted to AAA after only playing 95 games in AA and catching a little less than half of them.  The chances of him being an everyday catcher next season seem unreasonable slim.  Why rush him the pros at this point?  

 

He's not rule V eligible this offseason, so don't expect him in two weeks.  I think he's in the picture for a possible early add to the 40 man at some point next year if the catching situation is bad, but that will be in part for how he handles AAA.

[Otto von Ballpark]

He's not rule V eligible this offseason, so don't expect him in two weeks. I think he's in the picture for a possible early add to the 40 man at some point next year if the catching situation is bad, but that will be in part for how he handles AAA.

Garver is Rule 5 eligible this winter. Turner too. Both 2013 college draftees.

[RedBull34]

 

In a season where we're losing 90 games why does it matter? I'd take whatever we can get even if it is a bag of balls and can of warm Coors Light.

I don't get this.  There are plenty of Org Filler FA's out there that can be signed.  Why would you give an actual asset to acquire that?  I'm talking a player like Leonardo Rigginatto.  I know that Suzuki should be traded, but why would the Twins want to send the massage that players on their roster can be had for ​​nothing​. 

 

I don't think the Twins should be asking for much, basically any real prospect they can get, but they need to get something with a tangible value.  Think about the effect on team morale as well, when useful players are traded for nothing at all.  How does that make the team better.

 

A: It doesn't.

 

P.S. I'm all for bringing up Murphy and Garver for all of September and never playing Suzuki, but he is a good teammate and will talk to them about tips that he knows and experience handling pitchers, both of which ate useful.

[RedBull34]

 

Suzuki also costs $1.5 mil through the end of the year, and could be preventing someone else from getting reps behind the plate in MLB.  Murphy was the chief candidate and hasn't exactly made a case for himself at AAA, but Garver has hit well in his first few games there and might deserve at least a look in September, and Turner might too if we plan to protect him on the 40-man roster anyway.

 

Might be nice to get a little data on how our pitchers respond with a different receiver too.

I've got no problem playing Garver and Murphy.

 

You can always bench Suzuki and play him once or twice a week.  You don't have to trade Suzuki to play Murphy and Garver.

[nicksaviking]

I've got no problem playing Garver and Murphy.

 

You can always bench Suzuki and play him once or twice a week. You don't have to trade Suzuki to play Murphy and Garver.

That's true, but a GM usually has a hard time dictating playing time, particularly interim GMs who's boss hired a search firm to replace him and said the manager isn't going anywhere.

 

I don't see Molitor benching Suzuki. Unless Suzuki is no longer an option for him.

[RedBull34]

 

That's true, but a GM usually has a hard time dictating playing time, particularly interim GMs who's boss hired a search firm to replace him and said the manager isn't going anywhere.

I don't see Molitor benching Suzuki. Unless Suzuki is no longer an option for him.

It's unfortunate Molitor's job has been declared secure, because if the Twins brought up Garver, Suzuki should have his playing time minimized.  No threat will seem possible.

 

I guess I don't know what Molitor would do.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It's unfortunate Molitor's job has been declared secure, because if the Twins brought up Garver, Suzuki should have his playing time minimized.  No threat will seem possible.

 

I guess I don't know what Molitor would do.

I would also be happy with Centeno if he can improve his ability to keep blocked pitches in front of him. He seems to catch good games and have good at bats.

[nicksaviking]

It's unfortunate Molitor's job has been declared secure, because if the Twins brought up Garver, Suzuki should have his playing time minimized. No threat will seem possible.

 

I guess I don't know what Molitor would do.

Agreed. I obviously don't mean to imply it's a fact that Molitor wouldn't sit Suzuki, it just seems like something he would not do.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

It's unfortunate Molitor's job has been declared secure, because if the Twins brought up Garver, Suzuki should have his playing time minimized. No threat will seem possible.

 

I guess I don't know what Molitor would do.

well... TR had a job for life... Just saying security isn't what it used to be.

 

I'm not sure what's out there, but seeing what Lucroy went for, the quality of the current lineup, and the interest in Zukes, I don't see a world changing hitter in the cards for the Twins

[stringer bell]

 

I would also be happy with Centeno if he can improve his ability to keep blocked pitches in front of him. He seems to catch good games and have good at bats.

I think Centeno is getting better at his biggest flaw--blocking pitches. I like a lot about the (comparatively) little guy. He seems to relate well to the pitchers, calls a good game and contributes quite a few good at-bats. I also like that he's a left handed hitter. Finally, it is a good idea to have a Hispanic catcher.

[Shaitan]

 

Particularly if the Twins put any value in what their pitches think of a guy like Garver's catching. It's a unique position, but if Garver is going to be a consideration next year, it's probably a good idea to see how he meshes with the pitchers.

 

Garver has been catching with anyone whose been in the system during ST since he was drafted. During ST the catchers working with every pitcher and basically every level, don't they?

 

[RedBull34]

well... TR had a job for life... Just saying security isn't what it used to be.

 

I'm not sure what's out there, but seeing what Lucroy went for, the quality of the current lineup, and the interest in Zukes, I don't see a world changing hitter in the cards for the Twins

Since Pohlad guaranteed Molitora job and I stated I would take any real prospect, I'm not expecting a top 100 prospect for Suzuki, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[old nurse]

 

Since Pohlad guaranteed Molitora job and I stated I would take any real prospect, I'm not expecting a top 100 prospect for Suzuki, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Saying that Molitor would be manager in 2017 is not a job guarantee.  It is like the dreaded vote of confidence. It means nothing other than the assurances of a paycheck.   The line used at the change would be something along the lines of "We want a manager that will develop our young talent"  If the brass was fearing backlash they would throw Molitor under the bus for the undisciplined plate approaches and the non development of the non talent in the pitching staff.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Since Pohlad guaranteed Molitora job and I stated I would take any real prospect, I'm not expecting a top 100 prospect for Suzuki, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Sorry, kinda criptic

 

what I'm getting at is Molitor knows that he may not have the level of security promised in the media.

 

We all need to produce results. Moli knows this and knows he needs to be as competitive as he can in 2016 and find out what the team needs to know about the prospects for 2017 and help them develop in 2016 to make a better future. He's been quoted as such.

 

If Antony brings up Garver and tells Molitor to find out what they have in him, he'll do it. He understands that just cuz he has a job for next year right now, doesn't mean he'll have one for next year tomorrow. That never changed when TR was with the Twins or RA or what Pohlad tells the media.

 

 

To expand...

What may have changed in terms of how Moli plays rookies in the RA era is RA doesn't necessarily have to win to take the interim tag off. TR on the other hand had to win more to keep his job, and they didn't, so he didn't.

 

With RA in a position now to manage the team like he would if his job weren't on the line, we might be seeing Moli getting direction with a little longer point of view. Moli might be getting direction from RA with a more developmental emphasis.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Garver has been catching with anyone whose been in the system during ST since he was drafted. During ST the catchers working with every pitcher and basically every level, don't they?

Yes, but spring training can be a very sparse sample, especially for a nonroster invite.

[Otto von Ballpark]

My own take is that teams knew what the Twins were currently demanding for Suzuki and that a deal was less likely to get down in a 48 hour window than over a course of weeks if he passed through waivers. The timing of the waiver probably had something to do with informal discussions between the Twins and other teams.

 

And what if he actually gets traded for something of value, does that confirm that his defense is somehow viable? Heck no. Yet somehow, the inverse is true....

I posted something like your waiver theory earlier in thread. It has some truth, but what you ignore is the blocking aspect. Even if they didn't think they could come to deal with the Twins in 48 hours, Detroit or Seattle knew that a simple claim would have 100% prevented Suzuki from going to a rival with a questionable catching situation. They passed. Suzuki's value may not be zero, but it is darn close. He may still get traded, but almost certainly for the standard fringe "PTBNL or cash" August waiver trade return at this point (Cotts, Correia, Carroll, etc.).

 

As to your last paragraph, if a contending team had traded value for Suzuki to be their catcher, or had even cared enough to put in a claim to block him from going to a rival, that would absolutely be evidence suggesting at least 1 or more teams think he is still viable at the position.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I posted something like your waiver theory earlier in thread. It has some truth, but what you ignore is the blocking aspect. Even if they didn't think they could come to deal with the Twins in 48 hours, Detroit or Seattle knew that a simple claim would have 100% prevented Suzuki from going to a rival with a questionable catching situation. They passed. Suzuki's value may not be zero, but it is darn close. He may still get traded, but almost certainly for the standard fringe "PTBNL or cash" August waiver trade return at this point (Cotts, Correia, Carroll, etc.).

I still think we're working with imperfect knowledge.  Yes, teams can block, but I imagine, that if there are several players on the waivers at one time, a claiming team loses priority for other players once it places a claim on a player (I don't know this to be the case, but it would make sense, and would make less sense conversely).  If there's a bunch of desirable/tradeable players on the waivers at the same time, I imagine that there's better chance of sneaking a less desirable (though valuable) player, like Suzuki through.  My point isn't that this scenario is likely, but it's one of a number scenarios that discount the meaningfulness of Suzuki going unclaimed, as a direct implication of his (lack of) ability to play defense.  (There's doublespeak in terms of criticism of the Twins for not putting Suzuki on waivers sooner/right-away, and then when the timing actually gets Suzuki through waivers, it can't mean that Twins played the situation right, no it must mean that Suzuki is really really awful, like we always knew, and gosh weren't the Twins dumb years ago). 

 

So are some (um, everyone) vindicated about Suzuki being a very poor defender, I guess, maybe, sure, I guess, working with the limited knowledge we have, if we make a couple of assumptions, and discount other scenarios, it's probably likely that everyone's belief about Suzuki's defense is mostly confirmed. Bully for everyone, I guess. Way to go. 

 

I'd take a PTNBL for Suzuki, that's kind of what I always thought we'd get...

[Otto von Ballpark]

I still think we're working with imperfect knowledge. Yes, teams can block, but I imagine, that if there are several players on the waivers at one time, a claiming team loses priority for other players once it places a claim on a player (I don't know this to be the case, but it would make sense, and would make less sense conversely). If there's a bunch of desirable/tradeable players on the waivers at the same time, I imagine that there's better chance of sneaking a less desirable (though valuable) player, like Suzuki through.

No, waiver priority is determined entirely by record (and league). A team can claim multiple players at once with the same priority, the only issue would be that if they were awarded the claims, and the other teams didn't revoke the waiver requests, they may have to clear multiple roster spots at once.

 

I could see it being another issue with expensive players - you may not want to potentially be stuck with two large contracts (although such players usually go unclaimed anyway), but it doesn't really add much risk to claiming a fairly cheap player like Suzuki.

[PseudoSABR]

 

No, waiver priority is determined entirely by record (and league). A team can claim multiple players at once with the same priority, the only issue would be that if they were awarded the claims, and the other teams didn't revoke the waiver requests, they may have to clear multiple roster spots at once.

I could see it being another issue with expensive players - you may not want to potentially be stuck with two large contracts (although such players usually go unclaimed anyway), but it doesn't really add much risk to claiming a fairly cheap player like Suzuki.

This is the only limitation I could find on the number of claims:

A club can place no more than seven players on waivers per day, and a club can make a maximum of 50 waiver claims per week.

That's very large amount, and I'm not sure when the week would begin or end.  There might be some wiggle-room for gamemanship, but I'm not sure how much.  I keep seeing articles using the term 'smokescreen' as strategy of flooding the waivers with players, but I don't see how that would work without some other kind of restriction we don't know about.

 

I still think the most we can make of Suzuki passing through waivers is that teams who could block didn't want to risk getting stuck with Suzuki and his contract.   As I said earlier, for teams that actually desire Suzuki it's prohibitive to claim him given the short negotiation window.  While there's indication of how much other clubs value Suzuki at his price-tag + trade value, I just don't think it really gives us much clarity of Suzuki's actual worth.  For instance, the earlier claim that Suzuki passing through waivers suggests he'd only be able to sign a minor league deal next off season I think is far, far from certain.  

 

My point is, and continues to be, I don't think we learned as much about Suzuki as many profess, much less enough to warrant new criticism of the front office. That's fair isn't it?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Garver is Rule 5 eligible this winter. Turner too. Both 2013 college draftees.

 

I stand corrected.  If that's the case, I'd expect to see him once Rochester's season is over.

[d-mac]

 

I don't get this.  There are plenty of Org Filler FA's out there that can be signed.  Why would you give an actual asset to acquire that?  I'm talking a player like Leonardo Rigginatto.  I know that Suzuki should be traded, but why would the Twins want to send the massage that players on their roster can be had for ​​nothing​. 

 

I don't think the Twins should be asking for much, basically any real prospect they can get, but they need to get something with a tangible value.  Think about the effect on team morale as well, when useful players are traded for nothing at all.  How does that make the team better.

 

A: It doesn't.

 

P.S. I'm all for bringing up Murphy and Garver for all of September and never playing Suzuki, but he is a good teammate and will talk to them about tips that he knows and experience handling pitchers, both of which ate useful.

 

Think about it from Suzuki's perspective. He's going to go to a winning team with a chance to be in the playoffs. Reward him for toiling along with this putrid team the past few years. 

 

And you and I have very different conceptions of what nothing means. A bag of balls is something. Letting Suzuki walk as a free agent is getting nothing for him. Teams that are rebuilding don't usually let their free agents walk for nothing.

 

Furthermore, players will be had for very little if they are worth very little on the market. Demand dictates how much they are worth. Trading away Suzuki will have zero bearing on future trades. 

 

And lastly, if you are willing to bench Suzuki to play Murphy and Garver, why the heck do you want to pay him to set on the bench? Let someone else pay the remainder of his salary and give him an opportunity play a role on playoff team.