Berardino: Suzuki on Trade Waivers

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah, if I'm a young catcher who wants to improve, I'm taking my questions to Joe Mauer, potential HOF catcher, not Kurt Suzuki.

[alarp33]

 

Forever.  Mentoring is a process, not an event.  A young catcher should have questions for years, though there would be fewer questions as time goes on.  

 

Kurt Suzuki has a contract that expires in 6 weeks. 

[Doomtints]

 

Kurt Suzuki has a contract that expires in 6 weeks. 

 

I don't know where the assumption was made that Suzuki is the only person in the Twins organization who could mentor a new catcher, but obviously that's wrong.  

 

However, Suzuki is the guy who knows the current Twins pitchers the best.  Any new catcher would be smart to listen to him.  When it comes to advice on throwing out runners, fielding bunts, or hitting, there are others on the team and on the coaching staff who can help with fundamentals like that.

As for pitch framing, I'm guessing that faking out the umpire is a skill that takes time to develop and is probably is not coached.

[alarp33]

 

I don't know where the assumption was made that Suzuki is the only person in the Twins organization who could mentor a new catcher, but obviously that's wrong.  

 

However, Suzuki is the guy who knows the current Twins pitchers the best.  Any new catcher would be smart to listen to him.  When it comes to advice on throwing out runners, fielding bunts, or hitting, there are others on the team and on the coaching staff who can help with fundamentals like that.

 

Well the argument being made was Suzuki should not be traded because his mentorship was more valuable than what they likely could get for him.  

 

I'm not sure how important knowing this Twins pitching staff could possibly be, they have an ERA of almost 5.  How many pitchers on the current staff are a part of the next winning team here?  Berrios (struggling), Gibson? (mostly struggling), Rogers, May, Pressley?, anddddd ?  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, not only is Molitor unlikely to bench Suzuki if he is an option, but we may have made an implicit or explicit promise to Suzuki that he wouldn't be the backup here.

 

It may not be a practical plan to say he can mentor from the bench. Or, he might prefer to be traded instead.

[Doomtints]

 

Well the argument being made was Suzuki should not be traded because his mentorship was more valuable than what they likely could get for him.  

 

I'm not sure how important knowing this Twins pitching staff could possibly be, they have an ERA of almost 5.  How many pitchers on the current staff are a part of the next winning team here?  Berrios (struggling), Gibson? (mostly struggling), Rogers, May, Pressley?, anddddd ?  

 

 

I suspect the plan was to bring back Suzuki next year but at a lower salary.  Of course, a new GM may have other ideas.

 

I don't think the ERA of the pitching staff changes the fact that a new catcher would have a learning curve for what to expect from them.

[alarp33]

 

I suspect the plan was to bring back Suzuki next year but at a lower salary.  Of course, a new GM may have other ideas.

 

I don't think the ERA of the pitching staff changes the fact that a new catcher would have a learning curve for what to expect from them.

 

They can bring back Suzuki next year at a lower salary, whether he is traded now, or not.  

 

I don't understand the learning curve comment.  A new catcher wouldn't know how to catch these crappy pitchers?

[old nurse]

Maybe they can call up Garver to mentor Suzuki on defensive catching

[kab21]

This thread has degraded into pointless nonsense.

 

The amount of criticism handed out by not acquiring org filler (in this thread and others) is hilarious. And there is plenty of playing time for Garver even with Suzuki on the team. He isn't getting called up (and almost skipping AAA) to be an every day catcher.

[Mr. Brooks]

This thread has degraded into pointless nonsense.

 

The amount of criticism handed out by not acquiring org filler (in this thread and others) is hilarious. And there is plenty of playing time for Garver even with Suzuki on the team. He isn't getting called up (and almost skipping AAA) to be an every day catcher.

I disagree on your last point.

Molitor has shown an aversion to playing the young guys over mediocre vets.

I think it's a valid concern to wonder if Garver will get solid playing time with Suzuki on the roster.

[Otto von Ballpark]

This thread has degraded into pointless nonsense.

 

The amount of criticism handed out by not acquiring org filler (in this thread and others) is hilarious. And there is plenty of playing time for Garver even with Suzuki on the team. He isn't getting called up (and almost skipping AAA) to be an every day catcher.

This is a massive mischaracterization. Nobody wants org filler, the point of such a trade would be clearing the spot and maybe a little cash. What is pointless is delivering long explanations how org filler isn't worth anything.

 

And yes, most of us believe there is probably a reasonable way to evaluate other catchers with Suzuki still on the roster, but 3 years of evidence has given us little confidence that the Twins will do that properly. Thus, we would endorse a Suzuki trade because it would be a clear signal that the goal (evaluating other catchers) would be accomplished. And we are stating that even if we also don't really trust to Twins to trade Suzuki either, it is just something we'd like to see.

[PseudoSABR]

 

This is a massive mischaracterization. (kab's comment on: "The amount of criticism handed out by not acquiring org filler [...] is hilarious"

No, it's not.  The recent criticism of the Twins FO stems directly from the Twins alleged inability to trade Suzuki for what in many of our minds would be organizational filler.  Massive? You've spent the whole thread telling everyone that there's something valuable learned about the Twins FO in their inability to trade Suzuki.  That the argument has changed to mentoring and development in the last page or so, doesn't change the premise of the criticism levied at the Twins throughout this thread.

 

 In any case, you don't put developing players in the Majors just because the guy at the position currently isn't ideal.  Have we learned nothing from Buxton, and others.  The goal is to put your developing players in the best position to succeed not to throw them against the wall to see if they stick.  What value can we learn from throwing Garver (who has what 50 AAA at bats) or Murphy (who is hovering a tick above the Mendoza line at AAA) out there beyond the probabilistic, 'oh I guess they aren't ready yet.'  (I suppose that would afford a new avenue of FO criticism, hurrah!, and I-told-you-sos, thump that chest). 

 

(Typically, I find replying to a post in response to someone else objectionable, but given your latitude to in that regard, and your lack of response to my last post when I earnestly asked, "is that fair?", I'll play fast and loose as well. ) 

[old nurse]

 

I disagree on your last point.
Molitor has shown an aversion to playing the young guys over mediocre vets.
I think it's a valid concern to wonder if Garver will get solid playing time with Suzuki on the roster.

Kepler gets plenty of playing time over more experienced outfielders. Polanco plays all over the place over more experienced players. Duffrey is still in the rotation as is Berrios over Millone.     If Garver was thought to be MLB ready and able, Molitor would play him.

[Mr. Brooks]

Kepler gets plenty of playing time over more experienced outfielders. Polanco plays all over the place over more experienced players. Duffrey is still in the rotation as is Berrios over Millone. If Garver was thought to be MLB ready and able, Molitor would play him.

Kepler and Polanco EVENTUALLY found playing time. There is no guarantee that Garver would play often.

How many games has Vargas played over the last 30 days or so?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kepler gets plenty of playing time over more experienced outfielders. Polanco plays all over the place over more experienced players. Duffrey is still in the rotation as is Berrios over Millone.     If Garver was thought to be MLB ready and able, Molitor would play him.

 

Which more experienced OFers are on the roster right now?

 

Dan San? Grossman? Rosario? Escobar?

[old nurse]

 

Which more experienced OFers are on the roster right now?

 

Dan San? Grossman? Rosario? Escobar?

Right now it doesn't matter, the earlier statement was false as other more experienced outfielders were let go. Nice avoidance of the other three players.  You could also add as the season has gone on Taylor Rogers has gotten more high leverage situations even before Abad was traded.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No, it's not.  The recent criticism of the Twins FO stems directly from the Twins alleged inability to trade Suzuki for what in many of our minds would be organizational filler.

While a Suzuki trade would likely involve org filler, that is no one's stated purpose for making the trade.  To imply such a thing seemed like a massive mischaracterization to me, that's all.

 

 

In any case, you don't put developing players in the Majors just because the guy at the position currently isn't ideal.  Have we learned nothing from Buxton, and others.  The goal is to put your developing players in the best position to succeed not to throw them against the wall to see if they stick.  What value can we learn from throwing Garver (who has what 50 AAA at bats) or Murphy (who is hovering a tick above the Mendoza line at AAA) out there beyond the probabilistic, 'oh I guess they aren't ready yet.'

 

The problem with Buxton wasn't his August-September audition last year -- it was throwing him out there as the opening day CF this year, and then recalling him again too quickly after his epic struggles.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that Garver should be the opening day starter at catcher next year regardless of what happens this September.  Just that he, and maybe Centeno, and maybe even Murphy, and maybe even Turner could perhaps benefit from extra reps down the stretch this season, extra reps they are unlikely to get with Suzuki on the roster.  Maybe Turner looks like a viable near future backup and it makes it easier to drop Centeno this winter.  Maybe it gets our scuffling pitchers thinking critically about what they want in a post-Suzuki backstop too.  This could all be helpful to our offseason planning.

 

Think back to August 2014.  We had Kevin Correia starting, and we certainly could have kept starting him for the rest of the season, but we didn't.  We traded him for a PTBNL or cash (which became just cash) on August 9th and on the same day started Trevor May.  May struggled a lot that game, and had some more struggles down the stretch, but was a better more prepared MLB pitcher in the spring of 2015 because of it, even if he wasn't in our opening day rotation the next year. I am looking at a potential Suzuki trade in a similar light, at this point.

 

I didn't like the Suzuki extension, but by July this year I was a Suzuki backer, to the point where I was considering picking up his option (when I was mistaken about it being a team option).  But I feel like there's been enough smoke about his defensive game (middling results with the Twins, plus the trade deadline/waivers stuff) that even though I want a veteran catcher on a cheap short-term deal for next year, I pretty much want to roll the dice on someone other than Suzuki.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Kepler gets plenty of playing time over more experienced outfielders. Polanco plays all over the place over more experienced players. Duffrey is still in the rotation as is Berrios over Millone.     If Garver was thought to be MLB ready and able, Molitor would play him.

 

 

Right now it doesn't matter, the earlier statement was false as other more experienced outfielders were let go. Nice avoidance of the other three players.  You could also add as the season has gone on Taylor Rogers has gotten more high leverage situations even before Abad was traded.

 

I'd say that those situations are a little different than our veteran starting catcher.  It is relatively easy to start using Rogers in higher leverage than Abad, or to use Polanco over Escobar when Nunez had already been playing ahead of Escobar much of the season, or to use Kepler over guys coming off their own recent bench/minors demotions (Grossman, Rosario, Danny Santana).  It's also fairly easy to demote Milone, he is still under team control and has never signed a FA contract or extension with the team and likely has never received any assurances about his role.

 

It is much more difficult to take a veteran starting catcher (3 years starting for us, plus a lot more before coming to Minnesota), a guy you had to negotiate a FA contract and extension with, and cut his playing time.  That's more like dropping a veteran FA starting pitcher to the bullpen (something the Twins have been very loath to do) than it is like shuffling around younger / bench / pre-FA type players.

[twinsnorth49]

9 pages, and he hasn't even been moved yet.

 

Mind boggling.

[kab21]

Strange thing in this thread. It has been made abundantly clear that many would be happy to receive literally anything in return for Suzuki yet nobody has suggested that they outright cut him. And don't tell me that you care one bit if Pohlad saves a million dollars in some trivial trade.

 

The catcher position has been a position of weakness for years but it is very likely that it becomes even worse in the near future. Sounds like an awesome plan.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Right now it doesn't matter, the earlier statement was false as other more experienced outfielders were let go. Nice avoidance of the other three players.  You could also add as the season has gone on Taylor Rogers has gotten more high leverage situations even before Abad was traded.

 

It is now required to write a comment on every single part of every single comment? I'll try to do better.

[Vanimal46]

At this point I've given up all hope that Suzuki brings back any value. Might as well let him keep doing his thing until September call-ups. After that, he can take a seat while Murphy, Centeno, and potentially Garver get reps. 

[alarp33]

 

 

The catcher position has been a position of weakness for years but it is very likely that it becomes even worse in the near future. Sounds like an awesome plan.

 

Who cares if it becomes worse in the near future (last 6 weeks of season I assume you mean), the Twins are 49-72.  

 

I wouldn't cut him because they should be able to at minimum get salary relief (around the same time they'll be a hiring a new GM), but wouldn't care one way or the other if they did

[brvama]

Not that it matters to anyone here, but this is my last view of this topic, until there's a change in the status Suzuki. I'll leave the limited "water" of life giving thought on this journey across a parched desert of topic. Have at it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Strange thing in this thread. It has been made abundantly clear that many would be happy to receive literally anything in return for Suzuki yet nobody has suggested that they outright cut him. And don't tell me that you care one bit if Pohlad saves a million dollars in some trivial trade.

I don't think it's strange. Straight-up cutting a player can be, well, rude. It would go beyond any standard convention for dealing with a pending FA veteran in August. To me, that no one has advocated cutting him actually suggests people are approaching this reasonably -- it's not simply some blind Suzuki hate, or generic aggressive "youth movement" pablum.  It's not all that different from our previous August trades of Kevin Correia or Josh Willingham.

 

I'd actually eat some of his salary if that was any kind of hold-up for an interested team.  That too would be within normal conventions of dealing with a pending FA veteran in August.

 

 

The catcher position has been a position of weakness for years but it is very likely that it becomes even worse in the near future. Sounds like an awesome plan.

 

What is your plan?  Keeping Suzuki through the end of the season doesn't necessarily make the catcher position meaningfully better in 2017 and beyond.  I think keeping Suzuki through the end of the season, or moving him now to play some younger players the rest of the season, are at worst equal plans in terms of our 2017+ catching situation.

 

Don't confuse this argument with the separate issue of how to deal with the catcher position in 2017.  I think most everybody here is in agreement we will need a FA veteran or other new acquisition to man the position on opening day 2017.  But that doesn't have a lot to do with who gets the catcher reps the rest of 2016.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

At this point I've given up all hope that Suzuki brings back any value. Might as well let him keep doing his thing until September call-ups. After that, he can take a seat while Murphy, Centeno, and potentially Garver get reps. 

I'd endorse that, but how likely do you think that is?  The Twins didn't ask Correia or Willingham to take a seat in August.  (Nor Mike Pelfrey and others who didn't get traded.)  Suzuki is definitely in their class, as a pending FA veteran, who likely signed here with assurances about his role and hasn't quite nullified those assurances by his performance to date.

 

I think it's more reasonable to expect the Twins to trade Suzuki in August to a contender than to ask him to take a seat on the bench on September 1st, even if both moves accomplish the same thing as far as freeing reps for younger players.  Even if Suzuki was gracious and accepted the bench assignment, he would have every right to be a little upset with the Twins asking him to do that if a trade partner could be found, even if such a trade returned no value to the Twins.  He has his 2017 contract to think about too.  Future signees and their agents might take notice as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Not that it matters to anyone here, but this is my last view of this topic, until there's a change in the status Suzuki. I'll leave the limited "water" of life giving thought on this journey across a parched desert of topic. Have at it.

I normally don't care for posts that chime in simply to say how one doesn't care for a discussion topic and won't be participating, but I give this one points for creativity.

[Vanimal46]

 

I'd endorse that, but how likely do you think that is?  The Twins didn't ask Correia or Willingham to take a seat in August.  (Nor Mike Pelfrey and others who didn't get traded.)  Suzuki is definitely in their class, as a pending FA veteran, who likely signed here with assurances about his role and hasn't quite nullified those assurances by his performance to date.

 

I think it's more reasonable to expect the Twins to trade Suzuki in August to a contender than to ask him to take a seat on the bench on September 1st, even if both moves accomplish the same thing as far as freeing reps for younger players.  Even if Suzuki was gracious and accepted the bench assignment, he would have every right to be a little upset with the Twins asking him to do that if a trade partner could be found, even if such a trade returned no value to the Twins.  He has his 2017 contract to think about too.  Future signees and their agents might take notice as well.

If there was any potential trade partners, the Twins would have went through with it, right? I mean he's been here for 3 years now, and you'd think just out of respect they would have traded him to a contender instead of continuing to tread water on a team going no where. 

Especially right now, when all it would take is taking on his salary the rest of the year, and he still went through trade waivers unclaimed. 

If he's a little upset for sitting during the final month of the season, oh well. He's going to be a free agent, and more than likely we're going in a different direction anyway. He got plenty of playing time during his tenure here. 

[Vanimal46]

I really feel like we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with forcing a Suzuki trade. It's been proven in July, and now August, that no team has a need for him. 

[alarp33]

 

I really feel like we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with forcing a Suzuki trade. It's been proven in July, and now August, that no team has a need for him. 

 

I think that assumption is likely correct (especially since he cleared waivers), but don't discount the possibility the Twins asking price has been way too high