Terrible bullpen

[prouster]

It's worth remembering that Kintzler is a free agent at the end of the year. They decided to get something for him when the alternative was getting nothing. At the time, a wildcard spot seemed at best a remote possibility. They made the right decision to trade him. Whether they got enough in return is a separate debate.

 

It's also worth remembering that Kintzler is not the kind of reliever who moves the needle all that much. He's a sturdy and more or less reliable presence, which is of course nice to have. That said, they didn't just trade peak Joe Nathan. It's interesting to me how people are responding now that we're somewhat on the other end of the Matt Capps trade. It's not a perfect comparison, but I'm fascinated by the vitriol over trading a decent reliever for an okay prospect.

 

The bullpen has been a weakness all season. It would be a weakness if Kintzler was still closing. Injuries to the starting staff have exacerbated things a bit, as have poor performances by some guys they expected more from (Presley, Duffey). Picking up someone on waivers isn't likely to change that. Tim Melville is an example of this (recall the pain and suffering his start caused some last week and the earlier anguish over Craig Breslow being the "big" offseason signing; that's essentially the kind of pitcher they could pick off waivers). I think they should roll with what they've got and address it in the offseason.

[drjim]

It's worth remembering that Kintzler is a free agent at the end of the year. They decided to get something for him when the alternative was getting nothing. At the time, a wildcard spot seemed at best a remote possibility. They made the right decision to trade him. Whether they got enough in return is a separate debate.

 

It's also worth remembering that Kintzler is not the kind of reliever who moves the needle all that much. He's a sturdy and more or less reliable presence, which is of course nice to have. That said, they didn't just trade peak Joe Nathan. It's interesting to me how people are responding now that we're somewhat on the other end of the Matt Capps trade. It's not a perfect comparison, but I'm fascinated by the vitriol over trading a decent reliever for an okay prospect.

 

The bullpen has been a weakness all season. It would be a weakness if Kintzler was still closing. Injuries to the starting staff have exacerbated things a bit, as have poor performances by some guys they expected more from (Presley, Duffey). Picking up someone on waivers isn't likely to change that. Tim Melville is an example of this (recall the pain and suffering his start caused some last week and the earlier anguish over Craig Breslow being the "big" offseason signing; that's essentially the kind of pitcher they could pick off waivers). I think they should roll with what they've got and address it in the offseason.

Why is the question on whether they got enough for Kintzler* a separate debate? It's all the same debate, enters into the equation of whether it was a worthwhile trade and the right thing to do.

 

You don't have to "get something" for every pending free agent.

 

*For the record, I assume they got as much as they could. It just wasn't much, not nearly enough to punt on the season at the time. And I said as much at the time, believe it even more now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And Hildenberger is the first out of the pen today, pitching for the 3rd straight game, and 5 out of 6. Would Kintzler have helped us spread it around a bit?

[prouster]

Why is the question on whether they got enough for Kintzler* a separate debate? It's all the same debate, enters into the equation of whether it was a worthwhile trade and the right thing to do.

 

You don't have to "get something" for every pending free agent.

 

*For the record, I assume they got as much as they could. It just wasn't much, not nearly enough to punt on the season at the time. And I said as much at the time, believe it even more now.

It's a separate debate because the decision to trade someone is different from the return for that player. When the Twins traded Johan, it was clearly the proper thing to do. However, there was a lot of reason to think the return wasn't as good as it could have been. So, the decision to make the trade exists (in theory) independtently of the return. Of course, sometimes an overwhelming return is the thing that ultimately makes a trade happen. I think that's becoming rarer as front offices rely more and more on data.

[drjim]

It's a separate debate because the decision to trade someone is different from the return for that player. When the Twins traded Johan, it was clearly the proper thing to do. However, there was a lot of reason to think the return wasn't as good as it could have been. So, the decision to make the trade exists (in theory) independtently of the return. Of course, sometimes an overwhelming return is the thing that ultimately makes a trade happen. I think that's becoming rarer as front offices rely more and more on data.

For your example, trading Santana was *not* clearly the proper thing to do. Would have been much better to keep him. Cost the Twins a playoff berth. This is especially true because the return was not that great. The return and decision to make a trade should usually be connected. The exception is a team with 0% chance of making the playoffs trading a pending free agent.

[USAFChief]

 

For your example, trading Santana was *not* clearly the proper thing to do. Would have been much better to keep him. Cost the Twins a playoff berth. This is especially true because the return was not that great. The return and decision to make a trade should usually be connected. The exception is a team with 0% chance of making the playoffs trading a pending free agent.

Yup.  Trading Santana was wrong, and many of us said so at the time.  Keep him, put another 230 IP on his arm, and take the draft picks.

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

And Hildenberger is the first out of the pen today, pitching for the 3rd straight game, and 5 out of 6. Would Kintzler have helped us spread it around a bit?

That was odd. I would have thought Busenitz there. It was 6-2, with one on and two out. Too early for Rogers I suppose. That is the significance of carrying Perkins. No Boshers. Perfect spot for him to pitch. Lefty, relatively low leverage situation.

[Major League Ready]

 

But for what gain? That is still the main problem with trading Kintzler, the payoff was so low.

I'm not naive to the probabilities, that is why I did not support the move! In my mind, the probability that the return for Kintzler would be a meaningful player needed to be significantly higher than the probability of making the playoffs. Don't see it.

I would have soft bought, but absent that selling Garcia was at least understandable, that was a decent return. Less so Kintzler.

 

OK, I understand where you are coming from.  You just feel they did not get enough to warrant letting Kintkler even when considering there odds of making the playoffs were very low at the time.

 

Our difference in opinion is that I did not expect anything more than they got for Kintzler.   Watson is a projectable LH starting pitcher.  It would have been nice if we could have gotten someone a little further along but MLB.com say he has mid-rotation potential.  He is ranked 18th in our system and Littell is 16th.  He is ranked just above Curtiss and Chargois.

 

John Sickels of Minorleagueball.com ranked Watson as the No. 14 prospect in Washington’s system before the season and put a “sleeper alert” tag on him. Sickels tabbed Watson’s major-league ETA in 2020 and noted he is a “highly intriguing prospect with breakthrough potential.”

If he reaches these projections, this was a fantastic trade.  Six cost controlled year of a mid-rotation starter for giving up Kintzler would be fantastic.  I would guess his odds of realizing this project are probably about the same as our odds were of making the playoffs. 

 

The $500K of international money should not be overlooked, especially with the CBA changing.   There were six international prospects that signed for $500K.  They were ranked 32-38.     We all know about prospects but that’s a pretty good asset.

[Brandon Warne]

 

That's some odd logic. What does that even mean?

Does it mean the bullpen is fine when you only have to use the best 1 or 2 relievers?

Does it mean Kintzler shouldn't have been traded, since he was primarily used when the starter did his job?

 

When you rarely need to use your bullpen, it performs better. 

[rghrbek]

Per Gleeman:

Twins' bullpen in August (since trading Brandon Kintzler):

.194 AVG (#1 in AL)

0.93 WHIP (#1)

3.85 K/BB (#3)

3.44 ERA (#5)

0.71 WPA (#5)

 

Yes they've blown a couple games, but with all the young kids we have up, I will take this great experience for them down the stretch of a playoff race with those numbers.

 

Also, decent chance Kinsler signs with us in the offseason (hopefully not as the closer)

[USAFChief]

 

When you rarely need to use your bullpen, it performs better. 

there's no evidence of that, other that perhaps you'd use your worst relievers less.

 

In any case, even if true, that has nothing to do with the bullpen, that's about the starters.  It's also unrealistic...every team in baseball uses it's bullpen almost every game.    Your statement is sort of like saying when the Twins score double digit runs, the bullpen usually performs well enough to preserve the win.

 

The answer to the bullpen isn't the starting staff.  It's better pitchers in the bullpen, and trading away Kintzler was a bad idea toward that goal, for a team that (obviously) wasn't out of the WC race when they traded him.

 

 

[Lonestar]

I don't understand punting on Duffey's, Perkins' and Curtiss' spots in the bullpen.  At the very least Duffey's and Perkins'. It's not like the rest of the bullpen is so good that you can hide them.  It will just lead to overexposing Belisle, Hildenberger, and Taylor.