Twins not looking to trade Correia

[Brock Beauchamp]

Willingham quickly comes to mind.

 

On the other hand, many of us believe he did just that with Revere. I don't see Ben's value ever being higher than it was last offseason.

[TheLeviathan]

Couldn't agree more. The same posters who were on here full of vitriol when the Twins signed KC in the off-season due to his well-known track record now expect that the same GM who signed him can somehow pull off a miracle trade for a great return. And for anyone who honestly thinks he's been that great, well, refer to post #47. But let's not let facts get in the way of this great deal we're going to get.

 

I don't expect a great deal. I just expect more value than I ever would have expected. He's a ticking time-bomb to regress at some point this year or next. No one thinks they are bringing in an A+ prospect, but I would suggest most of us didn't think he'd have ANY value.

 

So being able to capitalize on that now would make what looked like an awful move into quite a brilliant one.

[howieramone1406390264]

There is no need for feeling you have to eat any crow on this. The main reason so many were angry with the Correia acquisition was that it clearly didn't match with the words of the GM leading up to the signing. The Twins pretended that a 5th starter from another team was now being tabbed as- not just "a pretty darn good pitcher", but as the FA signing season progressed and the FO sat on its collective hands- the new "ace" of the staff.

 

You are justified in your uncomfortable feelings about counting on him, despite his innings per start status, he has only gone into the 7th inning 4 times in May and June over 9 starts, and only once completed 7 innings. Let's face it, his season record is largely a mirage based on a good early season start and pitching a significant number of games against the dregs of the league- In May and June he has only faced 2 teams who are in the top half of baseball's best hitting teams (Boston and Cleveland- and the Indians were without some of their key players)-

 

for the season, 7 of his 14 starts have been against teams in the bottom quartile in hitting-

 

Wins and losses are a flawed statistic?

[TheLeviathan]

Wins and losses are a flawed statistic?

 

They don't tell you much about how a player performed. And they tell even less about how they might continue to perform in the future. So "flawed" may not be the best word.

 

More like "incredibly limited".

[The Wise One]

Yup. And it's not like everyone is Johnny-Come-Lately on this. His numbers/age/injury history screamed SELL to many of us last offseason.

And I supose every GM in baseball is totally unaware of his numbers/age/ and history and thus would have offered up a decent prospect for Willingham if he were available? There was a reason he was available for the team friendly price of 3/21. To think you can trade him one year later for a great prospect is preposterous.

[howieramone1406390264]

They don't tell you much about how a player performed. And they tell even less about how they might continue to perform in the future. So "flawed" may not be the best word.

 

More like "incredibly limited".

Any idea on why they keep showing them on the back of baseball cards?

[The Wise One]

It seems like the camp on TD that keeps nominating TR for Executive of the Year might acknowledge this glaring blind spot in his resume.

Yep Terry Ryan is a 2 time executive of the year. He must have done something right. Nobody has accused him of charming his way to the award. Those people at SI. It is not Sports Illustrated, it is Such Idiots.

[TheLeviathan]

Any idea on why they keep showing them on the back of baseball cards?

 

I'm sorry, are you being serious or intentionally snotty here?

 

They appear because they are a stat people do care about. But it's really easy to imagine scenarios as to why W/L aren't all that helpful. Take, as an example:

 

Pitcher 1: 7 IP, 6ER, 4BB, 8 Ks

Pitcher 2: 8 IP, 1ER, 2 BB, 9Ks

 

I think we can agree who had a better start. Now what if I told you pitcher 1 took the win because his team scored 10 runs and Pitcher 2 lost because his opponent hurled a shut-out?

 

This happens all the time with wins and losses and I haven't even mentioned how bullpens factor in. So, no, wins and losses are not all that valuable for assessing a pitcher's success.

[ashbury]

On the other hand, many of us believe he did just that with Revere. I don't see Ben's value ever being higher than it was last offseason.

 

Perhaps Span too. The closer the time comes that three better outfielders are knocking on the door, the more other GMs will laugh when Span is offered in trade and say "here's a utility infielder, take it or leave it".

[The Wise One]

Any idea on why they keep showing them on the back of baseball cards?

 

Tradition

[jorgenswest]

I am not sure Willingham's value was ever as high as many expected on this site.

 

He has so much going against him with his age, injury history and poor defense in LF. He did have a great year with the bast last year. However, teams know how players decline. His wRC+ projections were between 114-120 slightly below his 2011 level and far below his season last year. He would probably be expected to decline slightly from that level next year.

 

Those projections, available last winter, were not ever worth a significant prospect.

[TheLeviathan]

He did have a great year with the bast last year. However, teams know how players decline.

 

I guess my immediate thought to that is....why'd we give him three years than? I don't think we could have gotten an elite spec or anything, but the point is that his value won't be any higher than what it was last year.

 

My guess is the main reason we didn't trade him was worries about the perception of signing a player for 3 years and dealing him 4 months later.

[jorgenswest]

It is likely he signed with the Twins because they were willing to give three years. I hope the plan was to shift him to DH before the end of the contract.

[Kwak]

It is likely he signed with the Twins because they were willing to give three years. I hope the plan was to shift him to DH before the end of the contract.

Willingham had said the third year was the dealmaker. In retrospect maybe they shouldn't have offered three years, then it is quite like the Twins would have had the worst record in MLB last season and would have selected first in the Rule 4 Draft this year. Maybe they would have taken Appel?

[Willihammer]

Willingham had said the third year was the dealmaker. In retrospect maybe they shouldn't have offered three years, then it is quite like the Twins would have had the worst record in MLB last season and would have selected first in the Rule 4 Draft this year. Maybe they would have taken Appel?

 

Appel's timeline doesn't sync with The Rebuilding Plan either. Far too close to being MLB ready.

[jokin]

Appel's timeline doesn't sync with The Rebuilding Plan either. Far too close to being MLB ready.

 

Methinks Ryan would have come up with sumpin' to stretch out that timeline.

[jokin]

I guess my immediate thought to that is....why'd we give him three years than? I don't think we could have gotten an elite spec or anything, but the point is that his value won't be any higher than what it was last year.

 

My guess is the main reason we didn't trade him was worries about the perception of signing a player for 3 years and dealing him 4 months later.

 

Trading him to a legit contender in the offseason should have been amenable to both Willingham and his agent.

[jokin]

Wins and losses are a flawed statistic?

 

Uhh, yeah? The won-loss record of a pitcher is the least valuable piece of information about his worth- and the 2nd least valuable piece isn't even close.

[jokin]

On the other hand, many of us believe he did just that with Revere. I don't see Ben's value ever being higher than it was last offseason.

 

Did Ryan seek out that trade? It was widely reported that Philadelphia basically orchestrated and gift-wrapped the entire process in that deal.

 

And it's quite early to put the final stamp on the trade. May needs to become a regular and reliable starter to deem it successful. If Revere ends up with a productive Michael Bourn-type career- it means Revere wasn't traded at his high, and of course if May busts, it could easily be argued that the trade was a small disaster.

[jokin]

I don't expect a great deal. I just expect more value than I ever would have expected. He's a ticking time-bomb to regress at some point this year or next. No one thinks they are bringing in an A+ prospect, but I would suggest most of us didn't think he'd have ANY value.

 

So being able to capitalize on that now would make what looked like an awful move into quite a brilliant one.

 

I've been wishing really hard for just this scenario from the day he was signed. I just continue to hope that Ryan had, and still has, just this scenario in mind.

[drjim]

Trading him to a legit contender in the offseason should have been amenable to both Willingham and his agent.

 

Sure. But his value was limited in the offseason, he would not have brought back nearly as much as anyone thinks.

 

I'm fine with trading Correia, but he isn't bringing back much either. There better be a clear replacement at the time, and I would imagine Gibson will be up before then.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I am not sure Willingham's value was ever as high as many expected on this site.

 

It wasn't.

 

Just as Correia's isn't high right now. Too many posters fall into the trap of "other GMs are dumber than me". If you think the Twins could hose another team by trading high, take a deep breath and realize that in all likelihood, other GMs realize you're trading high as well.

[Oxtung]

I think most of us are talking past each other. I think most people who are looking to trade him realize that he will never bring back a good prospect, let alone a great one. On the other hand he is utterly replaceable. If you can get anything for him, even if that is a prospect at Rookie ball, why would you not take that opportunity? Perhaps that prospect has a slim chance of turning into a star or even a bench bat. However, that chance of helping the team, however small, is still greater than the chance of Correia helping the Twins 4 or 5 years from now when it matters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think most of us are talking past each other. I think most people who are looking to trade him realize that he will never bring back a good prospect, let alone a great one. On the other hand he is utterly replaceable. If you can get anything for him, even if that is a prospect at Rookie ball, why would you not take that opportunity? Perhaps that prospect has a slim chance of turning into a star or even a bench bat. However, that chance of helping the team, however small, is still greater than the chance of Correia helping the Twins 4 or 5 years from now when it matters.

 

Which is a sound principle but people need to temper expectations and open up to the fact that other GMs may offer so little that Correia may end up being more valuable to the Twins by staying.

[Oxtung]

KC is averaging the most innings per start on the team. We need some more starters to go 7 innings to limit bullpen use. We are 2nd in the American League in the number of innings the bullpen throws. KC though is not averaging quite 7 innings a start though. he does provide value to a team in the hunt for the playoffs so I am all for trading him if we can get a solid prospect for him. I am not for trading player to get c- prospects. Why do that when we can keep players and have a .500 team. He has also been pretty consistent. How many of his starts are between 5-8 innings giving up 2-4 runs? He hasn't had many blow outs this year.

 

I am glad to say that KC has actually out pitched his contract this year. I feel the need to eat crow on that as I was very vocal against his signing. I am still uncomfortable counting on him to be more than a 4th/ 5th starter though.

 

I disagree with your basic premise. I believe in putting the best product on the field every spring with the intentions of contending. I think that is important, however, once that becomes unlikely then my priority shifts towards contending the next season. In that light Correia adds nothing that is not replaceable. In addition the guy could bring back a player that has a chance of helping the Twins in the future. As frustrating as it is to watch, tanking at the end of a season is actually a good thing because it leads to a higher draft pick. Hopefully that higher draft pick will lead to more success in the future. That is how the Orioles, Rays, Rangers, Athletics, et al became good. They were terrible first and reaped the rewards of top draft picks which several years later turned into a good team that had a chance at contention.

[jokin]

It wasn't.

 

Just as Correia's isn't high right now. Too many posters fall into the trap of "other GMs are dumber than me". If you think the Twins could hose another team by trading high, take a deep breath and realize that in all likelihood, other GMs realize you're trading high as well.

 

That doesn't mean you still shouldn't pull the trigger if it serves to help the team for the long term. Willingham and Correia are both "found" talent, holding back developing and developed talent, and most importantly, "relevant talent" bound to be around for the next turn.

[jokin]

I disagree with your basic premise. I believe in putting the best product on the field every spring with the intentions of contending. I think that is important, however, once that becomes unlikely then my priority shifts towards contending the next season. In that light Correia adds nothing that is not replaceable. In addition the guy could bring back a player that has a chance of helping the Twins in the future. As frustrating as it is to watch, tanking at the end of a season is actually a good thing because it leads to a higher draft pick. Hopefully that higher draft pick will lead to more success in the future. That is how the Orioles, Rays, Rangers, Athletics, et al became good. They were terrible first and reaped the rewards of top draft picks which several years later turned into a good team that had a chance at contention.

 

While that is true about the clubs you mentioned, they also have made good-to-very good trades.

[howieramone1406390264]

Uhh, yeah? The won-loss record of a pitcher is the least valuable piece of information about his worth- and the 2nd least valuable piece isn't even close.

 

Source?

[howieramone1406390264]

Fangraphs, you could look it up.

 

or this: Traditional pitching stat is meaningless - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

Google is your friend, too.

Hardly conclusive.

[jokin]

Hardly conclusive.

 

I could provide 100 more links, but I believe twinsnorth stated it succintly. I doubt anything would sway your opinion away from your current stand and actually considering the facts taught at UCS. It's accredited and everything.