Article: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense

[nicksaviking]

I think the use of the phrase "overpay" is being thrown out too often. Just because the price of FA players is high doesn't mean a team overpays. It is simply the market value at the given time. The price of FA is going to only increase in the next couple years with the increased revenue sharing coming in from LA/NY network money being shared.

 

I think when a team overpays would be when they sign a FA for 2 more years at a couple million higher price than any other team was willing to pay. It's hard to say a team overpaid without knowing what offers were out there.

 

I agree and I've often put "overpay" "overpaid" in sarcastic quotes.

[kab21]

If they start contributing. Not when. That's the whole thing. JO Berrios could wind up to be the next Sandy Koufax. Or Adam Johnson. The only thing that's guaranteed about them is that there will be a significant waiting period before we know for sure.

 

There are good arguments to be made on both sides, I appreciate that.

 

If they don't then trading for one starter won't matter.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Myers has a .735 OPS. It's a huge stretch to think his presence was going to turn around their scuffling offense. And without Shields their pitching staff would be pretty mediocre too.

 

Look, I wasn't a fan of the trade and it's not something I would have done. But it's easy to keep saying, "Let's hold onto these prospects and wait until the time is right." The Royals have been saying that for like 20 years. And frankly it's an example that scares me when it comes to the Twins.

 

If Myers starts the season in Kansas City, we don't know if he's hitting .735... But that's not really my point. My point is simply this:

 

Chance of Success + 3 hitting prospects > Chance of Success + 2 hitting prospects

 

On top of your chance of success increasing with more prospects, you have a 3-4 year window to "choose your battles". You have a much longer period of time to look at your franchise and decide when the time to strike is right. If you try to aggressively push that timeline forward before any prospects emerge, you may shut that window entirely.

 

If you have a good young hitter like Myers, you can always get a guy like Shields in return for him... Maybe not quite as good as Shields but you can get a very good pitcher in return. What happens if Hosmer and Moustakas break out in 2015, the year after Shields leaves for FA? It's very possible that it plays out like that... Look at Carlos Gomez. The Royals may waste two years of Shields, 6/7 years of Myers, all to finish second or third in the AL Central in consecutive seasons.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's 7 young pieces to build around and all underperforming. I doubt anyone could see that coming.

 

What is the harm in waiting until they actually are performing before making a move?

 

Lots of risk to push that timeline forward, as the Royals did last offseason. Given that the core of their players are under control for 3-5 more years, there's not much risk in waiting it out for a year or two longer and gauging what you need instead of aggressively picking up players and crossing your fingers.

 

It's unfortunate, but going for it was the right move.

 

Given how Shields is throwing useless innings right now, I think it's painfully obvious that it wasn't the right move. If Moore rolled the dice, Moustakas and Hosmer suffered freak injuries, well that's different. That's a calculated risk and sometimes, you just run into crap luck.

 

But this wasn't crap luck. This was over-aggressiveness, plain and simple.

[ThePuck]

What is the harm in waiting until they actually are performing before making a move?

 

Lots of risk to push that timeline forward, as the Royals did last offseason. Given that the core of their players are under control for 3-5 more years, there's not much risk in waiting it out for a year or two longer and gauging what you need instead of aggressively picking up players and crossing your fingers.

 

 

 

Given how Shields is throwing useless innings right now, I think it's painfully obvious that it wasn't the right move. If Moore rolled the dice, Moustakas and Hosmer suffered freak injuries, well that's different. That's a calculated risk and sometimes, you just run into crap luck.

 

But this wasn't crap luck. This was over-aggressiveness, plain and simple.

 

They were young and had already performed well in their young careers. Not unreasonable to go into this season and believe that doesn't continue for most of them as they start into their prime.

 

And it was the right move. Sometimes the right move doesn't work. Sometimes the wrong move does. Some say trading Span was the right move to get Meyer. If Meyer busts, will those same people turn around and say it was the wrong move? I bet a bunch will. I won't, cause at the time it was the right move.

 

Moore took a shot, and we don;'t even know for sure yet if it ends up poorly for KC anyway. We don't know for sure Myer will be a stud. We don't know KC's position players don't turn it around this year or next.

 

If it doesn't work out, we don't know if KC turns around and trades Shields for more talent this offseason and the trade still ends up good for them. He's still a trade chip and this year hasn't hurt his value.

[Brock Beauchamp]

They were young and had already performed well in their young careers. Not unreasonable to go into this season and believe that doesn't continue for most of them as they start into their prime.

 

And it was the right move. Sometimes the right move doesn't work. Sometimes the wrong move does. Some say trading Span was the right move to get Meyer. If Meyer busts, will those same people turn around and say it was the wrong move? I bet a bunch will. I won't, cause at the time it was the right move.

 

Moore took a shot, and we don;'t even know for sure yet if it ends up poorly for KC anyway. We don't know for sure Myer will be a stud. We don't know KC's position players don't turn it around this year or next.

 

If it doesn't work out, we don't know if KC turns around and trades Shields for more talent this offseason and the trade still ends up good for them. He's still a trade chip and this year hasn't hurt his value.

 

When did Hosmer and Moustakas have success? Neither posted an OPS+ of even 100 last season. I believe Moustakas had a nice rookie season in 2011 but neither were any good last year.

 

Span for Meyer is a completely different situation. It was the right move because it fits in with the entire Twins game plan... And that plan involves a return to competitiveness in the next 24 months and keeping that window open for a full 5-6 years after that point. Maybe Meyer flames out... It happens. He's a prospect. Which, again, is my point. When you're returning to competitiveness, you want more prospects you control for 6+ years, not less. The more prospects you have, the more wiggle room you have in case of the inevitable prospect failure. If it takes a couple of extra years to get a prospect on track (like, say, Kyle Gibson), the rest of your prospects are under control for six years, not two, and you still have a good shot at recovering from that setback.

 

The goal is to keep the window open as long as possible so that you can adapt to situations as they arise, not to corner yourself into a risky game plan, and that's exactly what Moore did and thus far, it has blown up in his face.

 

Sure, the Royals can trade Shields. They'll get a decent return for him, too. But it won't be the #4 prospect in all of baseball. It won't be Wil Myers.

[ThePuck]

When did Hosmer and Moustakas have success? Neither posted an OPS+ of even 100 last season. I believe Moustakas had a nice rookie season in 2011 but neither were any good last year.

 

Span for Meyer is a completely different situation. It was the right move because it fits in with the entire Twins game plan... And that plan involves a return to competitiveness in the next 24 months and keeping that window open for a full 5-6 years after that point. Maybe Meyer flames out... It happens. He's a prospect. Which, again, is my point. When you're returning to competitiveness, you want more prospects you control for 6+ years, not less. The more prospects you have, the more wiggle room you have in case of the inevitable prospect failure. If it takes a couple of extra years to get a prospect on track (like, say, Kyle Gibson), the rest of your prospects are under control for six years, not two, and you still have a good shot at recovering from that setback.

 

The goal is to keep the window open as long as possible so that you can adapt to situations as they arise, not to corner yourself into a risky game plan, and that's exactly what Moore did and thus far, it has blown up in his face.

 

Sure, the Royals can trade Shields. They'll get a decent return for him, too. But it won't be the #4 prospect in all of baseball. It won't be Wil Myers.

 

okay

[Mike Sixel]

Brock, are you only arguing trades, or FA also? Because if empty innings matter for FA, you can't be mad at what Ryan did this last offseason, since every inning this year is, again, empty.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, are you only arguing trades, or FA also? Because if empty innings matter for FA, you can't be mad at what Ryan did this last offseason, since every inning this year is, again, empty.

 

Nope, entirely different. Free agency requires nothing but money. If you have an excess of money in the short term, there is no good reason not to spend it if it makes the team better.

[Brock Beauchamp]

okay

 

That's the third time you've posted this identical condescending response to one of my posts.

 

Stop.

[Mike Sixel]

Nope, entirely different. Free agency requires nothing but money. If you have an excess of money in the short term, there is no good reason not to spend it if it makes the team better.

 

 

Then I mostly agree with you.......but I think sometimes a team should trade prospects for proven players, because those proven players are more likely to do something in the majors than most prospects. As for KC, maybe they were confident these guys would hit this year, and they were just wrong. It happens. At some point, you have to sell tickets, and maybe Moore and others wanted to do that this year. At least they gave their fans some hope for the current year, instead of no hope.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Then I mostly agree with you.......but I think sometimes a team should trade prospects for proven players, because those proven players are more likely to do something in the majors than most prospects. As for KC, maybe they were confident these guys would hit this year, and they were just wrong. It happens. At some point, you have to sell tickets, and maybe Moore and others wanted to do that this year. At least they gave their fans some hope for the current year, instead of no hope.

 

If Hosmer had a 125 OPS+ and Moustakas had a 130 OPS+ in 2012, the Shields move is a good one. You have established production in the lineup and to win, you need pitching to push your team to the front of the pack. It's the logical move in such a situation.

 

But not when Hosmer and Moustakas posted a 92 and 83 OPS+ in 2012. That's letting the cart lead the horse. You don't even know if you need pitching at that point... You might need both given the production received from those two guys in 2012. So what kind of net gain are you really getting by trading one for the other?

[ThePuck]

That's the third time you've posted this identical condescending response to one of my posts.

 

Stop.

 

It's not condescending. You are assuming what I'm thinking once again. Once I feel the debate is at a stand still, and you and I clearly are on this and many topics, instead of continuing to try and prove my point, I just move on from the debate. That's what we're told to do, not continue on and on with a poster trying to prove a point. I suppose I should, in the future, just say agree to disagree. Either way, at this point, I feel I can't win with you no matter what I do.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's not condescending. You are assuming what I'm thinking once again. Once I feel the debate is at a stand still, and you and I clearly are on this and many topics, instead of continuing to try and prove my point, I just move on from the debate. That's what we're told to do, not continue on and on with a poster trying to prove a point. I suppose I should, in the future, just say agree to disagree. Either way, at this point, I feel I can't win with you no matter what I do.

 

Try not responding at all if you are done with the conversation. It's hard to not take a response of "okay" as condescending and snotty as a response to a four paragraph rebuttal to an argument. My apologies if it was not meant as such but when interpreted through simple text, the rebuttal seems quite sarcastic.

[cmb0252]

Then I mostly agree with you.......but I think sometimes a team should trade prospects for proven players, because those proven players are more likely to do something in the majors than most prospects. As for KC, maybe they were confident these guys would hit this year, and they were just wrong. It happens. At some point, you have to sell tickets, and maybe Moore and others wanted to do that this year. At least they gave their fans some hope for the current year, instead of no hope.

 

The year, 2010. The trade deadline, Twins are buyers.The prize, Cliff Lee.

 

The Twins get out bid by the Rangers for Lee because we refuse to include Hicks in a deal for him. The Rangers go on to make it to the WS while we get swept by the Yankees.....again! Would Lee have changed things? No one knows but I know I was very disappointed not to have gotten him.

 

I have no problem trading top specs to try and put you over the top. I do have a problem with trading them when the teams sucks and in reality the players only help us suck a little less. Losing sucks but we are on the right track. Patients is a virtue.

[ThePuck]

Try not responding at all if you are done with the conversation. It's hard to not take a response of "okay" as condescending and snotty as a response to a four paragraph rebuttal to an argument. My apologies if it was not meant as such but when interpreted through simple text, the rebuttal seems quite sarcastic.

 

I guess I'll try to do that. I'll probably be called out for being rude to someone addressing a post to me, but I'll try it. I'd venture to say simply asking me what I meant by okay the first time I responded to you that way, or even the second time, instead of assuming what I meant, might have been a better way to handle this. Might have avoided you blowing up at me in front of everyone on the forum, because you misunderstood why I wrote okay in the first place. Now, that's not meant at snark or anything, just saying that politeness goes both ways and so does posters being given the benefit of the doubt, as we've been told to do when dealing with each other.

[Nick Nelson]

Give it a rest Puck. It's quite obvious that quoting an entire post and writing "okay" adds nothing to a quality discourse, and Brock's not the only one to notice you doing it repeatedly. Let it go.

[Major League Ready]

What is the harm in waiting until they actually are performing before making a move?

 

Lots of risk to push that timeline forward, as the Royals did last offseason. Given that the core of their players are under control for 3-5 more years, there's not much risk in waiting it out for a year or two longer and gauging what you need instead of aggressively picking up players and crossing your fingers.

 

 

 

Given how Shields is throwing useless innings right now, I think it's painfully obvious that it wasn't the right move. If Moore rolled the dice, Moustakas and Hosmer suffered freak injuries, well that's different. That's a calculated risk and sometimes, you just run into crap luck.

 

But this wasn't crap luck. This was over-aggressiveness, plain and simple.

 

 

I am not trying to take sides here but I thought it was not just aggressive but short-sighted because they only had Shileds for 1+ an option year. I could see taking your shot if the players you were getting back were going to provide benefit for three or four years but that was no tthe case. Giving up a top 10 prospect and others for a pitcher under control for 2 years is steep? (They have a club option in 2014, right?) None of their core was going anywhere for a few years. They could have waited until their young players proved they were ready to make a playoff run. This was a high risk / impatient move.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interesting to bring up Cliff Lee. Ramos and Hicks for Lee would have been tempting, even just for a rental -- Lee had been an epic postseason stud Yankee killer in 2009, and Lord knows it would have been fun to roll the dice again with him on our side.

 

Regardless of how the postseason turned out, I wonder if Bill Smith would still be on the job if he did that Lee deal, rather than the Capps one? At least he would have left a better legacy, I think.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Interesting to bring up Cliff Lee. Ramos and Hicks for Lee would have been tempting, even just for a rental -- Lee had been an epic postseason stud Yankee killer in 2009, and Lord knows it would have been fun to roll the dice again with him on our side.

 

Regardless of how the postseason turned out, I wonder if Bill Smith would still be on the job if he did that Lee deal, rather than the Capps one? At least he would have left a better legacy, I think.

 

Even if it failed, I'm sure his legacy would be looked at more positively. Instead of thinking, "God, that trade was dumb... All we got was a decent reliever for a top 100 guy struggling through a down season", we'd be thinking "Well, he gave it a legitimate shot. It failed, but he tried."

[ThePuck]

Interesting to bring up Cliff Lee. Ramos and Hicks for Lee would have been tempting, even just for a rental -- Lee had been an epic postseason stud Yankee killer in 2009, and Lord knows it would have been fun to roll the dice again with him on our side.

 

Regardless of how the postseason turned out, I wonder if Bill Smith would still be on the job if he did that Lee deal, rather than the Capps one? At least he would have left a better legacy, I think.

 

It's the kind of move some of us can only dream of.

[Guest USAFChief]

If I was Dayton Moore, I'd spend large portions of my day yearning to have Wil Myers back in the system. They gave up seven years of Myers for a guy who, while pitching well for them, is gone after next season. They have effectively wasted 50% of Shields' performance already and may have closed their window of contention entirely.

 

1) We have no idea what 7 years of Myers will be worth. It may turn out to be less than the 1/2 season of pitching the Royals have gotten from Shields. It will be 2 years of Shields anyway, at the least, barring injury.

 

2) If trading one prospect, who had yet to log an MLB PA at the time of the trade, closes the window of contention entirely, then I would say there was no window there to begin with.

 

I don't understand the outrage over the Myers-Shields trade. It was a good gamble for a team who was in pretty much the exact position we can only hope the Twins will be in a couple years from now.

[kab21]

1) We have no idea what 7 years of Myers will be worth. It may turn out to be less than the 1/2 season of pitching the Royals have gotten from Shields. It will be 2 years of Shields anyway, at the least, barring injury.

 

2) If trading one prospect, who had yet to log an MLB PA at the time of the trade, closes the window of contention entirely, then I would say there was no window there to begin with.

 

I don't understand the outrage over the Myers-Shields trade. It was a good gamble for a team who was in pretty much the exact position we can only hope the Twins will be in a couple years from now.

 

The Royals lost 90 games last year. I hope the Twins aren't in the same position in a couple of years. Shields wasn't going to be worth 15+ wins for the team. And for the record I would be upset if the Twins traded Sano or Buxton for a Shields level pitcher (2 yrs to FA). If this was a 90 win team then I would feel differently.

[Hugh Morris]

I don't understand the outrage over the Myers-Shields trade. It was a good gamble for a team who was in pretty much the exact position we can only hope the Twins will be in a couple years from now.

 

There are a variety of issues with the trade. First and foremost, the benefit of the trade (Shields) is around for two years. The Royals being in contention for the first of those 2 years was far from a sure thing (especially given a number of the stats others have shown you). Even if the offensive talent matures next year, you've still traded away 7 years of a player whose expected floor is in the .280/20HR range with adequate defense (and a ceiling well above that) for 2 years of a good-but-not-consistently-elite pitcher and you've wasted that first year.

 

All of that said, it's a defensible gamble. If you believe that it was done in the best interests of the club. "This move was in the best interest of the longterm health of the Royals" is a minority view amongst those who covered the trade.

 

"This move was done in the best interests of Dayton Moore not getting fired at the end of the year" would be the more accepted narrative for the chain of events. And it has substantial merit.

 

Even if we're being charitable to Moore and assuming that the Royals saw something that soured them on Wil Meyers, the return could have been substantially more than 2 fairly high priced years of an inconsistent starter and a reclamation project out of the pen.

[drjim]

I personally liked the Shields trade for the Royals and thought it was a worthwhile gamble. There was reason to believe that the offense was ready to take a step forward from last year and that an upgraded pitching staff would make a difference. Of course Shields himself is not a 15 win guy, but they upgraded other pitchers and some of the additional upgrade could be expected from the young positions players. I hope people don't think hitters 25 and younger stay static.

 

Myers is a fine prospect but he is a corner OF. He could definitely become a stud but he is more likely to settle in at a .800-.820ish OPS which is a fine player but not so good that it cripples a franchise to lose him. Trading a corner OF for a starter is a good swap.

 

The other aspect is if the Royals fall flat again next year they can still move Shields before the deadline. That would recoup some of the value of Myers.

[StormJH1]

I'll open this post (so it doesn't get locked for being off-topic) by saying I'm not adverse to the Twins keeping Perkins because he's a quality guy under a very reasonable contract.

 

As for Myers/Shields, the fact that the Royals haven't been able to develop or keep front-line starters for years should not factor into whether that was a good trade. It was a horrible trade. Anybody checked Detroit's rotation (and lineup) recently? I have no idea what possessed Kansas City to think that Shields was that one piece that would make them compete for the division. KC is 6 games under .500 and that's WITH Shields pitching his butt off. When the guy you acquire does everything you expect him too and you're still 8 games out of 1st place....whoops.

 

People try to justify Myers/Shields by saying that the Royals have had tons of blue chip hitting prospects and none of them panned out. Isn't that an argument for keeping MORE of your blue chip hitting prospects, since you might not be able to count on 30 HR and 100 RBI from Moustakas, Hosmer, and Gordon every year? Prospects fail - it happens more than it doesn't. The fact that Myers could fail doesn't justify the trade, since the relatively small chance that he becomes a gigantic star is infinitely more valuable than 50-70 starts from Shields on a losing team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1) We have no idea what 7 years of Myers will be worth. It may turn out to be less than the 1/2 season of pitching the Royals have gotten from Shields. It will be 2 years of Shields anyway, at the least, barring injury.

 

2) If trading one prospect, who had yet to log an MLB PA at the time of the trade, closes the window of contention entirely, then I would say there was no window there to begin with.

 

I don't understand the outrage over the Myers-Shields trade. It was a good gamble for a team who was in pretty much the exact position we can only hope the Twins will be in a couple years from now.

 

No, it wasn't. The Royals are bad, Shields is pitching useless innings, and Myers has started off his career OPSing close to .800.

 

Oh yeah, and the Royals offense is abysmal. I forgot to mention that part.

 

It was a bad gamble by a man who was more worried about losing his job than securing long-term success for his franchise. I don't see how anyone considers this a "good gamble". The Royals offense had shown no indication that they were on the cusp of anything and Moore traded away a top five prospect who, not so surprisingly, is having a fine rookie season in Tampa.

 

You make sure your house is in order and then you make a push to put the team over the top. Otherwise, you end up exactly where the Royals are right now, and that's in third place with an awful offense and without the piece that may have pushed you closer to contention for seven years.

 

Aggressiveness for the sake of aggressiveness is not a solid game plan for a small market franchise. If everything works out with a prospect core, nothing is stopping Moore from making a similar trade in 2014 or 2015 when all of those prospects are still pre-arb but have actually played enough games to know what pieces are needed to build a contender.

[howieramone1406390264]

No, it wasn't. The Royals are bad, Shields is pitching useless innings, and Myers has started off his career OPSing close to .800.

 

Oh yeah, and the Royals offense is abysmal. I forgot to mention that part.

 

It was a bad gamble by a man who was more worried about losing his job than securing long-term success for his franchise. I don't see how anyone considers this a "good gamble". The Royals offense had shown no indication that they were on the cusp of anything and Moore traded away a top five prospect who, not so surprisingly, is having a fine rookie season in Tampa.

 

You make sure your house is in order and then you make a push to put the team over the top. Otherwise, you end up exactly where the Royals are right now, and that's in third place with an awful offense and without the piece that may have pushed you closer to contention for seven years.

 

Aggressiveness for the sake of aggressiveness is not a solid game plan for a small market franchise. If everything works out with a prospect core, nothing is stopping Moore from making a similar trade in 2014 or 2015 when all of those prospects are still pre-arb but have actually played enough games to know what pieces are needed to build a contender.

 

Good post Brock. Let me add one thought. The Royals made 1 premature move. It appeared to all of baseball, Kansas City was finally about to successfully complete a long rebuild and they made 1 premature move. Terry Ryan's goal is to avoid a long rebuild and it can certainly be difficult to understand stand each and every move he makes. But Ryan has a plan in place, which is roughly familiar to all of us as the Twins Way, and he will follow that plan until our Twins are ready to dominate the Central again. His goal is not to play meaningful games this September. His goal is to play meaningful games every September.

[jorgenswest]

More on the Royals timing...

 

Hosmer and Perez are younger than anyone on the Twins current roster. Only Hicks and Presley are younger than Moustakis. All are 23 or 24.

 

Those three Royals are 3-5 years from the primes of their careers. The Royals should have been adding a 4th guy to that core in Myers. Why not wait until building the foundation of a .500 and then add pieces to get to the next level? The Royals have enough good pieces that it might still work out, but they increased the likelihood of continuing in their cycle of mediocrity with the moves for Shields and Guthrie. In 2015 when that trio above is 25-26, Shields will be a free agent and they will be stuck with a declining Guthrie. The piece they need at that time might be in the middle of the Rays batting order.

[Kwak]

Interesting to bring up Cliff Lee. Ramos and Hicks for Lee would have been tempting, even just for a rental -- Lee had been an epic postseason stud Yankee killer in 2009, and Lord knows it would have been fun to roll the dice again with him on our side.

 

Regardless of how the postseason turned out, I wonder if Bill Smith would still be on the job if he did that Lee deal, rather than the Capps one? At least he would have left a better legacy, I think.

 

I had always wondered what was the Twins final offer for Cliff Lee? These posts make it sound as if Hicks was the deal-breaker--was it?