Orioles cooled on Morneau talks

[James]

This argument is a bit wonky because that $6M is already spent (unless some other team takes on part of his salary, but that ain't happening). If you keep him and he sucks, that $6M is just as spent as if we pay the contract and trade him for a prospect that may or may not suck. I understand what some people are saying about waiting it out for an August trade in hopes that his value rises, but the money argument isn't helping anyone's case

Well, the money isn't actually spent...yet. They just know how much he is owed for the rest of the season. So if he is traded, the team he is traded to would have to pick up the remainder of the salary, unless the Twins were willing to pick up some or all of his salary. Contracts aren't paid out in lump sums. So, the money is actually a big factor here.

[Mr. Brooks]

Well, the money isn't actually spent...yet. They just know how much he is owed for the rest of the season. So if he is traded, the team he is traded to would have to pick up the remainder of the salary, unless the Twins were willing to pick up some or all of his salary. Contracts aren't paid out in lump sums. So, the money is actually a big factor here.

 

I think what he means is that we have to pay that money if we don't trade him.

So, if we are going to have to pay that money either way, (by keeping him, or eating all of it in a trade), then why not at least get something in return for that money?

So while technically the money we would be eating could be classified as overpaying (the prospect we receive isn't worth that much, in a vacuum), it's money we still have to pay by holding onto him, and getting nothing in return.

[S.]

I think what he means is that we have to pay that money if we don't trade him.

Correct, this is what I meant. Sorry, my post might not have been the most concise statement. Between work and following all the trade deadline news here, I'm all over the place.

[cmb0252]

O's finishing up a Bud Norris trade. Unless their GM can talk on the phone with two people Morny isn't going to the O's.

[LaBombo]

Well, the money isn't actually spent...yet. They just know how much he is owed for the rest of the season. So if he is traded, the team he is traded to would have to pick up the remainder of the salary, unless the Twins were willing to pick up some or all of his salary. Contracts aren't paid out in lump sums. So, the money is actually a big factor here.

Not only is another team not going to pay all or even most of Justin's remaining salary, they're also not going to give up any kind of actual prospect for the privilege of doing so.

 

However you feel about the politics of how Target field was funded, you can see what a PR disaster it would be to trade one of the team's two most popular players in a straight-up, Calvin Griffith-style salary dump that nets pretty much nothing.

[Mr. Brooks]

I've frequently heard that you cannot offer Morneau the qualifying offer. That you have to either decide to part ways, or try to sign him in FA.

IMO, if you are open to bringing him back, and you think there is even a 0.1% chance that he declines the qualifying offer, then you offer it to him.

Yes, in a vacuum that offer would make him vastly overpaid, but really does that impact the team whatsoever next year?

It's only a 1 year deal, and this team is not spending anywhere close to the amount of money that they have available to spend, so how does overpaying him (or anyone) for 1 year affect anything, other than Pohlad's bank account?

I would rather risk overpaying him by $10 million (money that would presumably have no impact on roster assembly anyway) on a ONE YEAR deal, with the possible reward that he declines it and it nets you a comp pick, rather than being committed to him for 2 or 3 years.

[James]

Correct, this is what I meant. Sorry, my post might not have been the most concise statement. Between work and following all the trade deadline news here, I'm all over the place.

I know how you feel. I'm trying to work at the same time. I was hoping that you knew that stuff already.

 

You're right, the money is a sunk cost, or should be viewed as one. But, there is a lot of assumption around here that the Twins are not offering to pick up the salary. We don't know if that is the case. Souhan said on Judd and Dubay that teams just weren't offering the Twins very much for any of our players. Let's face facts here, if you were a GM for another team, would you offer very much for Morneau or Duensing? I don't think I would.

[LimestoneBaggy]

I get where the countering opinions are coming from here, but my main point is that it's an acceptable risk to gamble into the waiver trade deadline to get a (potentially) better prospect during the next month if Justin can prove better value/someone gets desperate.

 

Whether the cost is a sunk cost or not is laden with numerous other factors of PR/merchandising/ticket sales, etc, and maybe, just maybe a hint of my own sentimental feelings here...

[Mr. Brooks]

I know how you feel. I'm trying to work at the same time. I was hoping that you knew that stuff already.

 

You're right, the money is a sunk cost, or should be viewed as one. But, there is a lot of assumption around here that the Twins are not offering to pick up the salary. We don't know if that is the case. Souhan said on Judd and Dubay that teams just weren't offering the Twins very much for any of our players. Let's face facts here, if you were a GM for another team, would you offer very much for Morneau or Duensing? I don't think I would.

 

My opinion is of course not, but take a lottery ticket and hope one of them hits.

Lottery tickets sometimes do hit.

Nathan and Liriano were both lottery tickets.

 

Anyone who thinks this team is close to competing is wearing blinders.

This team is almost completely void of legit talent, and even if Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Stewart and Meyer all hit, that still is only 20% of a complete team.

My point being, that its going to be several more years before we are competing for anything, and neither Morneau or Duensing is going to be a part of those teams.

If Terry Ryan is a good GM, let's see him prove it by digging deep and finding a diamond buried in the rough of someone's farm system.

I don't understand this notion that if you can't get a top 50 prospect you aren't getting anything. Sometimes good ballplayers can be found outside of the top prospect lists.

[ThePuck]

My opinion is of course not, but take a lottery ticket and hope one of them hits.

Lottery tickets sometimes do hit.

Nathan and Liriano were both lottery tickets.

 

Anyone who thinks this team is close to competing is wearing blinders.

This team is almost completely void of legit talent, and even if Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Stewart and Meyer all hit, that still is only 20% of a complete team.

My point being, that its going to be several more years before we are competing for anything, and neither Morneau or Duensing is going to be a part of those teams.

If Terry Ryan is a good GM, let's see him prove it by digging deep and finding a diamond buried in the rough of someone's farm system.

I don't understand this notion that if you can't get a top 50 prospect you aren't getting anything. Sometimes good ballplayers can be found outside of the top prospect lists.

 

I don't know how Nathan was a lottery ticket. He was a darn fine reliever for SF the year before we got him. I know I wasn't surprised he ended up being a great closer. Even though I was long gone out of California by then, I grew up in the Bay Area, and still had many Giants friends, and they were pissed he wasn't going to be around to replace Worrell as closer. I laughed when we got him for a guy we didn't need.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't know how Nathan was a lottery ticket. He was a darn fine reliever for SF the year before we got him. I know I wasn't surprised he ended up being a great closer. Even though I was long gone out of California by then, I grew up in the Bay Area, and still had many Giants friends, and they were pissed he wasn't going to be around to replace Worrell as closer. I laughed when we got him for a guy we didn't need.

 

Nathan in SF had a career ERA over 4, and was never a top 100 prospect. Maybe you don't want to call him a "lottery ticket", that is fine. But he is certainly the type of player you could easily get in return for Morneau, even now as a shell of his former self.

[ThePuck]

Nathan in SF had a career ERA over 4, and was never a top 100 prospect. Maybe you don't want to call him a "lottery ticket", that is fine. But he is certainly the type of player you could easily get in return for Morneau, even now as a shell of his former self.

 

He excelled as a reliever. Would you talk about how Perkins has been for his career, with his career ERA over 5.00 as a starter, or highlight what his role is now? Same kind of path Nathan had...

[Mr. Brooks]

He excelled as a reliever. Would you talk about how Perkins has been for his career, with his career ERA over 5.00 as a starter, or highlight what his role is now? Same kind of path Nathan had...

 

For one season. Glen Perkins in 2011 (his first year as a reliever) would be a much more applicable comparison then Glen Perkins today.

 

Perkins was also a 2 time top 100 prospect.

Nathan was never much of a prospect, which is my entire point. Good players can be found outside of the top 100 prospect lists.

My entire point is how much garbage this attitude of, "well if you can't get an A or B prospect then you are just giving him away!!"

No, not necessarily. C level prospects (such as Nathan once was) can one day become very good players.

[ThePuck]

For one season. Glen Perkins in 2011 (his first year as a reliever) would be a much more applicable comparison then Glen Perkins today.

 

Yes, for one season. If we had traded Perkins, after one season of dominating as a reliever, for a player like Morny is now you would have been okay with that? It's what you're saying really...that a guy like Nathan, after one season as a reliever after failed time as a starter, could have easily been had for a 2013 Morneau type. Actually, I believe you would have been okay with that.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yes, for one season. If we had traded Perkins, after one season of dominating as a reliever, for a player like Morny is now you would have been okay with that? It's what you're saying really...that a guy like Nathan, after one season as a reliever after failed time as a starter, could have easily been had for a 2013 Morneau type. Actually, I believe you would have been okay with that.

 

I think you are missing my point, entirely.

 

My point is that good ballplayers can be found outside of top 100 prospect lists.

My point is that the mindset that you have to get an A or B prospect or none at all is garbage to me.

[drjim]

Nathan in SF had a career ERA over 4, and was never a top 100 prospect. Maybe you don't want to call him a "lottery ticket", that is fine. But he is certainly the type of player you could easily get in return for Morneau, even now as a shell of his former self.

 

No. You can't get an established major league reliever for Morneau right now.

 

You have a very warped sense of what "lottery ticket" means in this context. None would be close to the caliber of Liriano at the time of that trade.

[Badsmerf]

I think you are missing my point, entirely.

 

My point is that good ballplayers can be found outside of top 100 prospect lists.

My point is that the mindset that you have to get an A or B prospect or none at all is garbage to me.

The Twins received a good deal for the AJ trade because he was a young, All-Star catcher. Unless Morneau starts hitting better, he is not even worth a "lottery ticket." Nathan, and Liriano were both high upside players. Nathan was a failed starter and Liriano had control problems and injury concerns. If Ryan had been offered the right deal he would have pulled the trigger. My guess, is that teams wanted him to pay salary while only giving up a prospect that wouldn't break our top 25 (seriously, would you give up one of our top 25 for Morneau? I wouldn't). So this argument is redundant. He starts showing some signs of life and a deal will be made in August.

[Mr. Brooks]

No. You can't get an established major league reliever for Morneau right now.

 

You have a very warped sense of what "lottery ticket" means in this context. None would be close to the caliber of Liriano at the time of that trade.

 

1) On Nathan. Okay, I concede perhaps Nathan doesn't fit the category of "lottery ticket", but that wasn't really my point.

Nathan was never a top prospect. If you could go back in time and trade for him BEFORE he made it the MLB with the Giants he would have been considered at best a C level prospect.

My point was never to establish Nathan's value at the time of the trade, which is my fault because I was the one who brought him up.

My point is that C and D level prospects can occasionally develop into very good ballplayers. So saying that you have to get an A or B level prospect for a guy or you are giving him away for nothing is not true.

 

Liriano was the 3rd player in that deal, he was the throw in. In fact his name wasn't even in the early reports of the trade. He was an electric arm, but had soured on the Giants organization due to health and other concerns. He ABSOLUTELY does fit the definition of a lottery ticket.

 

"The key to the deal was Nathan," Krivsky said. "Bonser was close to the big leagues and Liriano was the third guy in the deal. We tried to get Matt Cain. Our scout Mike Radcliff was very familiar with him, but the Giants wouldn't give him up. But we had good reports about Liriano from Instructional League.

 

'03 trade had major impact on A.J., Nathan | texasrangers.com: News

[Mr. Brooks]

The Twins received a good deal for the AJ trade because he was a young, All-Star catcher. Unless Morneau starts hitting better, he is not even worth a "lottery ticket." Nathan, and Liriano were both high upside players. Nathan was a failed starter and Liriano had control problems and injury concerns. If Ryan had been offered the right deal he would have pulled the trigger. My guess, is that teams wanted him to pay salary while only giving up a prospect that wouldn't break our top 25 (seriously, would you give up one of our top 25 for Morneau? I wouldn't). So this argument is redundant. He starts showing some signs of life and a deal will be made in August.

 

And what happens if he gets even worse in August and suddenly we literally can't get anything for him?

 

I don't care if a guy is our 50th ranked prospect, that is still better than literally nothing at all.

Even if there is a 1% chance that prospect contributes something to the MLB club, that is still 1% more than you get if you don't trade him at all.

[Kwak]

The Twins aren't trading for some "prospect"--this is a salary dump! Ryan doesn't want to pay another team for Morneau to play for them--that sets a precedent for other GMs to take a hard line because Ryan will cave-in to save a little money.

[drjim]

Cain would have been nice.

 

This is a semantics debate. Liriano was a lottery ticket in that context but is still a better prospect than anything the Twins would have gotten for Morneau at this time.

[LaBombo]

You have a very warped sense of what "lottery ticket" means in this context. None would be close to the caliber of Liriano at the time of that trade.

 

Really? How much better was Liriano than Kyle Smith is now, and how much less valuable is Morneau than journeyman 4th OF Justin Maxwell, assuming the Twins eat most of his salary?

 

It's not a given that Morneau could have netted a Kyle Smith, but it's obvious that a borderline starter or worthwhile sub of similar value to Morneau can.

[diehardtwinsfan]

What if it got a long shot prospect in the low minors. Would you eat the entire salary for Brett Lee and Jhonathon Gonclaves?

 

Yes. The org isn't hurting for cash this year, paying his salary to add a C+ prospect is well worth it.