ashbury

It's only a start to what would be a more solid analysis (say, looking a little harder for trades of lesser magnitude that still brought 2 or more legitimate prospects), but points in the direction that I think is a true conclusion, namely that we're looking at a summer of one-for-one trades of any significant talent that may have various spare parts included for any of a number of reasons. Shoot! I forgot a trade candidate, even though he stares me right in the face in the first list of trades: Matt Capps Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 0.6 Prev WAR: 0.8 Career WAR: 6.2 These numbers don't stack up any better to the list of big-time trading chips than the rest of the Twins' candidates (and it's not as if WAR is systematically prejudiced against closers, since Nathan regularly had seasonal WAR in the 2-3 range and Rivera goes even higher). What we need is a trading partner who'll do a swap similar to the Ramos deal; can we get Bill Smith planted as a mole in some team's organization?

> Is the WAR of the player, or the players returned? Of the veteran player only. Unless I made typos. > Because isn't that part of the question, how much WAR did you give up to get what WAR in return? It's part of "a" question, I guess. But my purpose here was more modest: to try and line up current Twins assets to assets that have been used in big trades from the past. In the case of several of these trades, it's too soon to know the WAR gotten in return anyway (or also how much WAR was ultimately traded away in future years' production). Again, I wasn't trying to assess the success of the trades; it's certainly an interesting question to wonder how much is received in return for a player with a certain profile of WAR numbers past and present, but when trading for prospects you don't know for sure what you'll get anyway, and looking after-the-fact at WAR is almost exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do, which is to look at the trades from the perspective of the moment they were transacted. You need something other than WAR (of the later years) to measure what a prospect's value was thought *at the time* to be. Not every player in a 5-player package is a blue-chipper, but in the trades listed, the packages weren't typically just one stud with 4 fillers. So, it seemed enough to just group these trades generally, looking for a pattern of what was being traded away. And the pattern I think I see is that the Twins have absolutely no one on the roster who is likely to pull more than a single can't-miss prospect, paired maybe with a second good but unproven player. And IMO trading at that rate of speed means treading water, with a sub-.500 club, indefinitely. That doesn't mean no trades are possible, or in the Twins' interest. But I'm convinced more than before that trading alone isn't going to restock the system in one stroke. Maybe I'm setting up a straw man argument here that no one was actually arguing to be the case. > Also, if your team as currently constructed utterly stinks, but you think you have 2-4 starters in the minors ready in, say, 2015, wouldn't you want to trade your current players and get 1-4 more guys that will be ready in 2015? It can be done, but it's hard to do well. It's true, a strategy of trading veterans for prospects is quite a lot more complicated than just backing up the truck and loading the merchandise. My aim here was much humbler, to assess how big of a truck might be needed. Looks like a U-Haul trailer is enough.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1217[/ATTACH] There has been much banter about whom the Twins might trade, and what they might get in return, if and when they decide to give up on the season and become "sellers" at the trade deadline in July. Folks seem to expect that several prospects can be obtained for the most prized of the Twins' trading chips, thus restocking the minors and/or bringing major-league ready talent to the parent club, particularly on the pitching side. So I got curious what kind of return teams actually get, historically, when they trade someone valuable. The other day, I put out a posting with the question of what good trades came to mind - ones at the high end like Teixeira that brought a good nucleus. (Thanx and a tip o' the baseball cap to daan4786, boom boom, cdog, coach j, gunnarthor, and jtrinaldi for their nominations.) I wound up with 17 trades to look at. A few opening comments. I am not trying to judge who "won" these trades; each one was viewed at the time as a gamble on young talent in exchange for a known quantity (to whatever extent value can be known in baseball). I decided to use Wins Above Replacement (WAR), as found on the baseball-reference.com site - I need a metric that attempts to place a value on batters and pitchers alike, combining offensive and defensive contributions, and it's not my purpose here to defend WAR itself - if you don't like WAR, feel free to construct your own study. Finally, this is not a comprehensive study of "trades in general" - I was purposely looking for trades that brought a lot in return, again because of the presumption in some places that the Twins can restock with a few astute trades, so I colored the discussion from the outset by holding up the Teixeira trade as a benchmark. For each veteran listed, I present the return that was obtained (either a number of prospects, or a specific name when it was one-for one), the age of the most recent season (or mid-season) of stats when the trade took place, the date of the trade (to distinguish between off-season trades and deadline trades when the in-season WAR reflects only a partial season), and then three WAR values: of the current or most recent season, of the previous season (in a few cases marked by asterisks I give some benefit of the doubt by reverting to two seasons previous, when the previous season was marred by injury or otherwise didn't seem representative of what a GM would be looking at), and finally a career total WAR up to the time the trade occurred to give a sense of the total body of work by the given age. Again, my purpose is not to bother looking after the trade is completed; the clock stops when the trade is made. Here they are, sorted in order of the age of the veteran player: Mat Latos for 4 prospects Age: 23 Dec 17 WAR: 1.5 Prev WAR: 3.0 Career WAR: 4.4 Gio Gonzalez for 4 prospects Age: 25 Dec 23 WAR: 3.9 Prev WAR: 3.6 Career WAR: 5.8 A.J. Pierzynski for 3 pitchers Age: 26 Nov 14 WAR: 4.2 Prev WAR: 2.1 Career WAR: 8.6 Matt Capps for Wilson Ramos Age: 26 Jul 29 WAR: 0.3 Prev WAR: -1.2 Career WAR: 3.9 Zack Greinke for 4 prospects Age: 26 Dec 19 WAR: 3.2 Prev WAR: 10.1 Career WAR: 24.8 Mark Teixeira for 5 prospects Age: 27 Jul 31 WAR: 2.5 Prev WAR: 4.2 Career WAR: 22.3 CC Sabathia for 4 prospects Age: 27 Jul 7 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 6.0 Career WAR: 25.7 Chuck Knoblauch for 4 prospects Age: 28 Feb 6 WAR: 6.5 Prev WAR: 8.4 Career WAR: 36.3 Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir Age: 28 Jul 30 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 2.4 Career WAR: 4.4 Shaun Marcum for Brett Lawrie Age: 28 Dec 6 WAR: 3.8 Prev WAR: 2.7* Career WAR: 9.1 Hunter Pence for 4 prospects Age: 28 Jul 29 WAR: 3.2 Prev WAR: 2.8 Career WAR: 17.3 Matt Holliday for 2 prospects and 1 established reliever Age: 28 Nov 10 WAR: 5.6 Prev WAR: 5.8 Career WAR: 17.5 Michael Bourn for 4 prospects Age: 28 Jul 31 WAR: 2.1 Prev WAR: 5.3 Career WAR: 13.0 Frank Viola for 5 prospects Age: 29 Jul 31 WAR: 3.1 Prev WAR: 7.4 Career WAR: 25.0 Casey Blake for Carlos Santana Age: 34 Jul 26 WAR: 1.6 Prev WAR: 2.4 Career WAR: 14.8 Carlos Beltran for Wheeler Age: 34 Jul 28 WAR: 3.5 Prev WAR: 3.5* Career WAR: 58.7 Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz Age: 36 Aug 12 WAR: 2.0 Prev WAR: 1.7 Career WAR: 24.8 Capps and Zambrano and Marcum jump out as having the thinnest "resume" at their respective ages; a single (but very good) prospect was fetched in return for them; their all being pitchers suggests what GMs are thinking when they trade away prospects. Latos and Gonzalez were very very young, so their Career WAR can be excused as their recent two years' WAR were very attractive ("only" WAR of 1.5 from a 23 year old? sign me up!). Michael Bourn is a bit shaky in this grouping, with his main attraction apparently being his previous stellar year. The older guys, Blake and Beltran and Alexander, each snagged a single (but again very good) prospect. OK, so now what? Well, I picked ten current Twins player that seem to be the subject of trade discussion in the TwinsDaily forums. Again, I sort them in order of age: Danny Valencia Age: 27 Jun 12 WAR:-1.1 Prev WAR: 1.9* Career WAR: 0.2 Alexi Casilla Age: 27 Jun 12 WAR: 0.5 Prev WAR: 1.3 Career WAR: 1.2 Francisco Liriano Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR:-0.9 Prev WAR: 4.0* Career WAR: 8.0 Denard Span Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 2.3 Career WAR: 13.4 Joe Mauer Age: 29 Jun 12 WAR: 1.0 Prev WAR: 5.5* Career WAR: 33.9 Nick Blackburn Age: 30 Jun 12 WAR:-1.0 Prev WAR: 0.5 Career WAR: 3.6 Justin Morneau Age: 31 Jun 12 WAR: 0.2 Prev WAR: 4.6* Career WAR: 18.5 Ryan Doumit Age: 31 Jun 12 WAR:-0.1 Prev WAR: 1.0 Career WAR: 7.1 Josh Willingham Age: 33 Jun 12 WAR: 2.0 Prev WAR: 2.1 Career WAR: 14.8 Carl Pavano Age: 36 Jun 12 WAR:-0.8 Prev WAR: 1.8 Career WAR: 14.9 And now, I look for matches between the Twins list versus the historical list, guided to great extent by age. Valencia, Casilla, Blackburn, Doumit: None of these guys remotely resemble any of these historical trades, not even for a single good prospect. They just don't have the track record. It's possible that a trade for a prospect could occur, but it won't be a Smoltz or a Kazmir. Liriano, Pavano: Nobody in the list of trades had a bad current WAR, where the trade was made based on hopes of a rebound to past performance. It's hard to forecast getting a genuine prospect in return for either pitcher, sorry to say. Willingham: Kind of matches up with Casey Blake, who netted one good position player, moreso than Beltran who brought a pitcher. We love JWillie, but his offense so far is a little out of line with his track record while his defense is a known minus, and I don't see GMs valuing him as highly as Beltran for a pennant push. Morneau: I was surprised that his current WAR remains so low, due to the below-par batting average. Again, we love him, but I suspect the WAR reflects a little more faithfully how other GMs will factor in the potential for a full rebound to his MVP season versus the risk of injury. If his current WAR were higher he might be a good match for a Hunter Pence or Michael Bourn kind of trade, and I don't see his salary being an obstacle. But as it is, I just don't know. Mauer: Again the current WAR does not reflect what he could contribute if he bounces back a bit more. Maybe WAR isn't so good a proxy for what another GM might think of Mauer in a trade; but then WAR doesn't reflect the high-end salary Mauer commands, either. Tough to find a match in the first list - Knoblauch had established a really stellar resume by about that age, but his two most current seasons far eclipse what Mauer has (though I give Joe the benefit of the doubt with that asterisk). Again, I don't see a haul like in the first list, if Mauer was traded. Span: Finally, the trading chip most talked about here. Where's the match? Unfortunately, Zambrano looks like the closest one to me (Zambrano came up late, accounting for a relatively low career WAR), even though he's a pitcher, suggesting that only one stud prospect could be obtained for him. Span is valuable, indeed, but relative to other center fielders he's just about average, and the list of trades doesn't suggest how you would do more than close one hole (say in the starting rotation) while opening the hole in CF (which you might hope to cover with Revere). To get more, Span would need to be perceived as much better than average among center fielders. Well, I came out of this small study with basically the same view as I came in with, that even "backing up the truck" to dispose of current players would not re-stock the system like one would hope. The design of the study was shaped by my expectation, no doubt, so maybe I've overlooked some area of hope. But right now, I don't see how Terry Ryan will be able to do better than tit-for-tat trades, that bring individual young talent at the expense of current abilities; there just is nobody on the roster like Teixeira and Knoblauch and Viola in their primes. Pavano was supposed to be our Doyle Alexander to use to snare a young talent, but it doesn't look like it's going to work out. [ATTACH=CONFIG]1218[/ATTACH]

I just set up the joke. Feel free to provide your own punchline.

While looking for something else, I ran across on Yahoo's team roster page that Drew Butera is listed among the pitchers. So that I won't think I was just imagining things after they correct it, here is a compressed screen shot: [ATTACH=CONFIG]1134[/ATTACH]

Humber doesn't seem to have found the first inning a particularly difficult one tonight.

I didn't much like his debunking of the 9th being tough, and the many comments gave several reasons why. But the 1st inning idea has some merit. You might have to learn to accept a different standard than for closer; an ERA of 3.00 might be excellent in that role, and 4.00 pretty acceptable.

If his middle name is DeWayne, why is he called P.J.?

Serious Swarzak is serious. http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/472/seriouscatcover.jpg

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1020[/ATTACH] In a Marquis-out/DeVries-up thread, it was mentioned by more than one that Matt Maloney ought to be put into the Rochester rotation. I had been thinking along those lines for a while now, too. In fact, I wonder if the Twins considered doing this in April for the parent club, before sending Maloney down, by putting him into a long-relief outing or two. Unfortunately he pitched so poorly that they couldn't even "stretch him out" for a few innings, in anticipation of a trial as starter. He might at one point have been Plan A for replacing Liriano or Blackburn if need be (the "need" has since then been proven), as he was the one brought in to relieve them on April 17 and 24 respectively. If he had done well in 3-5 innings he would have then been on the cycle to enter the rotation at the next turn. But he didn't. By May 2, according to this theory, they had given up on the idea, letting him finish only the 3rd inning after registering two outs plus an RBI double; all his other appearances were in later innings with no scope for long work. Perhaps he pulled a (reputed) Kevin Slowey-ism by making excuses saying he could only be effective as a starter, pissing off the coach and manager and earning the DFA to Rochester. That's just libelous speculation of course - my apologies, Sir. But his track record has been as a starter who put up promising AAA numbers, more impressive at Louisville 2010-2011 than DeVries has been in the same league 2011-2012 for instance. Then suddenly in 2010 when Cincy brought him up they stopped using him as a starter after two more-or-less decent starts (ERA 3.09) and used him exclusively in the bullpen, with OK results as well. In 2011 Cincy used him very inconsistently, mostly as a reliever, and his unsightly season ERA (despite good numbers during his AAA time) came about in 3 putrid games out of 8, with one start in late April and then one start during September garbage time. After Cincy dropped him, Minnesota seemed to decide he's purely a reliever, if I just go by his usage and stop trying to read between so many lines. Considering the thin state of the Twins starting staff, I don't think they should overlook any potential resource to help them get through the season, even if he's no long term answer. I'd plug him into the Rochester rotation and see if he's worth a July or August call-up. My fingers would be crossed that Cuellar there can get him on track, if the problem had been either the mental approach of trying to prove worth as a starter while in the bullpen, or perhaps some mechanical tweak to help him. So far, 4 innings into his Rochester career, he's given up two baserunners and no runs, so maybe the Cuellar magic is already working. Again, he's not going to be a difference-maker, and my title for this post is tongue-in-cheek. But I hate to see my team leave a stone un-turned. [ATTACH=CONFIG]1019[/ATTACH]

Why is it that on most days, when I channel surf to ESPN during commercial breaks of the other show I'm watching, I never get an update on how the Twins' game is going, but when they lose a game 16-4 like yesterday it's constantly the game shown on the crawl at the bottom of the screen when I click over there? Ugh.

Why is it that on most days, when I channel surf to ESPN during commercial breaks of the other show I'm watching, I never get an update on how the Twins' game is going, but when they lose a game 16-4 like yesterday it's constantly the game shown on the crawl at the bottom of the screen when I click over there? Ugh.

If you don't like those nicknames, then you *really* wouldn't like the nicknames coach Tom Brunansky hung on Darin Mastroianni and Aaron Bates during spring training. Me, I have no problem with the nicknames. If Lexi or Plouffey are confused about who calls the shots, this won't be the reason.

Just a little takeoff on Seth's blog post today.

May 15: on this day in Twins history, 2012, Jason Marquis gave up three home runs in one inning, in a lethargic 5-0 loss that also featured (not to be outdone) four different Twins grounding into double plays. Wait, what? You have to wait a year to mark a milestone like this one?

May 15: on this day in Twins history, 2012, Jason Marquis gave up three home runs in one inning, in a lethargic 5-0 loss that also featured (not to be outdone) four different Twins grounding into double plays. Wait, what? You have to wait a year to mark a milestone like this one?

Interesting, I don't know if I had heard that before. It seems like something that could be looked up. There are RISP stats on baseball-reference.com, both for league as a whole, and for individual teams. So I gathered information for years 2009-2012, for Batting Average, for OPS, and for "Runs per Plate Appearance", to see if any trends jump out. I'm doing it by hand, so I don't have time to go back an arbitrary number of years. BA and OPS ought to be more or less comparable concepts whether in total or when just looking at RISP; but actual runs scored measured by R/PA will naturally be a *lot* higher in RISP situations than for all plate appearances, because, well, there are runners on base every time. I'm just looking for trends, anyway. Here's what I compiled, and I really hope I didn't make any errors in either transcription or (in the case of R/PA) my long division. (Sorry I don't know how to line these up in columns in this text editor.) AL BA OPS R/PA 2012 Tot .250 .722 .114 2012 RISP .261 .749 .325 2011 Tot .258 .730 .117 2011 RISP .259 .743 .332 2010 Tot .260 .734 .116 2010 RISP .258 .739 .325 2009 Tot .267 .764 .125 2009 RISP .269 .774 .345 Twins BA OPS R/PA 2012 Tot .236 .660 .092 2012 RISP .233 .706 .279 2011 Tot .247 .666 .103 2011 RISP .248 .673 .320 2010 Tot .273 .762 .125 2010 RISP .285 .780 .347 2009 Tot .274 .774 .129 2009 RISP .278 .799 .367 What I see as a baseline (league-wide) is this: 1) Batting average normally is not too different in RISP situations, maybe a little higher overall but in 2010 it was slightly lower. 2) OPS (which measures walks to homers and everything in between) always is a little higher in RISP situations. 3) R/PA is hard to compare but 2009 was a higher-offense year than the years since then. Then what I see for the Twins specifically is this: 1) Their batting average in 2012 is a little lower for RISP situations, but on a scale seen league-wide in 2010. In 2010 their BA was a lot higher in RISP situation, contrary to the league. 2) Their OPS rises in RISP pretty much like it does for the full league, each of these years. 3) Their offense was better than league-average in 2009 and 2010 and their RISP stats reflect that, and their offense in 2011 and (especially) in 2012 is below league average and their RISP stats reflect that too. It still seems to me that the record indicates that if they improve their overall offense, the RISP part of it will take care of itself too. They don't merely need better production during rallies. They need better production, period.

The Twins lost 2-1 yesterday, wasting a pretty good season debut by P.J. Walters. From the AP story: The struggling Twins offense couldn't come up with a timely hit. Minnesota went 0 for 9 with runners in scoring position and stranded six runners over the final four innings. "We had plenty of chances, but it just didn't work out for us tonight,'' Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said. Hm. On offense, the Twins had 5 hits total, but 6 walks to go with them. The Jays had 7 hits, and no walks. The Jays grounded into two double plays; the Twins didn't ground into any but had a runner cut down on a fly ball. The teams had two extra base hits apiece:, a double and a homer for the Jays; two doubles for the Twins. For the game: TOR: BA=.219 OBP=.219 SLG=.344 OPS=.563 MIN: BA=.161 OBP=.297 SLG=.225 OPS=.522 These are both poor batting results, as you could expect in a 2-1 game. OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, for various reasons - but it says that in this game, Toronto did a little less poorly. The Twins did a nearly acceptable job at getting guys on base (league average OBP this year is .317), but their slugging was putrid (league SLG is .405). The eventual game winning hit was Bautista's home run. Mauer and Dozier apparently gave the ball a ride but only collected doubles. That turned out to be the difference in the game. Walks are better than outs, doubles are better than singles, and homers trump them all. Bautista didn't have anyone on base when he connected. But he put himself in scoring position nonetheless while standing at home plate, and the Jays won. (Since the Twins only run was scored on a walk, this means two of the three runs in the game were not covered by the RISP statistic, for what that's worth.) For the season, the Twins are 10th in the league in getting on base. They are dead last in slugging average (and in home runs in particular). Not coincidentally, they are also dead last in runs scored. The table setting is below par, and the power is simply not there at all. Adding Komatsu and Mastroianni only addresses the table setting, at best, and does nothing for the glaring need, throwing the offense further out of balance even if they do better than the players they replaced. Until both facets of the game improve, and a balance between getting on base and driving runners in is achieved, run scoring is going to remain at a premium. And until such time as the Twins still lose despite getting better game-OPS than their opponent, lamenting about 0-9 with runners in scoring position is for, well, losers.

The Twins lost 2-1 yesterday, wasting a pretty good season debut by P.J. Walters. From the AP story: The struggling Twins offense couldn't come up with a timely hit. Minnesota went 0 for 9 with runners in scoring position and stranded six runners over the final four innings. "We had plenty of chances, but it just didn't work out for us tonight,'' Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said. Hm. On offense, the Twins had 5 hits total, but 6 walks to go with them. The Jays had 7 hits, and no walks. The Jays grounded into two double plays; the Twins didn't ground into any but had a runner cut down on a fly ball. The teams had two extra base hits apiece:, a double and a homer for the Jays; two doubles for the Twins. For the game: TOR: BA=.219 OBP=.219 SLG=.344 OPS=.563 MIN: BA=.161 OBP=.297 SLG=.225 OPS=.522 These are both poor batting results, as you could expect in a 2-1 game. OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, for various reasons - but it says that in this game, Toronto did a little less poorly. The Twins did a nearly acceptable job at getting guys on base (league average OBP this year is .317), but their slugging was putrid (league SLG is .405). The eventual game winning hit was Bautista's home run. Mauer and Dozier apparently gave the ball a ride but only collected doubles. That turned out to be the difference in the game. Walks are better than outs, doubles are better than singles, and homers trump them all. Bautista didn't have anyone on base when he connected. But he put himself in scoring position nonetheless while standing at home plate, and the Jays won. (Since the Twins only run was scored on a walk, this means two of the three runs in the game were not covered by the RISP statistic, for what that's worth.) For the season, the Twins are 10th in the league in getting on base. They are dead last in slugging average (and in home runs in particular). Not coincidentally, they are also dead last in runs scored. The table setting is below par, and the power is simply not there at all. Adding Komatsu and Mastroianni only addresses the table setting, at best, and does nothing for the glaring need, throwing the offense further out of balance even if they do better than the players they replaced. Until both facets of the game improve, and a balance between getting on base and driving runners in is achieved, run scoring is going to remain at a premium. And until such time as the Twins still lose despite getting better game-OPS than their opponent, lamenting about 0-9 with runners in scoring position is for, well, losers.

Not to straddle the fence or anything.... but I also agree with much of your point, shs. His AAA season at age 24 with OPS .730 looks an awful lot like an age 25 ballplayer putting up .697 in the majors - tougher league, a (last?) bit of incremental improvement in skill. The age 25 stint in AAA (1.000+ OPS) looks like a tease/mirage, or a "career half-year". But he's a player out of minor league options, and given that the braintrust opted not to cut/trade him but put him on the 25-man roster, it seems like a make or break year for him, plus there was a good chance (at the outset) this would not be a winning season, and for that reason I would have expected him to see more plate appearances by now than he has. Try to build up his value, as a secondary piece in some trade later on. Capps plus Plouffe for some legitimate prospect? However, his results to date would put even a staunch supporter (which Gardy probably is not) in a pickle. As I said, being at all comparable to any portion of Butera's career, not to mention the very lowest point of Butera's career, is not a good thing, and for that reason is by itself noteworthy. The Twins gamble and (apparently) lose on him, somehow thinking that putting the chip only halfway onto the 00 square is better than solidly in there. Anywho, I appreciate the comments.

I'm with you both on giving Plouffe more of an opportunity from the git-go. Still, being within a gnat's eyelash of parity with Butera at his very lowest point last year, seemed worth bringing up. It's not a good thing to be even in the same discussion with Drew Butera. Right now, this makes it hard for a manager to install him in RF and tell him "you're my guy, win or lose".