PseudoSABR

Well, right. Santiago has been (a lot) more valuable than Nolasco over that trend, no? Putting the Angels aside, do you think other teams really think Santiago and Nolasco+4mil have similar values? I just don't, at all. Santiago is a legitimate back of the rotation piece, Nolasco is the worst qualifying pitcher in the league over the past several years (I recall reading that somewhere) or short of that below replacement level.

If the trend lines continue, Santiago will fetch far more than Nolasco. I just don't think there's a lot of controversy in that assertion, and obviously its contingent on Santiago far-out performing his peripherals and Nolasco far under performing them. I still can't believe Nolasco was traded at all; I think you're obscuring just how much of negative-value asset Nolasco really has been, regardless of how mediocre Santiago is or ends up being. Let me put it this way, the deal at best, and in my opinion, was a coup, at worst, its a net-win. I get that you wouldn't put it that way, but the basis for that seems semantical rather than factual. My using net-win in my previous post is to demonstrate that we're really on the same page, and it's not worth parsing out why we necessarily shouldn't be that optimistic. I apologize for the mocking tone, it's a defense against what seemed like fastidious and pernickety argument, which--not trying to lump you in--occurs often around here.

The Twins deserve credit for putting themselves in a better situation; whether Santiago will clearly get more value than Nolasco+4million isn't the point, it's that the Twins have the options of 1) moving on from Santiago (say if they value him as lowly as Nolasco or he implodes) by non-tendering him, 2) getting Santiago's production over Nolasco in 2017, which at this point is likely to be (much) better, and letting him walk without any vesting-player options to worry about, or 3) trade him over the winter or during next season at values equal to Santiago's production. That's flexibility and it's worth a lot given how little you had in Nolasco. Similar situation with Busenitz in that they can choose to add him to the 40-man or risk exposing him during the Rule 5 draft as opposed to the inflexibility offered by Meyer in that he's already on the 40-man and he's out of options next year. Of course, no one is advocating a binary-or-death analysis here. But there's nuance and then there's cynically construing the facts. We can hypothesize how this trade ends up a loss for the Twins in the future, but given the current value of the players involved and the added flexibility the Twins get, is it really worth rebutting that this is a net-win for the Twins? It seems a bit belabored to point out that Santiago isn't guaranteed to fetch better value in the future (no one debates this lack of guarantee) or that we only gain one 40-man spot in added flexibility.

That the Angel's believed he had value or was worth Santiago (and acquiring Nolasco) doesn't really mean he generally had much value, right? Shoulder injuries, age, and lack of recent, sustained success point towards nominal value. In any case, according to one writer at Fangraphs Meyer has as much future value as Busenitz. And are you really suggesting that the Twins could get more for Nolasco than Santiago at next year's deadline? Really? That's what you're going with? You could have just said this instead of picking nits.

No offense, but there seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on throughout your post. You start with the assumption that the Twins are trading with the purpose of being competitive next year, and your analysis and conclusions lean heavily in that favor without really considering the evidence that points to the contrary view. Mejia, Light, and Busenitz are all under team control for six years; that they might be useful in 2017 isn't indicative of the view that the Twins are hellbent on competing next year; rather it's an indication that there's less variance in such players as they are closer to the majors. Low A guys are more sexy I suppose, but AAA/AA prospects have far better opportunity to contribute in the near and LONG term future. Turning two relatively no-value-or-NEGATIVE-value assets into Santiago (and Besenitz) is a coup. Santiago is an asset, Nolasco was not. Santiago at worse can be non-tendered this year. If he produces next year and the team struggles, he can be traded as a rental at the deadline, likely to fetch far more value than Nolasco would in his place. And whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we still need starting pitchers to bridge the gap to the talent that has only briefly appeared in AA. There's simply nothing short sighted about flipping Nolasco for Santiago, because you flipped a negative-asset for a potentially low-risk positive asset. The sad truth of this deadline is that the Twins really didn't have that many valuable assets to trade, if you were expecting better deals than the one's we got, I think you overvalued Nunez, Nolasco, Meyer, and Abad. I agree, I was also disappointed to see Suzuki not get traded, but I don't agree on Santana.

Lucroy is holding up the catching market; Norris hasn't gone any where (right?); McCann is said to be available as well. If Suzuki doesn't get traded it's probably because other teams are engaged with other options, not because of Twins FO ineptitude. That said, Suzuki could probably be traded in August either to the claiming team or if he passes all the way through. Still it will be disappointing not to finally trade Suzuki, now that he has some kind of value...

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 19s19 seconds ago Jersey City, NJ jays have been trying to land ervin santana. twins like him very much, tho. may keep.

I think that's a fake-Olney account (according to the replies). Incarcerated Bob has it though...(for what ever he is worth): Incarcerated Bob IBN ‏@incarceratedbob 6m6 minutes ago **BREAKING MLB NEWS** Blue Jays on verge of getting some SP help Ervin Santana from Twins

Lucroy wanted to nix the option for next year, which of course the Indians would not do, as part of the price they paid is that option. Odd turn of events.

I'm increasingly resigning myself to the fact that nothing much will happen at the deadline. The Twins should be sellers. However, the actual tradeable assets/players suffer in value due to the length of their contracts, their potential value to the Twins next year (or the following years), and their third-tier status on the market (or worse). You figure Suzuki, Nunez, Kintzler, and Abad all are at their premium value or on expiring/near-expiring contracts. If they do get traded, I think it will be near the deadline deals. (I hope some team panics and overpays for Santana...) If we're lucky we may get some August deals for lottery tickets and AAAA filler.

Is being embarrassed for a poster/administrator/content-provider the new formulation of an (unwarranted) personal attack that floats under the TOS? I don't mean to run-around the mods. But that's the second time that formulation emerged. We can disagree without....this.

I wonder if the Twins HOF induction had more to do with the timing than the trade deadline. If Pohlad had made the decision to fire TR sometime prior to yesterday, he may have been advised to wait until after the Twins HOF induction ceremony, as to avoid the inevitable distraction, gloomy cloud it would have cast over the ceremony had TR been fired not long beforehand.

I wonder if a GM search has been going on for some time, and as the process necessarily needs to go through more public avenues, the time to dismiss TR was now. If that's the case, perhaps we could see a new GM sooner rather than later; certainly an incoming GM would rather have control of the organization prior to the trade deadline. In any case, really glad to see the Twins made this move sooner rather than later; I was worried they would be too gun shy to pull the trigger at all. This also probably suggests that Molitor might not be safe, as the new GM I bet will want the authority to make the final decision on a manager.

So he only started half the games as a supposed bench player? He didn't get an extended look, but he had an opportunity. Arcia might prove to be big league player, but the Twins have lots of poor fielding corner outfielders who might be able to hit. On the dude's third option year, it shouldn't be surprise. There's lots of nails in the FO's coffin, but this probably isn't one of them.

Sad to see Arcia go, b/c his potential was salivating. But I can't blame the Twins plenty of bone-headed plays and missed opportunities lead to this. He could have cemented his job early on this year, but he blew it. Remember how he got hot in April for a week or two; he couldn't sustain it and couldn't adjust. That said, he could still be part of the organization; though I think some other team will take a flyer on him.

Park won't learn to adjust to ML pitching in AAA. He needs exposure at the ML level in this lost season. So do Kepler and Buxton at this point in the season. In the end, Santana's versatility wins the day.

My first thought was: I hope KC panicked and traded for the guy. No offense to Plouffe.

If the shares can't be sold in a secondary market, it's pretty worthless -- the whole thing is a cynical investment, which makes betting on such players, well, prohibitive.

I guess what isn't clear is what you make of that determination - that the Twins are deprioritizing putting Meyer in the best position. (I don't necessarily agree with that determination, as I think it's more complex, even though I do agree it's less than ideal). The implication/inference of that determination would seem to be that the Twins are making a mistake. And for some posters, maybe not you, this mistake is illustrative of a general incompetence by the FO in regard to the development of prospects, and hence the piling on (before Meyer even makes his first ML start, no less).

I'm not sure what you're alleging then. There's awful lot of implication and inference, combined with the disclaimer "well that's not what I'm saying". (For my part, it's pretty clear what's being alleged even if put in negative terms and not overtly suggested). The complexity of the situation, as I think I've indicated, would seem to cut-against making much of the Twins' disparate choices over the span of two years (or two weeks) with regards to Meyer. (Things have probably changed since last season, such as Meyer's actual AAA success as a starter.)

Although Meyer and Kepler lingering on the bench isn't ideal, the harm of a loss of two week's worth of at bats or starts isn't so great, and the benefit of limited MLB exposure (even bearing witness on the bench) may chill the initial anxieties that plague prospects in the early going. My point is that the Twins aren't doing the least they could in regard to development for Meyer. There's a human complexity to actual success at the highest levels that goes beyond the number of at bats and innings pitched -- I think that's something pretty easy to discount when we talk about what's best for a given player. Although, sitting on the bench for two weeks may not have been ideal for Meyer, it may have done him some good in managing his inevitable debut as starter. At the very least, the premise shouldn't be discounted out of hand. The Twins' plans may not have been ideal, but nor have their plans been enacted with total disregard to what best for the player's development either; it's complex, and a balance between what's best for the team and what's best for the player, without disregarding either.

This thread just goes back to the prospect paradox: the team deserves criticism either because: 1) the team is unwilling to promote prospects b/c it is risk adverse and allows useful talent to waste away in the minor leagues, or 2) the team too readily promotes prospects and puts them in the position to fail. We have these same arguments about every prospect when they initially struggle, yet too many fans--rather than accepting that even the best-developed prospects still fail when first exposed--will impugn the intentions and the integrity of the front office. It's a rather insufferable attitude.

I don't know what other point you could be making other than to suggest that Molitor (secretly or strategically) wants Meyer to fail in order to get him in the bullpen and free a spot up for Santana/Gibson. I think that's pretty unreasonable to suggest.

Nice at bat, even though Park did look fooled an a couple swings. He can tag the ball when he makes contact.

That's the best feeling I've had so far this year. Hope there are many moments like this. Congrats, Park.