Wednesday, October 12, 2011

To Trade or Not to Trade?

In November of 2009, Bill Smith set the tone for an extremely active offseason when he traded Carlos Gomez to the Brewers for J.J. Hardy. It was a relatively major deal, and one that turned out well for the Twins, who got a quality -- though injury-shortened -- season from Hardy at shortstop while Denard Span took over in center field.

Of course, Smith's trades haven't always gone so smoothly. With his pattern of buying high and selling low, I can only hope he doesn't invest much money in the stock market. He's dealt away players like Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett, Wilson Ramos and Hardy only to watch them thrive elsewhere; meanwhile, acquisitions such as Delmon Young, Matt Capps, Jim Hoey and the entire Johan Santana package have largely fizzled in Minnesota.

But it's not just Smith's history of getting fleeced that has me believing the Twins would be wise to stay away from the trade market this offseason. Based on the current roster composition and state of the franchise, I don't see any players that the team both can and should be dealing away.

Among those with movable contracts, there are few on the major-league roster with meaningful trade value. It's not hard to see the Twins shopping Francisco Liriano this offseason, but they'd be getting rid of him with his value at a low point; as mentioned earlier, this is a habit Smith must get away from. The same goes for potential trade candidates like Kevin Slowey (who's probably as likely to get non-tendered as traded), Danny Valencia and Denard Span.

One could point to Carl Pavano and his $8 million salary as an expendable asset, but the veteran righty led the team in innings pitched by 60 frames this year. With so much ongoing health uncertainty in the rotation, it's tough to argue that Pavano is dispensable unless the return is very appealing.

Of course, the Twins could look to the minors for prospects to package in a trade, but should they really be doing that? While it's not unthinkable that the team could return to contention next year with a lot of good breaks, the front office should really be building with an eye toward 2013 and 2014, when their next wave of organizational talent will be nearing the majors. Trading away from that group for more immediate help simply wouldn't fit with the direction this organization should be going.

The Twins have a lot of needs to fill, but they lack areas of strength from which it would be prudent to trade. Unless Smith can get uncharacteristically creative and pull a rabbit from a hat, I'd prefer to see the club upgrade its roster almost exclusively through free agency.

That can prove a challenging and expensive proposition, but fortunately they'll have some funds to work with this winter.

56 comments:

TT said...

Your larger point is correct. The Twins lack major league assets to trade and that limits their options in the off-season. But sas Delmon Young really a bad deal at $10 million for 4 years that included two division championships? I don't think so.

Same with Capps. I think people forget that, when that deal was made, the Twins had Jon Rauch starting to struggle as closer. They went on to win the division.

This year, while Nathan eventually took the closing job, Capps gave the Twins the luxury of letting him actually recover. The Twins would not have still been in contention in early July without Capps, despite his struggles. There is a reason he's a type A free agent based on his performance the last two seasons.

And how can you complain about the Hardy trade and in the same sentence complain that the Santana trade "fizzled". The Twins got Hardy for Gomez, one of those players from the Santana trade. And Rauch came in return for Mulvey. Two players who contributed to division championships in trade for one season of Santana. The Twins need more trades to "fizzle" like that.

You left out a few deals that have helped the win divisions. Pavano, Brian Fuentes and Orlando Cabrera all came to the Twins in exchange for minor league players.

Anonymous said...

TT is right - this post is FanaticJackBait.

Nick N. said...

But sas Delmon Young really a bad deal at $10 million for 4 years that included two division championships?

What kind of argument is this? It's akin to saying it was a good idea to pay Nick Punto $4M/year in 2009/10 because they won the division both years.

Young was largely a bad player with the Twins. They would have been better off with Garza and Bartlett in '08 and '09, when they desperately needed a shortstop and front-line pitching.

Same with Capps. I think people forget that, when that deal was made, the Twins had Jon Rauch starting to struggle as closer. They went on to win the division.

Yes, they won the division by six games. Unless you believe that Rauch (or Crain, who could have just as easily replaced him) would have cost them an extra six games, your argument doesn't carry much weight. And the core fact here is that trading a top catching prospect for an overvalued relief pitcher is a terrible value swap however you slice it.

Nick N. said...

You left out a few deals that have helped the win divisions. Pavano, Brian Fuentes and Orlando Cabrera all came to the Twins in exchange for minor league players.

I wasn't making an exhaustive list of every trade Smith has ever made. Those ones were left out because they were relatively minor deals that involved trading away no-name prospects. The trades being examined here are major, team-altering moves, because those are the kind that will need to be considered this offseason.

Mike said...

I think Nick adequately responded to a few of TT's arguments, but I'll throw in a couple more. I would absolutely say that the Santana trade fizzled. No one panned out at all. Where the deal had any value at all was that they were able to trade the players they received for Santana for Hardy and Rauch. But they let Rauch walk and they traded Hardy for one of the worst relief pitchers around. At this point, it's a very poor return.

The Capps deal, while failing to impact the race last year, as he did not bring an additional six wins to the Twins, hurt the team even more in the long run. Of course, it was the FO that made the bad decision, but they turned around and signed him this past year for $7.15 million, which limited their ability to retain other players (Hardy, Rauch, Guerrier- they probably could't/shouldn't have matched Crain's deal from CWS).

The Twins desperately needed a cheap and competent backup catcher to basically become the full-time catcher this year and they also needed bullpen and middle infield help. The Capps deal obviously didn't single-handedly prevent this from happening, but the Twins would have been much better off if they simply hadn't traded Ramos for Capps.

Ed Bast said...

TT, as evidenced in his blog, seems to think trades should be analyzed solely on how many years the players you get play for your team and at what salary. Hence his belief that the Delmon deal was good, and the Santana deal.

Here's a quote I still can't wrap my head around:

"My assessment is that, when you look at all those, these trades actually worked out to the Twins benefit. Even if the 5 players they have left all fail."

Apparently performance has nothing to do with it.

Matt said...

I wouldn't use Delmon's salary and time with the team to analyze the value of the trade so much.
I think it was a shot at a guy who was once the top prospect in baseball. They gave him playing time and numerous chances to be a mainstay of the organization and he failed. It cost them $10 million.
Yes, better off with Bartlett and Garza, but taking a shot with a player like Delmon isn't all bad.

If any trades take place, the Twins should be looking to get younger, not older; ie don't package low minors guys with high ceilings this year. I wouldn't put it past BS, though.

Nick N. said...

Yes, better off with Bartlett and Garza, but taking a shot with a player like Delmon isn't all bad.

I actually agree, it was a decent idea that just didn't work out. Among all of Smith's dud trades, I'd say this one is the most excusable. If he were to make a major trade this offseason, I'd like to see him go a similar route (dealing a quality young player with upside for another quality young player with upside) but hopefully with a better handle on the talent involved.

TT said...

"Young was largely a bad player with the Twins."

Delmon Young lead the Twins in hits, doubles and RBI's in 2010 and was tied for second in home runs. The Twins probably would not have won the division without him. His overall numbers as Twin were .287/.324/.429, very similar to the numbers he has put up in Detroit.

"Those ones were left out because they were relatively minor deals that involved trading away no-name prospects."

Why are trades that brought a starting shortstop, a starting pitcher and a top reliever "minor deals"? Why does it matter whether you have heard of the prospects or not?

"They would have been better off with Garza and Bartlett in '08 and '09."

Maybe, but its likely Punto still would have been at shortstop since he was a better hitter than Bartlett in 2008 and a better fielder.

"Yes, they won the division by six games. Unless you believe that Rauch (or Crain, who could have just as easily replaced him) would have cost them an extra six games"

The pitching they had before Capps arrived had them 2 games out of first. So, yes, I think not making that deal would have easily cost them six games.

You have to remember, they had Crain and Rauch in addition to Capps. The pitchers Capps replaced were guys like Burnett, Manship and Mahay at the back of the bullpen, with everyone else having to pitch in more important roles as well.

The Twins won in 2010 because they pieced together a deep bullpen that could be called on early in the game and still leave no one overworked.

Crain had a 1.629 WHIP in September and blew two saves as setup guy. And he hadn't pitched early in the season until July and August, after Capps arrived. No one in their right mind was going to make him the team closer. In fact, didn't you suggest releasing him in May?

Guerrier got $12 million from the Dodgers. And he was certainly not a closer. Likewise Rauch, who only got paid half what Capps did, but didn't pitch like a closer either.

"The Twins desperately needed a cheap and competent backup catcher to basically become the full-time catcher this year "

Right, because Wilson Ramos would have added 17 wins for the Twins, getting them to .500. But I agree, the Twins gave up some future to win last year and I suspect Smith understood that. But you don't get something for nothing.

Ed -

Glad to know you are reader.

"Apparently performance has nothing to do with it."

Actually it does. The Twins won two division championships based in part on those trades. That is the kind of performance I think trades need to be judged on.

Mike said...

"Right, because Wilson Ramos would have added 17 wins for the Twins, getting them to .500."

Nobody said that. Are you trying to deny that the Twins' catching situation was atrocious this year? Ramos certainly would have been a substantial upgrade over Butera.

And I don't understand your rationale- it's okay to trade away Ramos so that MN could be substantially worse at catcher because they wouldn't be .500 with Ramos. But, getting Capps was a good idea, because he was a big contributor to a team that lost 99 games?

There really seems to be a disconnect in the logic.

And Guerrier's 2011 salary with the Dodgers is $2.46 million: http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/5998/matt-guerrier

If you want to say the Dodgers gave him $12 million, go right ahead. It isn't wrong. But you should probably be more forthright and say that it's $12 million over three years.

It also sounds like you overvalue the save statistic, much like the Twins' FO. Sure, Guerrier isn't a closer- Did you see Capps pitch this year? He really wasn't a closer either. 15 saves out of 24 tries with an ERA of 4.25? Not so good, and it certainly didn't warrant his contract.

Although, really. Is there any point in arguing with a guy who thinks that Matt Capps was the reason for the Twins winning the division last year?

Ed Bast said...

"The Twins won two division championships based in part on those trades. That is the kind of performance I think trades need to be judged on."

So if a team wins a division title in a given year, every trade that led to a player on that roster was good? That has to be the single worst criteria imaginable for analyzing a trade - worse even that your original method of adding up years/salaries. Wow.

Nick N. said...

For the record, in the entire 2010 season the Twins lost two games when entering the ninth inning with a lead. Rauch went through a rough patch in July (sort of like Capps did this year -- happens with unexceptional relief arms) then posted a 3.26 ERA the rest of the way. The notion that he would have cost the Twins an additional six games in two months is completely out of touch with reality, sort of like the suggestion that a .750 OPS from a terrible defensive left fielder is an asset to a ball club.

TT is correct that Capps did improve the overall quality of the bullpen, but it's possible to do so without giving away a vitally important prospect in your organization, as Smith proved just a few weeks later by acquiring Fuentes for almost nothing.

Mike said...

I'll grant that Capps improved the quality of the bullpen in 2010 without question. However, if we're talking about 2011, I would only say he improved the quality of the bullpen if his signing didn't result in the loss of Rauch and Guerrier, two guys that would have replaced Capps' contribution and kept someone like Hoey or Burnet from going to the mound as often as they did.

Anonymous said...

"For the record, in the entire 2010 season the Twins lost two games when entering the ninth inning with a lead. Rauch went through a rough patch in July (sort of like Capps did this year -- happens with unexceptional relief arms) then posted a 3.26 ERA the rest of the way. The notion that he would have cost the Twins an additional six games in two months is completely out of touch with reality...."

Since we're on the record here, perhaps we should note how your twenty-twenty hindsight compares with your view of the Twins pen and of Capps at the time of the trade. Here's what you wrote while endorsing the trade on 8/2/2011 (http://www.nickstwinsblog.com/2010/08/capps-sized.html):

"Without question, the addition of Capps improves the Twins' bullpen. He's a better reliever than Jon Rauch, whom he'll be replacing at the back end. Rauch has performed admirably this year, converting 21 of 25 save opportunities while posting a 3.05 ERA. But he'd shown weakness in recent weeks, with his stellar control display early in the season trending back toward his mediocre career norm, and a 5.40 ERA and .361 opponents' batting average in July were doing nothing to inspire the Twins' confidence in their interim closer. This team has World Series aspirations and they wanted a more legitimate option taking care of the ninth inning."

And later:

"Whereas Rauch, who is four years Capps' senior, owns a relatively unimpressive 3.73 career ERA and 1.24 WHIP, Capps' career marks stand at 3.45 and and 1.19 in those categories, and this in spite of a down year in 2009 that has all the signs of a fluke. Capps possesses elite command, misses more bats and deserves more trust in high-leverage situations."

Still later you echo the point TT made about the Capps addition having a "positive ripple effect" (your words) on the Twins bullpen.

In the comment section of this post you write "Unless you believe that Rauch (or Crain, who could have just as easily replaced him) would have cost them an extra six games, your argument doesn't carry much weight." If you DIDN'T believe the Capps trade might win them extra games, why did you endorse the deal at the time of the trade?

But set that aside. Your trumpeting of Ramos's as a "vitally important prospect" is even more comically revisionist than your dismissal Of Capps. Here's what you wrote about Ramos at the time of the trade:

"If there's one thing this swap tells me, it's that Wilson Ramos was being wildly overrated as a prospect by the vast majority of Twins fans...Undoubtedly, a large part of the reason that Ramos' innate power has not manifested in games relates to his terrible plate discipline, an issue that has been clearly present this year and has helped contribute to a .241 average and a ghastly .277 on-base percentage...Ramos would only languish in the Twins' organization, whether being held in Triple-A in the hopes that improved performance would boost his stagnating trade value or being used as Joe Mauer's major-league back-up."

I'll encourage your readers to read the post in its entirety to confirm that I'm not offering any of this out of context. In fact your arguments made a strong case for the concluding line of your post: "By the time the playoffs roll around this year and onward into 2011, I anticipate that people will be happy Capps is around. I don't think they'll miss Ramos."

Of course you were WAY off the mark, and by using the Capps for Ramos deal as ammunition against Smith's understanding of player value, you are hoisting yourself by your own petard. Put another way, if we're to questions Bill Smith's baseball acumen, in part, because he was in favor of moving Capps for Ramos, why shouldn't your readers question your baseball acumen for favoring that move at the time of the move?

Nick N. said...

I'm already on the record with this since I've said it about 100 times, but I was wrong in my initial assessment of the Capps trade. Wrong, wrong, wrong. At the time I had actually gained a fair amount of respect for Smith's body of work, so I took a position defending the move in the face of severe backlash from the majority of fans and bloggers.

They were right, I was wrong. That trade couldn't have worked out much worse. (Also, I had no idea that Mauer's health would start rapidly deteriorating almost immediately after the trade was made, making Ramos far less dispensable, but you'd hope the front office personnel would have had a better grasp on their $23M player's condition than an unaffiliated blogger.)

I have no problem admitting I missed the mark in that post, and never have. Unlike TT, I feel no need to cling to a position even when it becomes laughably indefensible.

People can judge my baseball acumen however they want. If that trade was Smith's only folly it wouldn't be difficult to excuse; it's that move in combination with everything he's done since that has shaken my faith.

TT said...

"Ramos certainly would have been a substantial upgrade over Butera"

The real issue is someone complaining that a team traded their backup catcher for a closer and won the division. But it was a terrible trade because the next year they really needed that backup catcher to win a few more games in a losing season.

"it's $12 million over three years."

I always look at contract totals because its $12 million whether he pitches one month or three full seasons. His annual salaries are basically irrelevant.

"it also sounds like you overvalue the save statistic ...15 saves out of 24 tries.

I really like this one, first you criticize the save stat, then you use it along with ERA, a stat virtually everyone agrees is pretty meaningless for relievers, to evaluate Capps as a pitcher. He actually pitched pretty well for the first three months.

"Although, really. Is there any point in arguing with a guy who thinks that Matt Capps was the reason for the Twins winning the division last year?"

How would anyone dare disagree with your dogma? Its clear to all true believers that the improvements in the Twins bullpen had nothing to do with the fact that they started winning.

"So if a team wins a division title in a given year, every trade that led to a player on that roster was good?"

No, but you evaluate trades on whether they contributed to the team winning those divisions. I don't think there is a credible argument that Capps, Rauch, Hardy and Young had nothing to do with the Twins winning.

"it's possible to do so without giving away a vitally important prospect in your organization"

A backup catcher is not usually considered a vitally important position. And that was the only role available to Ramos for the Twins.

Apparently we are going to have to deal with imaginary alternative players.

Rauch had a 1.52 WHIP over the last half of the season and his July WHIP was 2.280. He was struggling a lot. There was a reason the Twins went out looking for a closer.

And whether there were other ways to do it or not, the fact is adding Capps had a ripple effect all the way through the bullpen. And the strength of the Twins bullpen was a big part of their going from two games out to winning by seven.

Jim H said...

Lot of interesting comments. It may indeed turn out that the Capps trade will be a bad one, but at this point how good really is Ramos? He had a hot month with his bat but was pretty mediocre after that. I don't think anyone believes he is anywhere close to an elite defensive catcher at this point though he has tools that might make him one. He could end up basically a backup or platoon guy. Or he might be a perenial all star. But we don't know at this point. Let's face it, if he is Jose Molina the Capps trade isn't so bad.

The same thing is true of the Young trade. Neither Bartlett or Garza has been all that great. Sure, Bartlett is a big league starting shortstop, but he is not upper tier and he is getting expensive. Garza is basically a mid to back of the rotation guy. Not really much if any better than Blackburn or Slowey have been to this point.

So, yes neither the Young trade or the Capps trade were particularly great trades for the Twins. They weren't nearly as bad as some bloggers want to protray them as either.

Nick N. said...

It may indeed turn out that the Capps trade will be a bad one, but at this point how good really is Ramos?

Well, he would have ranked second on the Twins in OPS and homers this year, and he's a catcher. And he's 23. So, it's safe to say that at this point he's looking like a major loss.

Ramos has some significant flaws in his game and certainly there's no guarantee he'll be a stud. But the bottom line is that he is EXACTLY the player the Twins need right now. With Mauer's situation being what it is, they'd kill for a backstop who could hold his own as a regular while making the minimum.

The same thing is true of the Young trade. Neither Bartlett or Garza has been all that great. Sure, Bartlett is a big league starting shortstop, but he is not upper tier and he is getting expensive. Garza is basically a mid to back of the rotation guy. Not really much if any better than Blackburn or Slowey have been to this point.

The Rays got a couple good cheap years from Garza and Bartlett then traded them both to restock their organization with young talent. Some said the package received for Garza was better than what the Royals got for Greinke. That's what a good front office looks like. The Twins got one good year from Young, generally paid him too much and eventually flipped him for minimal return.

Also... since 2008:

Garza: 790.1 IP, 3.72 ERA, 1.25 WHIP
Slowey: 466 IP, 4.65 ERA, 1.28 WHIP
Blackburn: 708 IP, 4.45 ERA, 1.43 WHIP

And Garza mostly accumulated those stats while pitching in the game's most treacherous division. No comparison.

TT said...

From 2008-2010 Bartlett averaged over $2 million per year for Tampa and Garza 1.4 million, about the same as Young for those three years. Of course you have to include Brendan Harris in the cost/benefit, as well as Pridie I suppose. This was a deal where both team's got what they were looking for.

"the bottom line is that he is EXACTLY the player the Twins need right now."

I think that is media-hyped Mauer hysteria. The bullpen, especially a closer, is clearly a bigger priority for next year than a backup catcher. So is a starting pitcher. So are shortstop and right field.

Shane Wahl said...

Wow. Given this whole discussion . . . . a lot hinges on Lester Oliveros future performance . . . ! haha.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Bill Smith isn't my stock broker, because I don't know if there's been another man in the history of the game who simply couldn't grasp the notion of buy low-sell high. It's not so much the trades that irk me (except for the Ramos and Hardy trades [especially the Hardy trade]) as hindsight is 20/20 in alot of these regards. What gives me no confidence in his ability in a gm is how he chronically undervalues his own players and rather than doing the responsible thing by trading away talented expendable players when they're at their best, he trades them when he feels they aren't performing for what essentially amounts to beans. The farm system can only develop so much talent for us...

TT said...

Just so we are clear, the "Hardy trade" was a salary dump of both Hardy and Harris. The Twins would have non-tendered Hardy if they hadn't found a buyer. The same is probably true for Delmon Young this year.

Ed Bast said...

"Just so we are clear, the "Hardy trade" was a salary dump of both Hardy and Harris."

So they got rid of Hardy's contract so they could pay $5 mil to talk to his replacement? What a genius salary dump.

Hardy was a "Bill Smith undervaluing an asset/Gardy wanting to remake the team in the image of himself as a player" dump. Aka a terrible, terrible trade.

TT said...

"So they got rid of Hardy's contract so they could pay $5 mil to talk to his replacement?"

No, they dumped Hardy's salary because he couldn't stay healthy and wasn't all that good a player when he was healthy. Clearly he had a much better season than they expected. But he didn't get Baltimore into the playoffs and he wouldn't have gotten the Twins there either.

Ed Bast said...

So they dumped him because they undervalued him as a player. Even in limited duty he was 3rd in the AL in SS WAR in 2010 - not sure how this makes him "not very good". Also, this year wasn't the first time he hit 25+ homers. Not sure why they couldn't "expect" that.

Anyway, like you now say, it wasn't a "salary dump", it was a brutal error in player evaluation, which makes it a terrible trade (in line with many other Bill Smith misjudgements).

PS You again fail to understand that baseball is a team game, and that one player is not solely responsible for leading a team to the playoffs, so that whether or not a team makes the playoffs should not be used in any way to evaluate a player/trade.

Bobby said...

TT fails to realize it's not all about winning the division. It's setting yourself up for further success, which the Twins are failing to do. Your arguments makes sense if your complacent with division titles and then getting smoked by the Yankees. But I feel like the majority of the fans are not. Trade by trade, BS and Gardy's control over him has put this team in reverse.

Ramos Trade - It made no sense to trade our best catching prospect away when Mauer has a history of health issues. Even if we don't get Capps I think we win the division that year. Oh, lets not forget trading away the other decent hitting catcher we had in Morales. If we don't make that trade now we have the option to consider a Mauer position change since we have a good C to take his spot, or just have them for injury protection. Instead were stuck with Butera who is only still around because this organization loves to stay faithful to past players.

Hardy Trade - We give Punto an option for 5M, (granted we dont use) but we considered the possibility of picking it up. But no way Hardy is worth 5M right? When healthy, Hardy is a pretty damn good SS. Instead, BS dumps him for two garbage relievers. Then he wants to gamble on Yoshi. Oh and how Gardy loves Yoshi, the speed he brings can really open up the game. And what happened? Yoshi hardly used his speed (good call Gardy), couldn't field a ball, and failed to hit. Now, instead of a 30 HR hitting SS who can play defense, we have a question mark for 2 more years.

Delmon Young Trade - Dumped him way to earlier. The guy is way to young to give him up for what we did. He's shown hes a good hitter. He thrives in the 3 spot in Detroit now, not a 6 hole hitter Gardy. Now instead of a solid corner OF, we pretty much have to start Revere next year, who in my opinion isn't a solid ML OF.



All in all, Gardy has way to much control over BS and the moves being made. He crafted this team how he wanted it and it failed; yet I hear no blame at all towards Gardy or BS. This organization needs to stop playing nice. In all honesty, if we have another bad year, dump them both.

TT said...

"Even in limited duty he was 3rd in the AL in SS WAR in 2010 - not sure how this makes him "not very good"

WAR doesn't make him anything, good or bad. Its basically meaningless. To keep things in perspective, even with his performance this year he is still only a type B free agent.

"this year wasn't the first time he hit 25+ homers. Not sure why they couldn't "expect" that."

Because he hadn't hit 25+ home runs since they started testing for steroids?

"whether or not a team makes the playoffs should not be used in any way to evaluate a player/trade."

Of course it should. That is the point of making trades. Hardy would not have made any difference for the Twins last year. They would now be faced with whether to sign him to a multi-year contract as a free agent, offer him arbitration or go with Plouffe, based only on Plouffe's minor league performance. I am not sure they aren't better off not having to make that decision. We will see how Hardy's multi-year contract plays out in Baltimore.

"it wasn't a "salary dump", it was a brutal error in player evaluation"

Those two things aren't exclusive. David Ortiz?

TT said...

"Your arguments makes sense if your complacent with division titles"

One would have hoped that, after this past season, fans are no longer complacent about division titles. Apparently not.

Ed Bast said...

Wow. In the space of a few paragraphs, you manage to:

-accuse JJ Hardy of taking steriods
-claim that Hardy wouldn't have made a difference this year
-posit that the only reason teams make trades is so they can make the playoffs.
-cite David Ortiz as evidence to somehow support your claim that the Twins were successful in the Hardy trade? You lost me at this one.

Instant classic post. Nick, you need to start a Hall of Fame or something.

TT said...

"posit that the only reason teams make trades is so they can make the playoffs."

Silly me, here I thought winning was the point.

"accuse JJ Hardy of taking steriods"

Uh, no. You asked why they Twins might not expect Hardy to hit 25 home runs, since he had in the past. Only a complete fool wouldn't consider that as a possible explanation for why his power had disappeared.

"You lost me"

Its apparently easy to do.

The Twins let Ortiz go because no team in major league baseball was willing to pay him what he was likely to get in arbitration. Ortiz was a salary dump and he was clearly undervalued.

TT said...

"When healthy, Hardy is a pretty damn good SS. Instead, BS dumps him for two garbage relievers. "

Just a reminder for people evaluating this trade. Hardy would have been a free agent after this season. Like Santana, they were trading away one season.

buddyg said...

This is a somewhat historic thread - we get the rare chance to view the writing of the last remaining defender of the disastrous Capps-Ramos trade!

Ed Bast said...

"Hardy would have been a free agent after this season. Like Santana, they were trading away one season."

The '07 Twins were a small market team who couldn't afford to pay 1/3 of their payroll to one guy. The '12 Twins are top 10 in payroll and have $30-35 mil to spend this offseason. They could have quite easily afforded to resign Hardy.

Keep arguing, though. You make some hilarious points.

Nick N. said...

Just a reminder for people evaluating this trade. Hardy would have been a free agent after this season. Like Santana, they were trading away one season.

Unlike Santana, signing him to a long-term deal was well within reason. The Orioles locked him up for three years at a rate that is beyond reasonable. I don't know why you seem to think this club shouldn't have jumped at the opportunity to commit to a quality young player at a position where they've been constantly weak for a decade.

Also, if you think the fact that he "couldn't stay healthy" for one season is a legitimate reason to get rid of someone, are you in favor of releasing every player on the roster this offseason?

TT said...

Baltimore guaranteed Hardy over $22 million for the next three years to keep him from free agency after this season. The Twins only traded them this season, they paid for the rest with cash.

He's 29 and played a total of 115 games in 2009 and 101 in 2010. He had a great year, but I am glad the Twins didn't make that deal. Its the kind of contract that bad organizations get trapped in.

Ed Bast said...

"Its the kind of contract that bad organizations get trapped in."

Bad organizations give $7m/yr to a young, above average hitter, and above average defender at perhaps the most important position on the field? Dude, they gave Matt F-ing Capps $7 mil this year to be terrible.

Bad organizations spend $20 mil in a season on closers while trusting SS to Alexi Casila, Trevor Plouffe and Niskioska.

Laches said...

I have zero faith in Billy Boy's ability to make trades. You could assemble the following team of guys he's traded away or let walk during his tenure. I think I'd take this team over the current Twins team.


C Wilson Ramos
1B Garrett Jones
2B Orlando Hudson
SS Jason Bartlett
3B JJ Hardy
LF Delmon Young
CF Carlos Gomez
RF Torii Hunter
DH Jim Thome

C Jose Morales
IF Orlando Cabrera
IF Nick Punto
OF Jason Pridie
OF Trent Oeltjen

SP Philip Humber
SP Matt Garza
SP RA Dickey
SP Livan Hernandez
SP Johan Santana

RP Brian Fuentes
RP Jon Rauch
RP Jesse Crain
RP Matt Guerreir
RP Craig Breslow
RP Sergio Santos
RP Luis Ayala

TT said...

"Bad organizations give $7m/yr to a young, above average hitter, and above average defender"

No, bad organizations guarantee $21 million dollars to a 29 year old shortstop with already limited range who has had a hard time staying in the lineup and just came off a career year.

That list is unfortunately typical of the thinking. Just think if they hadn't traded Santana - oh wait then they wouldn't have had Gomez. But think if they wouldn't have traded Gomez! Oh wait, then they wouldn't have Hardy.

"They gave Matt F-ing Capps $7 mil this year to be terrible."

Capps wasn't terrible. He had the third best WHIP on the pitching staff after Baker and Nathan.

Ed Bast said...

I suppose guaranteeing $15 mil to a rookie shortstop who can't field, can't hit, and had a hard time staying in the lineup is a stroke of genius, then?

TT said...

Ed-

The Nishioka deal looks like a failure. But it is the kind of gamble good teams make. They thought they were getting a 27 year gold glove and batting champion who they would control for 6 years.

Even as a failure, Nishioka will cost them about half what Hardy will have been paid over four years including this year's salary plus his contract extension. If Hardy hits 30 home runs every year, he will be worth it. But if he reverts back to his 2009-2010 performance, he will be a costly mistake. And, if he can't stay at shortstop, it will be worse than that.

Matt said...

Since this post and comments section is an instant classic, I'll use the classic co-ed softball metaphor...

Nishi is like the hot chick from the other bar you want on your team. You buy kegs for her team for the rights to talk with her, and guarantee she'll both drink and eat for free during and after every game. She claims to have had a good senior year on her HS team. She's hot and a new type of player for your team, so you're expecting more of your buddies to show up in the stands to watch her play.
Then you come to find out she's weak at the plate, clumsy in the field, and is, in general, too tentative. She's costing you games and you want to send her to the "B" team, but can't because you've got too much invested.

Don't fall for another "hot chic," Twins FO...

Bobby said...

"Capps wasn't terrible. He had the third best WHIP on the pitching staff after Baker and Nathan"

Yes because WHIP is the only factor that determines the kind of the year a pitcher had. Don't mention the ERA or the fact he lost the closing job after being AWFUL. Meanwhile we got to pay him 7 mil, have Drew Butera catch, and Wilson Ramos mash in Washington

Mike said...

TT is continuing to struggle to make lucid points. I don't think he's posted anything rational, which is bad enough, but now we have factually inaccurate posts as well? "[Hardy is] 29 and played a total of 115 games in 2009 and 101 in 2010."

Again, twisted set of facts, that even if true, don't help out the argument. Hardy played a total of 115 games AT THE MLB LEVEL in 2009. You're trying to say that he has long-standing injury concerns. He doesn't. He was demoted for performance reasons in 2009. He played in 18 games for the Brewer's AAA affiliate in Nashville in 2009 for performance reasons, bringing his season total to 133. He missed a couple of games traveling to and from the MLB club from AAA and received extra days off while struggling.

Does TT work for the Twins' FO? I don't see how anyone can defend the Ramos for Capps trade and Hardy for garbage trade on the hopes that Nishioka would pan out. This is especially true when considering the amounts paid to each player- the Twins are spending $14 million over three years for Nishioka and Baltimore is spending $22 million over three years for Hardy. Yeah, Hardy gets paid more, but it's not a ton more in the entire scheme of things, particularly when if the knock against Hardy is his injuries (which are misguided anyway), Nishioka spent a good deal of time injured this year, too. Throw in that Hardy is better defensively and is a far, far superior hitter, and the decision to go with Nishioka over Hardy is fairly indefensible.

And the save statistic with Capps is just further evidence of his overall mediocrity. With the rest of his numbers, I would expect him to blow a bunch of saves. I don't know how TT reasons that Capps was worth more than 6 extra wins over less than half a season, but okay. That's his prerogative. It's entirely illogical, but okay.

Anonymous said...

There is a great deal of vitriol on this thread, which is entertaining but somewhat unnerving. TT is clearly not an "idiot" who is "struggling to make lucid points." Like the others who have commented, I do not fully agree with him, but I would hardly say that his ideas are absurd. Nick and Ed (the greatest of posters), do you know TT personally? Is he some sort of renowned jerk? He seems rather civil to me. -VP

Laches said...

"That list is unfortunately typical of the thinking. Just think if they hadn't traded Santana - oh wait then they wouldn't have had Gomez. But think if they wouldn't have traded Gomez! Oh wait, then they wouldn't have Hardy."

---Not sure what is meant by 'typical of the thinking'.

But in any event, you are obviously correct that each of those players led to the other. So what? It's just more deals than Smith struck out on. And besides, take a couple of them off the list and it's still better than the Twins current roster.

The bottom line is that Smith has been the GM for 4 years now. There's not a single player on the roster that he brought in that you would consider much of an asset or a building block. And the talent in the minors is worse than when he took over. He made some deals for short-term gain, but since the playoff losing streak hasn't ended, it's hard to argue that those were successful trades.

I see no evidence that he's capable of assembling a winner. Gardenhire gets all kinds of crap for the Twins postseason failures, but I think it took some pretty miraculous managing to even get some of these teams into the playoffs. They haven't been all that good.

Time for a regime change.

Nick N. said...

Nick and Ed (the greatest of posters), do you know TT personally

No, but I don't have patience for trolls. He's a contrarian, arguing against everything including logic.

TT said...

"Yes because WHIP is the only factor that determines the kind of the year a pitcher had. "

No, it isn't.

Capps lost the closer role to a guy who is the all time saves leader for the Twins. If they hadn't had Nathan, I suspect Capps would have kept the job. In fact, the reason they traded for him was for just that eventuality.

Capps had his problems, but he was better than most relievers in baseball. There is a long way between having a great year and being "terrible".

"Hardy played a total of 115 games AT THE MLB LEVEL in 2009. "

You are right to an extent. He was injured that season, but not for that many games. I am not sure having been demoted two years earlier is exactly an endorsement for a long term contract.

"the Twins are spending $14 million over three years for Nishioka"

That's inaccurate. The Twins have Nishioka under contract for three more years with the last year being an option at $4 million. If that option is exercised the Twins will have paid $18 million on Nishioka compared to the $28 million Baltimore has guaranteed Hardy for those same four years. And he won't be a free agent for two seasons after that.

And yeh, Hardy looks like the better deal right now. But that is a pretty low bar. The idea that a long term contract to an aging player makes sense because the alternative didn't work out is silly.

"I don't know how TT reasons that Capps was worth more than 6 extra wins over less than half a season"

Its pretty easy, all you have to is look at the Twins bullpen this year and see how many games a bad bullpen can can blow with guys like Alex Burnett pitching in the 8th inning.

"But in any event, you are obviously correct that each of those players led to the other. So what? "

So, a roster listed is not a realistic alternative. You might as well say the Twins would be better off with Lohse, Hunter, Cabera, Hudson, Crain, Guerrier, Rauch, Fuentes, Capps, Ramos and Pierzynski. Did I leave some former Twin out? How does that tell us anything?

As for the vitriol, it is largely because we are discussing faith-based beliefs and I am a heretic.

Anonymous said...

There are actually people upset with how the Santana trade went? Really? For one, since he whining in the media, they were never going to get value. The value was in not caving and giving him a contract he wasn't worthy of. Mission accomplished.

The choice isn't Gomez and Mulvey for Hardy and Rauch or Hoey or whomever else you can or could extrapolate from the deal. The choice is paying Santana $50m for these past two seasons, or not doing that. Mission accomplished.

That being said, the points being made on the Garza deal are spot on. He has not been a good GM, and I believe you will see him returned to his #2 position and another person brought in.

Nick N. said...

The idea that a long term contract to an aging player makes sense because the alternative didn't work out is silly.

Aging player? Hardy will be 32 when his contract extension expires.

The choice is paying Santana $50m for these past two seasons, or not doing that. Mission accomplished.

Of course, the option you're overlooking is that they could have simply held onto Santana. They missed the playoffs by one game in 2008; safe to say if they had kept him they probably would have been in. With a dominantace heading their rotation, who knows what might have happened?

Then Santana would have signed elsewhere and the Twins would have gotten two draft picks, which probably would have panned out better than any of the prospects received from the Mets.

The choice wasn't between signing Santana to a mega-deal or trading him, but the Twins let themselves believe it was, and that's why they had to settle for a hugely underwhelming return for one of the generation's best pitchers.

Laches said...

"So, a roster listed is not a realistic alternative....How does that tell us anything?"

---Well, it tells us a bit about Billy Boy's ability to assemble talent. Ideally you keep the guys who have talent and perform and get rid of the guys who don't, not the other way around as that can lead to bad results. Like a 99-loss season for example.

I can't fathom how anyone could be defending Smith. Some of his moves individually can be justified, but collectively they cannot. For example, Nishioka was a worthy gamble. But how do you not have a Plan B? Trading Ramos for Capps might have even been excusable had he brought in a backup catcher who could get more than one hit a week. But we were left with 2 automatic outs in Tolbert and Butera in the line up on many nights. Same with the bullpen. In one year he turned this from a towering strength into a glaring weakness by letting 4 quality guys walk and replacing them with question marks.



"As for the vitriol, it is largely because we are discussing faith-based beliefs and I am a heretic."


---First, while I have disagreed with you, I don't believe I have exhibited vitriol. Second, we are discussing baseball.

TT said...

"it tells us a bit about Billy Boy's ability to assemble talent"

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Its just a list of former Twins who were traded or became overpaid.

"Hardy will be 32 when his contract extension expires."

If you haven't noticed, players tend decline, not improve, as they get into their 30's. 32 is old for a shortstop who wasn't all that quick at 27.

The Twins had only 2 players this year who were 32 or older, Cuddyer and Thome. They have stayed competitive, in part, by constantly bringing in younger players who get better each year, not worse.

We will have to see what Hardy does. But the Twins already have Morneau and Mauer under contract for at least part of their declining years. Adding a guy like Hardy to that list is a bad idea.

"They missed the playoffs by one game in 2008; safe to say if they had kept him they probably would have been in."

Its possible, but it is not at all certain. And for someone who thinks Hardy was so great, you don't seem to think much of him if you think a couple draft choices would have replaced him and Rauch last year.

"But how do you not have a Plan B?"

You mean like Alexi Casilla, Matt Tolbert, Trevor Plouffe and Luke Hughes. The Twins did have plan B and C. They didn't have a good enough plan D.

"In one year he turned this from a towering strength into a glaring weakness"

You complain about Capps with one breath, then talk about the towering strength of the Twins bullpen Smith assembled last year, in part by trading for Capps.

The rest of that bullpen was assembled from players who were free agents after last season.

Again, part of the reason for the Capps trade was a recognition they weren't going to have those guys this year without guaranteeing a bunch of expensive multi-year contracts to relievers headed to the downside of their careers.


"I don't believe I have exhibited vitriol."

Then there is no need to explain it.

Laches said...

"You mean like Alexi Casilla, Matt Tolbert, Trevor Plouffe and Luke Hughes."

---Got a good chuckle out of this one. Matt Tolbert? You're seriously suggesting that Matt Tolbert is a legit option for a starting infielder on a big league club?

TT said...

"You're seriously suggesting that Matt Tolbert is a legit option for a starting infielder on a big league club?"

No, I am suggesting he was one of five guys that provided depth in the middle infield. In 2010, he hit .230 and was decent defensively. That isn't what you want as your starting shortstop, but it is is a legitimate plan C at the right price. Unless you are the Yankees, you can't afford a roster 5 deep in "legitimate major league starters".

Tolbert's performance declined this year. He is the same age as Hardy...

Young Man Duggan said...

Obviously, I'm late to this conversation, but at some point when evaluating these trades, you have to look at what comparable players brought back in trades. You can try and say that the Santana deal wasn't a dud because it brought back Gomez who was then turned into one year of JJ Hardy, but that's bogus.

Santana was easily at (if not beyond) the value of Josh Beckett and Bartolo Colon when they got dealt. Beckett brought back Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. The Indians got Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee and Brandon Phillips from the Expos.

Seeing trade returns like that makes it pretty apparent that the Twins got ZERO value for a player of Santana's ilk. There's not way of describing that trade as anything but "fizzled".

Young Man Duggan said...

Trading JJ Hardy was a mistake even last year. Prior to him being traded to and from the Twins, no one would have said that his ceiling wasn't higher than the other options the Twins had. So for that reason alone, I feel like paying him more than the few million we had been paying Punto and Casilla (pretty sure he was over a million via arbitration) was adequate value given his sound defense and potential offensively by comparison to other middle infielders in our system.

In regards to his health, I don't buy that they traded him because "he couldn't stay healthy" because he played just as often as previous Twins middle infielders. The 101 games out of him was just as much if not better than what we're used to getting out of Alexi Casilla and Nick Punto (our "regular shortstops), and this year out of Nishioka. I can't recall if the Twins actually said anything along the lines of his health being a reason they got rid of him, but if they did (and anyone who's said that since) should look at the actual numbers when considering his health. Plus, even bad offensive numbers from Hardy weren't any worse than regular the regular numbers put up by Punto/Casilla/et al.

SPesch said...

I think TT and Nick need to meet up at a bar and just duke this out. I don't know what you are trying to prove TT, I mean if your that much smarter go open your own blog and then have no one read it. Get over the fact that it was a bad trade that patched up the twins for 2 months but will hurt them for 5 years.