Bill Smith's winter

your last equation

is very false

by odo31 on Feb 15, 2008 1:32 PM EST reply actions

+1!

Way off base there. No way do a bunch of prospects, no matter how good, replace the best pitcher in baseball.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 15, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions

I posted that at SethSpeaks.net

Thanks for reposting here.

Just a reminder: Delmon Young is not a prospect. You can read about him in John's Not a Prospect series.

Carlos Gomez also is not a prospect, though he's considered a prospect by some. He has too much major league experience to be a rookie this year. This is what he did in his last healthy month (June) in the majors last year: .299/.351/.403.

Pridie and Mulvey are still prospects. But they're very good prospects who will make contributions to the big league team this year. Here are their numbers from last year:

Pridie:
Age:23 Level:AAA PA:275 AB:245 2B:16 3B:4 HR:10 BB:22 SO:47 .318/.374/.539/.913

Mulvey
Age: 22 Level: AA IP:151.2 HR:4 BB:43 SO:110 ERA:3.32 FIP:3.16 GB%:55%

To get three major league outfielders, two with center field ability, and a projected number 3 starter for Santana is a good deal, no matter what the circumstances.

The circumstances Bill Smith found himself in was being forced to trade or lose a player who would only accept a trade to three teams, two of which said "too rich for my blood". That left one trade partner. Then Santana put a deadline on it that left Smith with one offer from that one trade partner. All things considered, he did pretty well, IMO.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

Not The Point

Yes, the Twins were bound to lose Santana someday. They probably did as well as they could for him. I am just saying that what they got is not equal value. Perhaps it's the best value they could get, but not equal.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 15, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions

Short vs. long term

I agree that if you remove all variables and you compare those four vs. Santana in current value, Santana has more value. But you don't judge a deal on current value alone. You have to judge a deal on projected value. And the projected value of Young, Gomez, Pridie and Mulvey is greater than Santana.

You could have said the same thing about the Pierzinski trade. At the time of the trade, Pierzinksi was more valuable than Nathan and a couple of prospects. The projected value was actually pretty close, considering Liriano's health issues and Bonser's struggles in AAA at the time of the trade. But it clearly leaned in favor of the Twins. And every player on the Twins side exceeded their projected values, so it was even a better trade than the analysts thought at the time.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Prospects for Superstars

First of all, AJ Pierzynski hardly deserves to be mentioned in the same context as Johan Santana.

Secondly, for every AJ trade, there's about 5 who favor the team getting the star player(not that AJ was a star player).

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 15, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

You're going on record as saying

that teams that trade prospects for superstars win those trades at a 5 to 1 rate?

Wow. Someone's going to have fun exploding that assertion.

by PaulThomas @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

let's be real here

we can be pretty sure he's talking about trades not far from the AJ deal - an above average player in exchange for 3 high risk arms.

Yankees fans dream about Wang.

by ufoboy90 on Feb 15, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions

No

I'm talking about superstars for prospects. I believe that historically, teams trading the superstars have not gotten equal value in return.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 16, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions

Let's See You Do It

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 16, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions

Food for thought...

The recent history of trading off impending free agents vs accepting draft compensation:

http://ussmariner.com/2007/06/20/letting-ichiro-leave-for-nothing/

Reporting on Baseball from around the world! http://globalbaseball.wordpress.com

by jhelfgott @ Minor League Ball on Feb 18, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions

Wow!!

Thank you!!!!

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 18, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

Riddle me this

IMO a package of Delmon Young, Gomez, Pridie, and Mulvey is much better than any of the rumored packages offered for Santana.

just as a refresher these are the packages I had heard that might have been real.

Sox:
Lester,Crisp,Lowrie,Masterson

Ellsbury,Lowrie,Masterson,Kalish

Yanks:
Hughes,Cabrera, Vasquez(I'm not sure on this one but I think this was the rumor)

Mets:
Gomez, Mulvey, Humber, Guerra

As I said below though I don't think Guerra+Humber=Morlan+Garza

by halfchest @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions

+1

I also think that, as they stand, that Guerra = Morlan, so Garza + Morlan <u> > </u> Humber + Guerra

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias) "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."--Napoleon Hall

by bobbymcnally on Feb 15, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

Guerra >> Morlan

They're both good prospects, but Guerra is younger, stronger, throws harder and has better secondary stuff.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

Guerra vs. Morlan

I'm a twins fan too and even though Guerra is a better prospect he's so young and Morlan will be at the big show much earlier. I think they're closer to even with Guerra having a slight edge because of his high potential. In another year we might be able to truly say Guerra is much better than Morlan.

I think more than anything Guerra is not enough better than Morlan to make up for Garza being a lot better than Humber.

by halfchest @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

smith got slaughtered on the santana deal

he screwed it up beyond belief......

young deal looks fair

by Wheelhouse on Feb 15, 2008 1:35 PM EST reply actions

It's easy

to say that one thing is better than the other, but you're not putting quantity on any of those. For instance, is the amount that Garza is better than Humber really equal to the amount that Guerra is better than Morlan?

And you also have to take major points away from Smith on taking the 4th best available deal in trading Santana. It's not just what you have done but what you had available to do.

by ajake57 on Feb 15, 2008 2:00 PM EST reply actions

Rumors

The "available deals" were just rumors. For every rumor of an available deal, I can dig up two reports that they were never offered. Names were exchanged for the sake of medical due diligence. But neither the Red Sox nor the Yankees made any concrete offers. The only firm offer that Smith received was fro the Mets. He didn't accept it until he had to.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

deal

Who says the other deals were even there...I can remember reading 10 articles that were praising Smith for "being patient". Now, when Santana pushed him into a corner those same people say that they should have taken the deal at the Winter Meetings? Shoulda Woulda Coulda.... Kudos to Smith for getting what he got.

by viggo21 on Feb 15, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

Peter Gammons

I trust him when I hear him say with my own two ears, "The Red Sox offer with Lester and Crisp is the offer the Twins like most." He's the most respected journalist in baseball, he doesn't report rumors (unless he says that it's a rumor, of course, which he did not). And a team wouldn't put names out there if they wouldn't deal those names. In negotiation you start from what you think is the best possible scenario on each side and then work to the middle. The 'offers' all originated from the other teams, which is evidenced by the fact that the Twins never accepted any of them and the Yankees and Red Sox never said they wouldn't do such a deal (a report saying they haven't discussed it is not the same as saying "that's not a good deal for us"). Whether they were concrete or not all three were better than what Smith got. And when have you ever heard a team not deny a possible deal? You can read all the articles you want prasing him being patient, because that's not the point. The point of being patient is to get something better, not get something worse. And interestingly enough, he would only be patient if he had turned down a deal or two at the time, which, again, indicates there were other options available.

by ajake57 on Feb 15, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions

I preannounced that deal

I was so sure it would happen, based on Gammons. But it seems there was more to it than we know. What if the Twins were ready to pull the trigger and Santana and his agent indicated what it would take to sign him. At that point, Theo said he couldn't come close to what Santana was asking (he initially asked for six years and $162 million). At that point, Santana said he wouldn't OK the deal and asked Smith to try harder with the Mets.

None of us know what happened, but clearly something happened that forced the Twins to back out of the deal and the Red Sox ultimately to cool on it. Given the way the Santana contract talks were handled with the Mets (he nearly walked away, even with an extension), I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way it went down. The point is, we don't know.

If Smith turned down the Red Sox deal, overplayed his hand with the Mets and ended up with the deal he accepted, I agree, he blew it. But we don't know all the details. And the biggest detail we don't know is whether Santana would have approved a deal with the Sox even if Smith had made it.

My ultimate point is, even if he blew the Santana trade, the Young trade is so one-sided, he comes out ahead anyway.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

You may have a point there

From every indication I got at the Winter Meetings it was the Twins who backed out, but you may have hit the nail on the head. I wasn't in the room, I don't know what happened.

And I agree with Smith getting the better side on the Young deal by a long shot. I'm also not trying to take away what he did get in the Santana deal, just that it appears as though he could have done better.

by ajake57 on Feb 16, 2008 1:21 AM EST up reply actions

Are You Kidding?

I look up what Gammons says is going to happen so I know what isn't going to happen.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 15, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions

+1

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 15, 2008 8:34 PM EST up reply actions

If

you only listen to names and not the entire context of what he says, I agree, he can be very misleading. But he often says things like, "talking about," "interested in," "may happen," and other phrases that indicate a lack of 100% certainty. But it is entirely possible that I might just be hearing what I like to hear in his case. Either way, his best and most reliable sources would have to be with the Red Sox, wouldn't you think?

by ajake57 on Feb 16, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions

I Think......

Peter Gammons is a has-been who is living on his reputation.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 16, 2008 1:43 AM EST up reply actions

PETER GAMMONS!!!!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa0f58b4c1

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Feb 16, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions

awesome

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Feb 17, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

Bartlett =/= Harris

Bartlett is a league-average hitter who's also an average defensive shortstop. Harris is also a league-average hitter who is an absolute butcher at shortstop and not all that great elsewhere.

The Rays absolutely got the better end of that swap.

by PaulThomas @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 3:36 PM EST reply actions

hmmm, not so much . . .

I won't argue about the defensive part but Harris is absolutely a better hitter than Bartlett at this point in their careers. He's outslugged Bartlett throughout their major and minor league careers by about 50 points and OBP being pretty much equal. On top of that Harris is a year younger than Bartlett so you would think that would make him more likely to develop further. All things considered I'll concede that the Rays may have gotten the better end on that part of the deal but not by much.

by halfchest @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Harris might be the worst defensive shortstop I've ever seen, and there's a good deal of reason to believe that his second half stats were more in line with what you'd expect from him batting than his full year stats (which were inflated by a great first half).

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

Just to clarify

that's still a better hitter than Bartlett (non-2006 version), but the extra 10 or so runs he gets hitting are more than made up by the 20 or so runs lost defensively.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 15, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

Why?

His numbers last year seem to be right in line with his minor league #'s.

His 2nd half wasn't that horrific either. Looks to me like he had a not so hot July and a horrific August that made his overall numbers look pretty bad.

He had over a .900 OPS in Sept to finish the year though.

He won't be playing SS for the Twins but if he can't at least step up and play decent at 2B then this will become more lopsided in Bartlett's favor.

by halfchest @ Minor League Ball on Feb 15, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

like the

young-garza deal

laughed about the santana deal

by bmxstreetrider86 on Feb 15, 2008 3:57 PM EST reply actions

Trade rumors

I look at this another way. Even if all of the Sox/Yanks trade offers were real, and I don't disagree they were better than what Smith got from the Mets, none of them were as good as Beane got for Haren or McPhail got for Bedard. So I ask, did we all have our expectations too high for what Smith could have gotten for Santana...at any point? Did we all think he'd get the world for the "best pitcher in baseball"?

"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen." (Hemingway)

by jmoultz on Feb 15, 2008 5:20 PM EST reply actions

I didn't

I think Olney called it well before the winter meetings. Santana's no-trade clause, and his pugnacious manner in flaunting it, would make it very difficult for the Twins to trade him.

First, he dictated that only three teams could bid on his services. Second, only teams that could afford a record contract could bid on his services. Those two made it a trade market of one. The other guys had 20-something teams with a feasible chance to land him. The more teams in the bidding process, the better the package.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 15, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions

Control

Bedard and Haren were also under control for more than one season with reasonable contracts.

by JFP on Feb 15, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

Excuse me?

Garza > Humber, Guerra > Morlan so these cancel each other out.

The piss poor logical rigor involved in this "equation" has made my eyes bleed. You owe me an apology.

by aCone419 on Feb 15, 2008 7:18 PM EST reply actions

+1

It should be Garza + Morlan vs. Humber + Guerra, and it's pretty clear that Garza + Morlan >> Humber + Guerra, at this point anyway. Why not at least compare the two best guys with each other?

Garza >> Guerra, Morlan (push) Humber

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 15, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions

No

Garza aint that good. Of course, when he was with the Twins, I thought they treated him like crap. But after watching him for the second half last year, I came to the conclusion that he's not a number 1. He might be a number 2. But he's probably a number 3.

He throws hard, but his fastball is straight. If he isn't painting, he's getting hit. His curveball has a lot of bite on it, but he telegraphs it and can't throw it for strikes. And his other secondary stuff is just so so. I'm not even sure he'll end up a starter. He could be a very good reliever. But he will never be a great starer, imho.

Guerra is all upside, so it's hard to tell. But I would say he's the best pitching prospect the Twins have had since Liriano and that includes Garza. It will be a few years before he's at Garza's level, but he will someday surpass Garza.

Morlan is a very good relief prospect. I hated to lose him. But there's no way he's as good a prospect as Guerra.

Humber is a bit of a mystery. This year is the crossroads for him. If he makes a typical recovery, he could be every bit as good as Garza. If he doesn't, he's an innings eater at best. I don't know how his arm will respond until the season starts. But he was once the top pitcher taken in the draft for a reason, 21 slots ahead of Garza. If he follows a typical recover curve, he can regain that prospect standing.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 16, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

Twins and Smith bashers...

will eat their words. The Twins will be no worse in '08 than they were in '07, and will be in contention for the Central title in '09. They have pitching coming out of their ass, and their offense will be better this year than last.

Whoever talked about Harris at SS...that's irrelevant...Harris won't play SS for the Twins, and he's a better bat than Barlett or Punto...that's a win for the Twins.

Garza was a head case, not a coachable kid...we'll see if Tampa can do anything with him. Hopefully the change will do him good, like the change to Minnesota will do for Delmon Young, who will be a monster.

Daddyboy

by Daddyboy on Feb 16, 2008 3:02 AM EST reply actions

I echo the thoughts here...

the Young trade was huge for the Twins. I loved Garza and Bartlett and Morlan, but if you get a potential superstar, which Young definitely is, you do it. And the Twins got some very good value back in Pridie and Harris, who figures to be their starting 2b for the next 2-3 years. That's a win all the way around for the Twins.

As for their other moves, some of you seem to forget that this is not some average scouting team. The Twins have consistently been maybe the best team in all of baseball at evaluating talent, especially minor league talent. Please, someone name me a prospect trade the Twins have "lost" in the last decade-plus. There isn't one. That is a huge testament to the Twins's scouting staff.

The trouble has been an unwillingness to make these deals. Bill Smith seems to be fine pulling the trigger. I really expect big big things from Bill Smith based on this wildly successful offseason.

And yes, I agree, the Twins will contend for the World Series title in 2009 after an above-.500 year this year at 85-86 wins. Their offense is the best in a LONG time this year, and will only continue to grow. A great 5-some in the middle of the order in Mauer/Young/Morneau/Cuddyer/Kubel. And their pitching has oodles of talent; it just needs to gain experience, which it will this year.

by DJSkillz on Feb 16, 2008 4:56 PM EST reply actions

Best In Baseball?

Is that why they've been so great at drafting the last few years? Trevor Plouffe? Matt Moses? Chris Parmelee? Denard Span? Kyle Waldrop?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 16, 2008 6:46 PM EST up reply actions

Parmelee and Plouffe...

both still have a shot to be special out of that group.

But if you notice, you'll see I said in evaluating minor league talent. That is their greatest strength is getting minor league talent from other organizations and developing it.

Just recently, you've got guys like Milton, Guzman, Bartlett, Liriano, Boof, Casilla, etc.

Again, please name me a trade the Twins have "lost" with prospects over the last 10 years or more. I don't think you, or anyone else, can. They are excellent in this regard.

I hated losing Johan, but I suspect this trade will be no different.

by DJSkillz on Feb 16, 2008 8:29 PM EST reply actions

Not So Great

That doesn't look like such a great list to me. Brian Sabean has brain cramp and Terry Ryan will be forever known as a great talent evaluator. So he outsmarted Brian Sabean, BFD!

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 16, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions

The list

It wasn't one trade, it was several, ranging back to the mid-90s. And almost all of the guys the Twins got were from the low minors. Almost all of them resulted in major leaguers. Several of them became key contributors.

Roberto Kelly/Joe Mays
Dave Hollins/David Ortiz
Chuck Knoblauch/Eric Milton, Cristian Guzman, Brian Buchanon
Rick Aguilaera/Kyle Lohse
Hector Corasco/Lew Ford
Brian Buchanon/Jason Bartlett
AJ Pierzinski/Boof Bonser, Francisco Liriano
JC ROmero/Alexi Casilla
Juan Castro/Brandon Roberts
Kyle Lohse/Zach Ward
Luis Castillo/Dustin Martin, Drew Butera
Ramon Ortiz/Matt Macri
Johan Santana/Carlos Gomez, Deolis Guerra, Kevin Mulvey, Phil Humber

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 17, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions

And I would tack on to that...

trades where the Twins have given up prospects in general have not amounted to anything.

Look at the trade of 2 prospects that got them Luis Castillo, who was a solid contributor for the Twins. They traded Travis Bowyer for him who was thought to be amazing in the high minors, and he has done absolutely nothing for Florida.

The point is not that the Twins are perfect or something, but their recent track record of prospect trades (as shown above; thanks Cmath) sure should give them the benefit of the doubt on this offseason's trades.

by DJSkillz on Feb 17, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions

Not Too Impressive

Take the AJ trade out of that list and you don't have much. Mays and Milton had a couple of good seasons. Ortiz didn't do much until he got to Boston. That's about it. Add up the whole list and the Twins did not get equal value for what they lost.

Now of course, they were going to lose those players anyway, but what they got back was not as good as if they had been able to keep those players.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 17, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

Are you kidding me.....

anytime you get something for nothing its a win. In every situation they were backed into a corner by a contract or they were giving up an expendible resource.

Mays pitched 900 innings of league average ball and was an All Star with a year with an ERA+ of 145

Ortiz while mishandled helped the Twins win a division.

Milton had a stretch of 3 years that while not amazing gave the Twins over 600 innings of above average pitching. And then turned into Carlos Silva who gave the Twins 3 good years and one stinker, but once again almost 800 innings of slightly above average pitching

Buchanon never amounted to anything other than a chip to be used for a starting SS

Guzman wasn't amazing but was a legitimate big league player.

and look at who they gave away

Roberto Kelly who couldn't stay healthy and even though he could hit was out of the league in 3 years

Dave Hollins who had 2 more average seasons, that were lesser than those played by his replacement Corey Koskie

Knoblauch who imploded in New York

so they gave up declining big league talent and huge amounts of payroll off the books for legitimate ball players. Who while they don't hold up to the best seasons of guys like Hollins and Knoblauch were much better going forward.

Pure lunacy to say that Ryan wasn't knowing that he was doing. Anytime that you get something for nothing, you win

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Feb 17, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

Nothing?

Well, if you consider Johan Santana nothing, then I guess that argument has some merit. Yeah, assuming they were going to lose Santana anyway, they got something for him which is better than nothing. It is highly unlikely that the players they got for him will, in aggregate, make them a better team over the next 5 years than they would be keeping him.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 17, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions

No one is saying that...

Johan is "nothing."

What we are saying is that the Twins have not lost a single trade involving prospects in at least a decade, so they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

Hell, think about this. Their starting middle infield at the end of last season was a result of trades of Brian Buchanon (who never did ANYTHING) and JC Romero (who was released soon after the Angels dealt for him).

THAT is impressive. Sorry.

by DJSkillz on Feb 17, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry......

but the Twins middle infield was pathetic last year.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 18, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, right

On what do you base your opinion? Casual observation of a few games and box scores?

If you talked to scouts and reviewed the numbers, you would know that Jason Bartlett is one of a handful of elite defenders at the shortstop position. It's precisely why the D-Rays insisted on him early on in the trade talks.

Alexi Casilla is raw and was rushed. But he has some of the best tools at the position, save for power. I wouldn't call acquiring him for a player the Twins were trying to dump "pathetic".

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 18, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

Christy

I like the Delmon Young for Garza trade.

Sorry, but the Twins are not going to be a better team over the next 5 years with the players they got from the Mets than they would be had they been able to sign Santana long term. Since they were going to lose Santana anyway, I guess it's better to get something than nothing.

The Twins track record on trades is OK, but I wouldn't call it the best in baseball by a longshot. The AJ trade was a great trade for the Twins, but there was an element of luck and a brain cramp by Brian Sabean involved.

Looks like you and I will just have to disagree on some of these things.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 18, 2008 11:47 AM EST up reply actions

USSMariner

Has a point. The history suggests that teams get better value from draft picks than deadline deals.

Curiously, he did not take the Knoblauch or Pierzinsi trades into account because those were not deadline deals. Had he done so, it swings the percentages closer. But still, historically, it is better to wait for draft picks.

Using that as a backdrop, it is remarkable that the Twins have gotten better value than draft picks almost every time. I would argue that they should have hung onto Castillo for a draft pick. But otherwise, the Twins have bucked the trend and done better than draft compensation. That says a lot about their scouting. They have done better than just about every team in the MLB, save for perhaps Cleveland.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 19, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions