Article: Why Not Wieters?

[Major League Ready]

 

that simply is not true.

I was trying to be politically correct when I said "we all" but there would be plenty who would complain.  Take a look at the MLB top 100.  There are several top 20 prospects who were drafted in the teens or later.  Buxton is #1, #2 and #3 were picked 18th and 16th respectively.  #4 was an international signing and #5 was taken 16th.  #6 was 39th.  #7 was picked 152nd an#8 was an international signing.  That's why most teams don't give up these picks.
http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015?list=prospects

[Vanimal46]

And there's hundreds if not thousands of other players drafted in the teens or later who never pan out to be MLB players.. People would complain about that too if we remembered that the person was drafted in the 1st round. If anything your argument shows that it doesn't matter where these players are drafted. The whole process is a gamble. 

 

Giving up the #17 pick IMO shouldn't hold us back from making this deal. If the money and number of years holds them back from Wieters, I'm more understanding of that. I don't agree with it, but can respect the decision. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I was trying to be politically correct when I said "we all" but there would be plenty who would complain.  Take a look at the MLB top 100.  There are several top 20 prospects who were drafted in the teens or later.  Buxton is #1, #2 and #3 were picked 18th and 16th respectively.  #4 was an international signing and #5 was taken 16th.  #6 was 39th.  #7 was picked 152nd an#8 was an international signing.  That's why most teams don't give up these picks.
http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015?list=prospects

 

Actually, nearly every FA offered a QO gets signed......so it isn't true that teams don't give up draft picks for these guys. I can recall 2-3 in the last 5-10 years that weren't. That's it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There are plenty of low risk free agents, they come on 1-2 year deals.  Those are the only kinds of free agents I'm supportive of at this time as the team already has Mauer, Santana, Hughes and Nolasco guaranteed to take up four of only 25 available roster spots because of their long term contracts.  The roster just can't be filled with untradable, unmovable veteran contracts or they'll end up like the Tigers, but with a lower quality group of veterans mucking up the works and fewer division titles to show for the moves.

 

The low risk guys you're talking also have a high likelihood of being no better than what we're trying to upgrade from already.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd be open to seeing any kind of stats that show otherwise, but statistically and visually, to me it looks like guys are peaking very, very early these days.  Even look at last year's All-Star game, something that used to be loaded with veterans getting in based on their past reputations; it is now loaded with kids.  Just look at last year's Twins, from the rotation to the lineup, it was almost exclusively carried by the younger guys.

 

I don't disagree that there are still plenty of good contributors over 30, most are solid role players, but why on earth would anyone give a role player more than a two year deal?  Guys on 1-2 year deals can be traded if the season goes in the toilet or a young player emerges.  Guys on 1-2 year deals can be sent to the bench or DFA'd if they stink, we continue to see the Twins in awkward positions now because they have given too many guys 4-year deals.  It hasn't worked, they need to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole.

 

I'd be fine taking a chance on a couple long term deals to vets, but it's got to be quality over quantity.  From my perspective, two guys on a 4-year/80M deal are better than four guys on a 4-year/40M deal.

Obviously 1-2 year deals carry less risk, but good players aren't generally available on 1-2 year deals.

 

The Twins "problem" isn't 4 year deals they've given to players like Wieters, it's that they gave 4 year deals to three guys at the same position (SP, although admittedly you need 5 of them), at least one of them being a completely unnecessary extension (Hughes) and another was a somewhat forced signing of a lower upside player (Nolasco).  And even after all that, whatever "problem" caused by those deals hasn't impacted their budget to the point where it's not feasible to sign another such deal for the right player/position.

 

If you want to say the Twins should have pursued Martin or McCann (or Montero in trade) the past few winters, even at higher prices, you won't get any argument from me.  But those options are off the table now, so it looks like Wieters, bargain bin, surrendering talent in trade, or roll the dice on Suzuki again are your choices.  Wieters doesn't look so bad then.

Edited November 5, 2015 by spycake

[Willihammer]

Here's an interesting read on the value of draft picks.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-much-is-a-draft-pick-worth-in-2014/

 

Average cumulative WAR during cost-controlled years for #15-20 picks taken in 1991-2005 drafts = 4.3.

 

However there may be a trend teams missing fewer elite talents and capturing them in the middle of the first round, due to improvements in information/scouting.

[Otto von Ballpark]

From Baseball America:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-order-2/

 

 

The Padres forfeited No. 13 for James Shields; The Mets forfeited pick No. 15 for Cuddyer; ... The Blue Jays forfeited pick No. 17 for Martin; The Mariners forfeited pick No. 19 for Cruz; The Nationals forfeited pick No. 27 for Scherzer.

 

Forfeiting #17 for a 30 year old catcher in Wieters doesn't seem so outlandish.

[nicksaviking]

 

If you want to say the Twins should have pursued Martin or McCann (or Montero in trade) the past few winters, even at higher prices, you won't get any argument from me.  But those options are off the table now, so it looks like Wieters, bargain bin, surrendering talent in trade, or roll the dice on Suzuki again are your choices.  Wieters doesn't look so bad then.

 

I do want to say that, and it is the pitchers that have put a sour taste in my mouth.  I don't like the idea of rolling the dice again in the veteran free agent game since now the odds are really in the house's favor. The risk for Wieters looks higher than it was for Martin and McCann and the reward is lower. I will walk away from the table before I lose everything.  I don't want to have to try another rebuild before this one even started.  Six vets over 30 signed through at least 2017 is going to make that more likely if the season doesn't go as we hoped, and likely the only one of them tradable would be Perkins, IF he returns to form.

 

I didn't want Shields or Lester, but I'd be a much happier camper if the Twins hadn't signed Nolasco, Hughes and Santana (and Suzuki) but instead had just signed Shields and Martin.

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

From Baseball America:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-order-2/

 

 

Forfeiting #17 for a 30 year old catcher in Wieters doesn't seem so outlandish.

 

I would want the Twins to vet other alternatives and to see who is available and what the asking price is.

 

If we conclude that Weiters puts us 30+ runs better than Suzuki and nothing else is really available, I think you part with the pick and sign him.  No other roster spot is a bigger opportunity at the moment and arguably more thin around the league.  And we have a ton of prospects right now. 

 

The Royals made a series of aggressive moves and they won the world series.  Even making a deep run is success in my eyes for these types of moves.  I think this would help us do that.

 

 

 

[mazeville]

Huh. So we have one high-priced catcher who had to transition out of the position after injuries and now we're considering another high-priced catcher with an injury history? 

 

AND it would cost a draft pick. I'd rather not. 

 

I'd rather look at trading Plouffe or one of our pitchers and/or a prospect in exchange for a youngish starting catcher. Or signing AJ for a year.

[tobi0040]

 

Huh. So we have one high-priced catcher who had to transition out of the position after injuries and now we're considering another high-priced catcher with an injury history? 

 

AND it would cost a draft pick. I'd rather not. 

 

I'd rather look at trading Plouffe or one of our pitchers and/or a prospect in exchange for a youngish starting catcher. Or signing AJ for a year.

 

I think you look at the catcher market and Plouffe is an option to trade.  But I would not get our hopes up too high here.  The fact that the current options are pay a ton of cash for Weiters (plus a pick), pony up top prospects for Lucroy, or sign a 38 year old AJ is a sign that this market is really, really thin.  

 

4/60 for Weiters is not a salary crippling move in my eyes.  I have a hard time seeing how he is not the best catching option we have in 3-4 years.  You get into an issue when you have a guy like Nolasco who is making that kind of money AND is not a starter.  Then it becomes an issue.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2015 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't want to have to try another rebuild before this one even started.  Six vets over 30 signed through at least 2017 is going to make that more likely if the season doesn't go as we hoped

"Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons.  Perkins is in that group but making peanuts.  Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too.  Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

[tobi0040]

 

"Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons.  Perkins is in that group but making peanuts.  Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too.  Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

 

I agree whole-heartedly.  Especially in the case of Nolasco.  He is unlikely to help the team and sometimes you need to swallow a bad deal if you want to play the free agency game.

[TheLeviathan]

Man, there must be a tree somewhere that grows 24 year old catchers who hit, field, and never get hurt.

 

Anyone know where it is or care to share the location with the Twins?

[twinsfansd]

 

For me, I wouldn't even really consider Wieters. I think giving up the 17th overall pick is a lot. He's basically 30, so we're talking about years 30-33. Some do alright, but signing catchers at 30 to long term contracts a little/lot scary to me.

 

If it gets late in the free agent timeline (maybe January) and Wieters is now willing to go 2 years and $25 million, I might consider it.

 

I'm not saying AJ because he can maybe help a team offensively (at 40, we'll see). Not much defensively, though that doesn't change from now. But I'd rather go with a veteran on a one-year deal than spend big on Wieters. 

Not only is it the 17th spot, but if anybody in 11-16 signs a QO free agent, the Twins move up a spot. Could definitely see the Red Sox doing that, maybe the Orioles, the others maybe not so much.

[kab21]

 

I am not sure how that means anything. In fact, how does that do anything but support the concern that his defense is in decline?

Being injured and not playing much doesn't equal decline.  Yes, there should be concern that he wasn't 100% in the partial season that he played before this contract.  If he was 100% then he would be getting 5 yrs (possibly more) for 20+M/yr.

 

And FWIW he caught back to backs 4 times in September.  As of right now everything is saying that he is on track for a complete recovery from TJ.  This isn't a concussion type injury that will re-occur in the future.

[DocBauer]

I don't know the exact odds of a team having ANY players from ANY draft play significantly in the majors, but I know they are large. I read once upon a time where a team hopes each draft produces 1 star (type) player, 1 solid starter and 1 solid contributor/role player. 

 

I don't have a problem with losing the #17 pick in the draft, (we'll have 2 seconds this year), as there is so little cause to feel we hurt ourselves. I also have no problem paying a 30yo catcher 4 years and $15-16M per. I honestly don't expect him to regress so quickly that he is a negative, (even if value per dollar is down for year 4) I'd rather sign him, and his potential bat, than trade away a couple top players.

 

My concern remains, what if he just can't hold up for 120 games due to his arm? Players come back all the time these days from TJ and play the field. Sano did this year. So I ask again, why did Wieters play so little behind the plate this year? Why not on consecutive days? I need to know he is 100% before I make this investment. He's just not a good enough to hitter to slide him somewhere else, like DH, and chalk it up to an "oh well."

 

I've stated before I like AJ for one year if things don't come together. Then re-examine the FA and trade market next season, as well as our own catching prospects a season from now. But I've been thinking about another candidate; Alex Avila. Since his big 2011 season his numbers have been on a 4 year downward slide. But, his career numbers against RHP are .251/ .358/ .423/ .781. He will only be 29 in '16 I believe. His career CS% is 29%, but over 32% if the one poor season of 2013 is removed.

[Shane Wahl]

A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

[DocBauer]

A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

I may be naive or mistaken on trade ideas/value, but when trying to place myself in Milwaukee's spikes...granted without intimate knowledge of the Brewer's roster...I would think a trio of quality young prospects would be exactly what is needed to pry a player of Lucroy's ability, albeit, a bit on the outs due to injury and rebuild mode.

 

While I love me some Trevor Plouffe, I think I might be more interested in Arcia, were I the Brewers on a rebuild. (Maybe both) I'd have to have a top pitching talent, maybe Stewart, as has been mentioned. For a third? Not sure. But no matter how much I respect Lucroy, I have a very hard time trading for a player with recent concussion issues, (especially considering the Twins history with such issues), and giving up Kepler and/or Berrios. I just think it may be asking too much.

 

Giving up pretty much anything/anyone else for Lucroy...or anyone else who offers long term potential at the catcher spot, works for me.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I may be naive or mistaken on trade ideas/value, but when trying to place myself in Milwaukee's spikes...granted without intimate knowledge of the Brewer's roster...I would think a trio of quality young prospects would be exactly what is needed to pry a player of Lucroy's ability, albeit, a bit on the outs due to injury and rebuild mode.

While I love me some Trevor Plouffe, I think I might be more interested in Arcia, were I the Brewers on a rebuild. (Maybe both) I'd have to have a top pitching talent, maybe Stewart, as has been mentioned. For a third? Not sure. But no matter how much I respect Lucroy, I have a very hard time trading for a player with recent concussion issues, (especially considering the Twins history with such issues), and giving up Kepler and/or Berrios. I just think it may be asking too much.

Giving up pretty much anything/anyone else for Lucroy...or anyone else who offers long term potential at the catcher spot, works for me.

 

Right. I just mention Plouffe because the Brewers have a hole at third. Plouffe, Arcia, and Stewart. Gibson would be another potential candidate, as would Garver (to give them a AA catcher back).

[kab21]

Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks.  He accounts for <10% of the value of virtually any proposed trade so he really isn't even worth mentioning other than as a throw in.

 

Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny.  Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

 

Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players.  And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson. 

[TheLeviathan]

A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

I agree, trades that will never happen probably do look better than 4/60. Not sure where that gets us.

[tobi0040]

 

Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks.  He accounts for <10% of the value of virtually any proposed trade so he really isn't even worth mentioning other than as a throw in.

 

Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny.  Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

 

Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players.  And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson. 

 

Kab, this is just like fantasy football.  You can just take three guys that don't start for you and bundle them for a really good player.  Get excited for a second, then get a text back from the other guy asking if you are high.

 

The comedy of the proposed trades is one of my favorite things.   Somehow, guys that could not make our team (Arcia and Nolasco),  releivers that are no good (Duensing) and failing prospects (Kohl) can be packaged for a top 10 catcher or #2 starter.  Don't ruin this for me.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by tobi0040

[Shane Wahl]

The flippant nature of these comments is something else.

[Mike Sixel]

Kohl Stewart is still a top 10 prospect in the Twins' org. There are many who say (online experty types) that the strikeouts will come. Suggesting he be packaged, along with a 23 YO that OPS over 110 in the majors, and another prospect, for a 29/30 YO catcher is not far fetched.

 

It might not be enough, but it's nothing to be snotty about.

[TheLeviathan]

If you're going to reject the idea of going after Wieters, I can understand that.  Particularly if you'd prefer we spend that money on the bullpen.

 

But rejecting it based on some fantasy of trading Plouffe for Lucroy?  No, I can't understand that.

[Shane Wahl]

 

If you're going to reject the idea of going after Wieters, I can understand that.  Particularly if you'd prefer we spend that money on the bullpen.

 

But rejecting it based on some fantasy of trading Plouffe for Lucroy?  No, I can't understand that.

 

I said a package involving Plouffe, for the record. That could involve some mix of Polanco, Stewart, Garver, etc. I just mentioned Plouffe because there is a likely hole at 3rd base for the Brewers right now.

[TheLeviathan]

The Brewers have a lot of holes.....that's why they're dealing Lucroy and not so much worrying about the impact to their big league roster.

Edited November 6, 2015 by TheLeviathan

[tobi0040]

 

Kohl Stewart is still a top 10 prospect in the Twins' org. There are many who say (online experty types) that the strikeouts will come. Suggesting he be packaged, along with a 23 YO that OPS over 110 in the majors, and another prospect, for a 29/30 YO catcher is not far fetched.

 

It might not be enough, but it's nothing to be snotty about.

 

Arcia could not stick on our team last year.  Most teams have probably concluded, like the Twins that he simply cannot play in the OF.   So I think he holds minimal value, if any to all NL teams.    And his career .614 against lefties makes him at this point a platoon DH.   He would be a throw in project on a deal that I don't think holds a lot of value.

 

 

[markos]

 

I said a package involving Plouffe, for the record. That could involve some mix of Polanco, Stewart, Garver, etc. I just mentioned Plouffe because there is a likely hole at 3rd base for the Brewers right now.

I think that framework might gain some traction with a three-way trade. I don't think the Brewers have any interest in Plouffe themselves, but if you could get some other team to join the trade, then maybe it would work.

 

Twins get Lucroy

Team X gets Plouffe

Brewers get prospects from Twins and Team X.

 

I still think the Brewers are going to want (and probably get) at least 1 top-50 prospect in return for Lucroy.