Article: Did The Twins Give Up On Hicks Too Soon?

[sane]

I don't think he meant a trade this year...

OK, I misunderstood.

[sane]

Referring to Hicks as "the top prospect" in the deal should have been the dead giveaway, as Hicks hasn't really been considering a prospect since 2013.

Apparently, I am non-responsive to dead give-aways and that I am the "clueless" one in this scenario.

[dxpavelka]

 

They may have traded him too late. There were rumors of a Zack Greinke deal that would have been led by Aaron Hicks as the top prospect. In hindsight that would have been a better idea.

That was either A.  A long time ago at a point when moving Hicks would have been foolhardy or  B. Not going to happen without a hell of a lot more than Hicks in the pot AND Greinke never would have stayed here either.

 

[sane]

I'm getting better at apologizing, because I get a lot of reps.

[Buford_T_Justice]

 

I don't see it happening without an injury.

 

Rosario is a given.

 

Arcia needs to be on the roster.

 

Buxton has both MLB and AAA time.

 

Then comes Kepler. I don't see Max jumping over the guys in front of him to open the season, though I think we could see him relatively early in the season (May) if one of the other guys is struggling.

Agree, with the caveat that Buxton won't necessarily open with the Twins so we can all be a part of the service time tomfoolery. For the first few weeks, then, the regular starting OF would be Arcia, Rosario and Sano. If I'm Shane Robinson, I would think I have some incentive to sign with the Twins.

 

Buxton coming up permanently and playing full-time might be the trigger to trade Arcia or Plouffe.

 

BTW, if I'm a Rochester Red Wing fan, I'm dreaming of opening day with Buxton, Kepler and ABW as the starting OF. That would be fun!

[Vanimal46]

I have no issue with the trade. On the surface it looks like a pretty even up deal to swap for positions of need. I mentioned this in the elongated Hicks trade thread... IMO it's too early to tell if Hicks truly turned a corner at the plate. Would I have liked another year to find out? Yes. If he didn't turn the corner, would the Twins receive this sort of return in a trade next year? Probably not. 

The Twins gave him ample opportunities to earn his keep in the majors, and really they got one hot month from him. Now I'm over him, and moved on to JR Murphy. 

[SarasotaBill]

Short Term:

Line-Up: Murphy/Suzuki & Santana vs Suzuki/Fryer & Hicks

40 Man: (gain one spot) Murphy vs Hicks & Fryer

 

Avoiding Buxton & Kepler call up but I assume before July.

 

Long Term (2017 to 2019):

Line-Up: Murphy/Turner & Kepler vs Turner/Fryer & Hicks

 

Every trade has risk but I believe the benefits are greater than the costs.

Kepler has the better MiLB track record than Hicks and OF is a position of strength.

Murphy was on the fast track (like Pluffe) hopefully he has more upside than what his stats indicate.

[DJL44]

The Greinke trade was 2011 and he went to the Brewers.

 

And I'm not crazy

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/538102-mlb-trade-rumors-10-reasons-the-minnesota-twins-should-acquire-zack-greinke/page/7

Edited November 13, 2015 by DJL44

[big dog]

If we don't trade someone and they decline, we should have sold high.  If we do trade someone and they improve, we shouldn't have sold low.  If only we could predict player career arcs with complete accuracy, then we wouldn't have this problem.

 

I think the most likely expectation is that neither player becomes anything more than a useful piece, but we needed a catching piece.  I will be happy if both players exceed expectations.

[sane]

 

The Greinke trade was 2011 and he went to the Brewers.

 

And I'm not crazy

 

It has already been established that I am crazy and you are not.

Good luck to both of us.

[deanlambrecht]

 

The Greinke trade was 2011 and he went to the Brewers.

 

And I'm not crazy

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/538102-mlb-trade-rumors-10-reasons-the-minnesota-twins-should-acquire-zack-greinke/page/7

 

 

 

Thanks for supporting your post.   Knowing that it was from 2011, we get more information.   For instance, at that time:

- Greinke wasn't yet the dominant pitcher he became in 2013-2015.

- He was still haunted by question marks based on his social anxiety disorder.

- This wasn't a trade rumor in the sense that it was being discussed by the teams, but mere speculation that if the Twins were to go after Greinke, they'd need to offer both Hicks and Gibson.

 

In hindsight, might it have been a good move to make?   Perhaps, but hindsight is always 20/20.   And we still don't know if there were any activities by either team to make that move or anything like it.   But it's fun to consider!

[Nick Nelson]

 

This stuff about being a "corner OF" is way the hell overblown. If other sluggers are present, and you actually have a big-time offensive CF, one doesn't need to worry about slugging coming from the corner OF. I straight up do not understand. Rosario isn't going to be a slugging corner OF either. And neither is Kepler. All of them are likely to be solid all-around players who are above average offensively and good to excellent defensively.

 

This "corner OF type" stuff just blows my mind.

Corner OF is one of the few places on the field where you can get away with sacrificing defense for offense without being hurt by it too much. Pretty much that simple. 

[markos]

The phrase "give up on" is a bit loaded, but I do think that the Twins undervalued Hicks a little bit and traded him away too early. In general, I think that there are enough examples of players figuring hitting out in their mid-to-late twenties that it is good policy to try to hang onto high-ceiling players through age-28. Especially players that seem to be just a half step away from putting it all together. And Hicks is kind of in that boat. He just needs to hit RHP just a little bit better and he becomes an everyday player. If he takes a big step forward against RHP, and adds a little more power like most players do in their late-20s, then he is a real asset.

To put Hicks and his struggles into perspective:
1) Torii Hunter two months into age-25 season: 1000 MLB PAs, OPS+ <75
2) David Ortiz after age-25 season: 1200 MLB PAs, OPS+ 103
3) Carlos Gomez after age-25 season: 1700 MLB PAs, OPS+ 73
4) Lorenzo Cain after age-25 season: just 181 MLB PAs, OPS+ 101 - spent most of year in AAA
5) Aaron Hicks after age-25 season: 928 MLB PAs, OPS+ 80

[JaleelWhite FanClub]

I think the article hit it head on. It was Arcia vs. Hicks from the front office standpoint. Arcia's lefthanded power (seen in 2014, MIA last season) would play nicely opposite Sano's and Park's power from the right side. In this regard, the trade didn't bother me so much.

 

It only hurt because I thought an outfield defense of Rosario-Buxton-Hicks for the majority of next year would do wonders for the contact-heavy staff. Reference the Royals the past two years to see how much an average staff could be propped up by great outfield defense.

[Nick Nelson]

 

The phrase "give up on" is a bit loaded, but I do think that the Twins undervalued Hicks a little bit and traded him away too early. 

This is what I was getting at with the title. I'm not saying they gave him away for nothing, I'm saying that even if they didn't plan on keeping him long-term, they could've kept him another year hoping for a real breakout and -- in that event -- gotten much more value back next offseason (or even at the deadline).

 

If Hicks truly does figure things out and become an offensive force in CF, with his defensive abilities, he's a heck of a nice asset. 

[USAFChief]

I would feel a lot better about this deal if Murphy appeared to have more upside.

 

It always is risky to trade the guy who might end up really good for a guy who might end up competent.

 

I still think Hicks has a good chance of ending up really good.

[big dog]

 

Thanks for supporting your post.   Knowing that it was from 2011, we get more information.   For instance, at that time:

- Greinke wasn't yet the dominant pitcher he became in 2013-2015.

- He was still haunted by question marks based on his social anxiety disorder.

- This wasn't a trade rumor in the sense that it was being discussed by the teams, but mere speculation that if the Twins were to go after Greinke, they'd need to offer both Hicks and Gibson.

 

In hindsight, might it have been a good move to make?   Perhaps, but hindsight is always 20/20.   And we still don't know if there were any activities by either team to make that move or anything like it.   But it's fun to consider!

And we also know that the Royals gave up Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar, and two pitchers.  Seems like an awful lot in addition to Aaron Hicks, for two years of Greinke as the rest of our team was falling apart.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is what I was getting at with the title. I'm not saying they gave him away for nothing, I'm saying that even if they didn't plan on keeping him long-term, they could've kept him another year hoping for a real breakout and -- in that event -- gotten much more value back next offseason (or even at the deadline).

Yes.  And that potential value return could blow away whatever we get from Murphy in a part-time role at catcher in 2016.  Even if Hicks stagnated in 2016, I feel like he could have snagged Murphy or a similar catcher next winter.

 

I don't necessarily mind the trade, but I get the feeling the Twins don't even plan to give Murphy much opportunity to break out in 2016 (if he even has that potential).

[Kwak]

There comes a time when a team has to pull-the-plug on a favorite, there are others constantly refilling the pipeline. There is a limited amount of time for a player to "make his mark"--and Hicks is 26. Reciting the old saws about how so-and-so blossomed at 27 when there is a wealth of evidence of top players having "proved themselves" several years younger than 27. A consistent winning team must set high standards--and rigorously defend them.  Being soft and squishy because a player is "well-liked", a "great-teammate", and/or a  1st round draft choice, unnecessarily lowers said standards and sends a message that performance isn't key.

[jokin]

 

I would feel a lot better about this deal if Murphy appeared to have more upside.

It always is risky to trade the guy who might end up really good for a guy who might end up competent.

I still think Hicks has a good chance of ending up really good.

 

That's the crux of it , isn't it. This wasn't exactly a mirror image trade of potentiality. In addition, it clearly lowers the Twins net talent level on the opening day roster.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And we also know that the Royals gave up Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar, and two pitchers.  Seems like an awful lot in addition to Aaron Hicks, for two years of Greinke as the rest of our team was falling apart.

Actually, if we could have saddled the Royals with Aaron Hicks and whatever flotsam and jetsam from our minor league system circa 2011 instead of Cain, Escobar, and Odorizzi, that could very well have prevented their 2013-2015 run of success...

 

EDIT TO ADD: the linked article suggested Hicks, Gibson, Revere, and Benson, and that we might try to not include all in the same deal.  Imagine the Royals with those 4 instead of Cain, Escobar, and Odorizzi (and perhaps by extension, no Wade Davis?).

Edited November 13, 2015 by spycake

[diehardtwinsfan]

I really think people are underselling Murphy's potential in this transaction.  I get that the doesn't have a 5 tool all star ceiling that Hicks has (though to be clear, let's not pretend that Hicks is remotely close to being that guy), but he was average to above his entire minor league career while being young for his league.  His 2 seasons in the majors (in albeit a limited sample) have been better than league average for a C while being an average defender behind the dish.  He may not have an allstar ceiling, but he can easily plug a position of need with above average production for the next 4 years. 

 

I've had a bit more time to digest this trade, and while I was on the fence before, I'm more supportive now than what I was earlier.  The Yankees get a bigger potential reward in Hicks, but they are also taking on bigger risk.  Both teams are trading from positions of strength to fill a position of need.  My main concern is that this is not necessarily going to help in 2016 as the Twins now have a short term need in the OF.  That's fillable, but I could see the OF taking  a big step back until 2 of Buxton/Kepler/Arcia/Walker are ready. 

[Shane Wahl]

 

Let's think about it another way though. Teams have to get power and extra base production from somewhere, The chances of getting to from C, SS, 2B, or CF are generally limited. That's the reason historically that teams look to the corners for that kind of production. So, a team can sacrifice that type of production from one or two corners, but only if they're getting it elsewhere, right? I think you might be right when it comes to the Twins, but that's assuming your 2016 power production comes from 2B, 3B, DH, and ???. The caveat about "corner OF type" is that power production has to come from somewhere else if Mauer is manning 1B for example.

 

Sure. There's Dozier and there's about to be Buxton (more slugging than usual CFs). And Park. And Sano. I still think that OBP is more important than slugging anyway.

[Shane Wahl]

 

You're right to a degree, but what changes if Hicks is considered a corner OF is that there will be different people who are capable of playing the outfield corners competing for playing time there. On the Twins, it would be Arcia, AB Walker and probably Kepler. None of those guys are projected as center fielders, but all could man left or right (maybe not Arcia). If Hicks were moved to a corner, he would have to better than those guys and I don't think he would be.

 

Well, defense matters too. Hicks is likely better than all three defensively.

[Monkeypaws]

I like the trade - I'd much rather the Twins went for a young catcher with potential, which they did, than trade Rosario, Kepler, or Berrios for a proven commodity. 

 

Hicks is what he is - 26 ain't exactly young in baseball terms. He's had chance after chance. Sure, he might go full Papi in NY, but I doubt it. We traded two other 1st round CFs that were better imo, Span and Revere, and the jury is still out on those trades. 

 

The odds of this being a mistake are there, but I think adding Murphy will help more than losing Hicks will hurt.

[DaveW]

I don't mind them trading Hicks "giving up"

 

I mind them trading him for someone with such little upside, and someone who looks at least like a part time player for as long as Suzuki is here. The Twins need to be of the mindset of "playoffs or bust" next year, I'm not saying sell the farm, but they need to be putting out a team that can make a wild card spot in 2016, creating a hole in the OF for the first couple months with Hicks gone (and Buxton and Kepler not ready) while only bringing on a part time catcher seems like a net loss in the near term, and Hicks upside makes me think there is a very good chance that its a net loss in the long term.

Just a perplexing trade all around. Why not give up something more for Gary Sanchez? A guy who may not be ready this minute, but actually has the upside to be a very good player at catcher.

[big dog]

 

That's the crux of it , isn't it. This wasn't exactly a mirror image trade of potentiality. In addition, it clearly lowers the Twins net talent level on the opening day roster.

Yeah, true, but you can only play so many outfielders at once.

[deanlambrecht]

 

Just a perplexing trade all around. Why not give up something more for Gary Sanchez? A guy who may not be ready this minute, but actually has the upside to be a very good player at catcher.

 

Why perplexing?   We're pretty sure Murphy can give us what we need right now - average production at catcher.   We had an expendable player in the outfield, and we made the move.   That doesn't seem terribly perplexing.

 

As for the body we got, would I like to have gotten a super-star catcher instead?   Sure?   Where were we going to get one?   We weren't going to get one in exchange for Hicks.  Do you know whether NYY is listening to offers for Sanchez?   What are the chances he becomes an even average MLB catcher, like Murphy, let alone a super star.  And who, exactly, would you give up to get Sanchez?   Buxton?   Because that's probably what it would take.

 

The only other potential trade I saw was the oft-discussed Plouffe + for Derek Norris from the Padres.   I don't know how plausible that really was - perhaps the teams discussed it.   Perhaps they still will discuss it, though at this point it's time to turn to our bullpen situation, and Plouffe might be a better trade chip in that regard at this time.   But the bottom line is this trade isn't terribly perplexing, and the wish list you proposed is just that - a wish list.

[USAFChief]

Yeah, true, but you can only play so many outfielders at once.

It would be nice to have at least three. Right now I'm not sure the Twins have even that many.

[Kwak]

 

I don't mind them trading Hicks "giving up"

 

I mind them trading him for someone with such little upside, and someone who looks at least like a part time player for as long as Suzuki is here. The Twins need to be of the mindset of "playoffs or bust" next year, I'm not saying sell the farm, but they need to be putting out a team that can make a wild card spot in 2016, creating a hole in the OF for the first couple months with Hicks gone (and Buxton and Kepler not ready) while only bringing on a part time catcher seems like a net loss in the near term, and Hicks upside makes me think there is a very good chance that its a net loss in the long term.

Just a perplexing trade all around. Why not give up something more for Gary Sanchez? A guy who may not be ready this minute, but actually has the upside to be a very good player at catcher.

NO.

 

The Twins are lacking talent, they need to clear-out the marginal guys (especially those that are fan-favorites!) and replace them with quality.  Short-cutting the process to be a "playoff team in 2016" (which is a long shot) diminishes the potential of being a dynasty-team in the ALCD and  having true potential to beat the NY's and LA's of the future in the playoffs--instead of being the one-and-dones of the previous decade.  

 

Would Sanchez be a good acquisition? (Yes!)--Was he even offered? And for whom?  I promise it would be for a lot more than an Aaron Hicks.  Quite likely multiple players that the Twins will be/are counting on to be the future.  I don't think the Yankees believe Hicks will be anymore than a solid hole-plugger--but they have (and especially after some gigantic contracts are cleared-out) the resources to buy some stars--the Twins can buy but one. To act as you just suggested (playoff-now) involves "Settling for Mediocrity". Or, are you choosing to be on both sides of that issue?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Kwak