Article: Twins Trade Nolasco, Meyer, Cash To Angels For Hector Santiago

[tobi0040]

No, I am not suggesting that. But evidence suggests that Nolasco plus a few million dollars will probably generate a roughly equal return to Santiago, which is in direct contraction to this statement of yours:

 

 

I think it's a decent trade for the Twins, just to move on from Nolasco and clear a 40-man roster spot (although Busenitz will be Rule 5 eligible if not added this winter), but clearly here you are trying to assign it bonus points for Santiago's future value which isn't at all clear. Any time you think about assigning a player future trade value that's well above what he was just traded for, I think that deserves a note of caution.

 

I remember reading similar opinions on this site of the Fuld-Milone swap, among others, which was also a solid trade by the Twins because we needed Milone more than Fuld at that time. But there was no great future value to Milone, even when he matched his career high with a 104 ERA+ the following season. (At least Milone offered two more years of potential control, should he have somehow developed more value.) Often the assumption of future value comes along with the stated or implied conclusion that one GM just made a huge mistake, which sometimes happens, but not nearly as often as claimed. Most MLB trades are pretty good proxies for near future value, particularly when they don't involve talent/potential extremes (i.e. star-level players or top prospects).

 

I hope you don't mind that we have discussions that aren't simple binary "good vs bad" trade -- I think the more interesting aspects of these transactions are often the nuances.

If I was to do an off-season prediction, it would be that a new GM would non-tender Santiago. He looks to be one of our better five guys in 2017 right now, but it is not clear to me that for $8m we can't do better on the market via a higher upside bounce back type.

 

I think this was a savvy move to rid ourselves of the bulk of Nolasco's $12m next year. With an audition built in for next year. I think he is comparable to 2015 Milone, but at $8m is more expensive.

 

I like the move because we bought flexibility and punted the decision to the next GM. In fact, that seems to be what Antony's approach has been. He has kept the guys that you could at least make a case for helping the 2017 team, Dozier, Ervin, and Kurt for example. He has earned some respect from me with this approach

Edited August 3, 2016 by tobi0040

[ashbury]

If I was to do an off-season prediction, it would be that a new GM would non-tender Santiago. He looks to be one of our better five guys in 2017 right now, but it is not clear to me that for $8m we can't do better on the market via a higher upside bounce back type.

Or, going farther, combine such savings with other funds such as Plouffe being no longer with the team, and aim for a difference maker bearing a higher salary via FA or trade, rather than the usual "million here, million there" strategy.

[tobi0040]

Or, going farther, combine such savings with other funds such as Plouffe being no longer with the team, and aim for a difference maker bearing a higher salary via FA or trade, rather than the usual "million here, million there" strategy.

One would hope. I hope the Twins learned from Nolasco and Ervin. You either go all in on a starter or do the short bounce back type. You don't really want to be in between

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If I was to do an off-season prediction, it would be that a new GM would non-tender Santiago.

You might be right. At first it seemed like an aggressive non-tender barring injury or collapse.  But I did find a non-tender comparable -- Joe Saunders after 2011.  And we just saw that Santiago didn't fetch a lot at the trade deadline.

 

The non-tender and $8 mil savings strategy does seem like a more likely path to Twins benefit than Santiago's value increasing over the next year.  (Actually, I guess it could be $9 mil savings, since the Angels are apparently on the hook for Nolasco's $1 mil buyout for 2018.)

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

One would hope. I hope the Twins learned from Nolasco and Ervin. You either go all in on a starter or do the short bounce back type. You don't really want to be in between

And Hughes, who started as more of a bounce back type but we too quickly tore it up to go in between.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Although I'm still not exactly sure what else we could get this offseason for an extra $8-9 mil, or an extra $15-16 mil if you non-tender Plouffe too.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Although I'm still not exactly sure what else we could get this offseason for an extra $8-9 mil, or an extra $15-16 mil if you non-tender Plouffe too.

 

Agreed, unless you make a trade. That said....if I'm the owner, I like the extra 9MM....if Santiago is not good enough to be kept.

[ashbury]

Although I'm still not exactly sure what else we could get this offseason for an extra $8-9 mil, or an extra $15-16 mil if you non-tender Plouffe too.

FA, I am skeptical too. Via trade, though? Possibilities should abound, shouldn't they? Dozier and his affordable salary plus a prospect or two for someone's good $20M pitcher under control a few years? If some GM needs salary relief, maybe that could be constructed....

[PseudoSABR]

 

No, I am not suggesting that.  But evidence suggests that Nolasco plus a few million dollars will probably generate a roughly equal return to Santiago, which is in direct contraction to this statement of yours:

 

 

I think it's a decent trade for the Twins, just to move on from Nolasco and clear a 40-man roster spot (although Busenitz will be Rule 5 eligible if not added this winter), but clearly here you are trying to assign it bonus points for Santiago's future value which isn't at all clear.  Any time you think about assigning a player future trade value that's well above what he was just traded for, I think that deserves a note of caution.

The Twins deserve credit for putting themselves in a better situation; whether Santiago will clearly get more value than Nolasco+4million isn't the point, it's that the Twins have the options of 1) moving on from Santiago (say if they value him as lowly as Nolasco or he implodes) by non-tendering him, 2) getting Santiago's production over Nolasco in 2017, which at this point is likely to be (much) better, and letting him walk without any vesting-player options to worry about, or 3) trade him over the winter or during next season at values equal to Santiago's production.   That's flexibility and it's worth a lot given how little you had in Nolasco.  Similar situation with Busenitz in that they can choose to add him to the 40-man or risk exposing him during the Rule 5 draft as opposed to the inflexibility offered by Meyer in that he's already on the 40-man and he's out of options next year.   

 

I hope you don't mind that we have discussions that aren't simple binary "good vs bad" trade -- I think the more interesting aspects of these transactions are often the nuances.

 

Of course, no one is advocating a binary-or-death analysis here.  But there's nuance and then there's cynically construing the facts. We can hypothesize how this trade ends up a loss for the Twins in the future, but given the current value of the players involved and the added flexibility the Twins get, is it really worth rebutting that this is a net-win for the Twins?  It seems a bit belabored  to point out that Santiago isn't guaranteed to fetch better value in the future (no one debates this lack of guarantee) or that we only gain one 40-man spot in added flexibility.  

Edited August 3, 2016 by PseudoSABR

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There's nuance and then there's cynically construing the facts. We can hypothesize how this trade ends up a loss for the Twins in the future, but given the current value of the players involved and the added flexibility the Twins get, is it really worth rebutting that this is a net-win for the Twins?  It seems a bit belabored  to point out that Santiago isn't guaranteed to fetch better value in the future (no one debates this lack of guarantee) or that we only gain one 40-man spot in added flexibility.  

I didn't think it was belabored to respond when you wrote that Santiago is "likely to fetch far more value than Nolasco".  That just doesn't seem true given the information we have, even if the rest of the deal's benefits are a net win.

 

And your same post didn't just say the deal was a "net win" but rather a "coup".

 

I even quoted that section of your post, which I thought made clear that I was disagreeing with the words and content in that section of your post, not some other different/general conclusions around the topic.

 

I'll drop it now, although I'd appreciate if you'd ask for clarification next time you think I am inferring something as silly as Nolasco having more value, rather than immediately adopting a mocking tone toward a point I likely am not making.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I didn't think it was belabored to respond when you wrote that Santiago is "likely to fetch far more value than Nolasco".  That just doesn't seem true given the information we have, even if the rest of the deal's benefits are a net win.

If the trend lines continue, Santiago will fetch far more than Nolasco.  I just don't think there's a lot of controversy in that assertion, and obviously its contingent on Santiago far-out performing his peripherals and Nolasco far under performing them.  I still can't believe Nolasco was traded at all; I think you're obscuring just how much of negative-value asset Nolasco really has been, regardless of how mediocre Santiago is or ends up being.

 

Let me put it this way, the deal at best, and in my opinion, was a coup, at worst, its a net-win.  I get that you wouldn't put it that way, but the basis for that seems semantical rather than factual. My using net-win in my previous post is to demonstrate that we're really on the same page, and it's not worth parsing out why we necessarily shouldn't be that optimistic.   

I apologize for the mocking tone, it's a defense against what seemed like fastidious and pernickety argument, which--not trying to lump you in--occurs often around here. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

After years, though......some pitchers clearly outperform their FIP, and some underperform.......FIP isn't like gravity or sunshine.........

 

I cannot understand how anyone can look at this trade, and not think, wow, Antony got rid of Nolasco, and got something back in return.....

It was a good move by Antony but he gave up Meyer in the process. While it's likely Meyer busts, he still has that 97mph fastball and releases the ball roughly three feet from home plate.

 

If Meyer figures it out, this is a bad trade. That's why I can't give it anything higher than a C+.

 

But in Antony's defense, this trade could also go wonderfully for the Twins.

 

It's a risky move in both directions. That means it *can't* be a great trade today. It's a curious trade whose ramifications we won't know for quite some time.

[Mike Sixel]

Does Meyer need to be on a roster next year? I don't know....but that would influence my grade in favor of the Twins.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

Does Meyer need to be on a roster next year? I don't know....but that would influence my grade in favor of the Twins.....

He does and that's a factor in the decision for sure.

 

Though given the Twins penchant for slipshod bullpens in April, May, June, and sometimes even July, that's not a deal breaker.

 

Time may tell us the smart move was to DFA Nolasco and call it a day.

[jorgenswest]

Meyer was added to the 40 man roster following the 2014 season. The Twins send options in 2015 and 2016. He should have an option remaining.

 

For 2017, the Twins appear to be the winners. Hopefully the Twins will have studied how the change in home parks will impact Santiago's performance. He led the league in home runs given up last year in a park that suppresses right handed home runs. Target Field will not be as friendly.

 

For 2018 and beyond, the Angels win the trade if Meyer is a major leaguer. The Twins only hope is being able to move Santiago.

 

I would gave preferred they cut loose Nolasco and kept Meyer, but it isn't a bad gamble that Santiago will retain his value into next July.

[jimmer]

There is no guarantee at all that even if Meyer becomes a useful pitcher that he would have done so with us.  Just like I doubt Ortiz becomes the player he became if he stayed with us.  Sometimes players just aren't the right fit for some teams, whatever. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If the trend lines continue, Santiago will fetch far more than Nolasco.  I just don't think there's a lot of controversy in that assertion

That trend line has been going steady for 2.5 years.  I don't think another year will push their values that much further apart (especially if you neutralize their salaries, which the Twins did by including cash in this deal).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I still can't believe Nolasco was traded at all; I think you're obscuring just how much of negative-value asset Nolasco really has been, regardless of how mediocre Santiago is or ends up being.

I too am surprised that Nolasco was dealt at all, but given the parameters of this deal, maybe we shouldn't be that surprised.

 

Nolasco had $17 million remaining on his deal; I didn't think he'd really have to be released for nothing, since he was healthy and at least eating innings, some other team would kick in at least a few million to take a flyer on him.  My ready example has been Bud Norris' $2.5 mil contract this past winter, and Nolasco was eating innings better than Norris circa 2015, and any team acquiring him in 2016 would get a bit of a head start at trying to fix him too, so maybe we could bump that up to $4 mil if we wanted to dump Nolasco now for pure salary relief.

 

Well, we actually dumped him on the Angels for $9 mil salary relief.  We also got the chance to offer Santiago arbitration, but that might actually reduce our return, if Santiago's trade value doesn't increase or if he's not fully worth his ~$8 mil final arbitration award (if he's a potential nontender, and Joe Saunders circa 2011 is a decent nontender comp, that could be the case).  So about a difference of $5 mil over what we could have reasonably been expected to get for Nolasco as a pure salary dump.

 

Setting aside Busenitz (who looks mostly like a depth piece), that could mean we effectively sold Meyer for about $5 mil, which is probably the going rate for a prospect even of his present suspect caliber.  Arizona sold Touki Toussaint for about $10 mil last year; Pittsburgh kinda sold McGuire and another iffy prospect for ~$15 mil in salary relief (Liriano's remaining guarantee, minus what Hutchison should make in arb). If Meyer's MRI was clean, he was probably worth $5 mil to try to put something together through his final option year.

 

So maybe we shouldn't be so surprised?  (Just spitballing here, not trying to be fastidious and pernickety!)

[PseudoSABR]

 

That trend line has been going steady for 2.5 years.  I don't think another year will push their values that much further apart (especially if you neutralize their salaries, which the Twins did by including cash in this deal).

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

[PseudoSABR]

 

I too am surprised that Nolasco was dealt at all, but given the parameters of this deal, maybe we shouldn't be that surprised.

 

Nolasco had $17 million remaining on his deal; I didn't think he'd really have to be released for nothing, since he was healthy and at least eating innings, some other team would kick in at least a few million to take a flyer on him.  My ready example has been Bud Norris' $2.5 mil contract this past winter, and Nolasco was eating innings better than Norris circa 2015, and any team acquiring him in 2016 would get a bit of a head start at trying to fix him too, so maybe we could bump that up to $4 mil if we wanted to dump Nolasco now for pure salary relief.

 

Well, we actually dumped him on the Angels for $9 mil salary relief.  We also got the chance to offer Santiago arbitration, but that might actually reduce our return, if Santiago's trade value doesn't increase or if he's not fully worth his ~$8 mil final arbitration award (if he's a potential nontender, and Joe Saunders circa 2011 is a decent nontender comp, that could be the case).  So about a difference of $5 mil over what we could have reasonably been expected to get for Nolasco as a pure salary dump.

 

Setting aside Busenitz (who looks mostly like a depth piece), that could mean we effectively sold Meyer for about $5 mil, which is probably the going rate for a prospect even of his present suspect caliber.  Arizona sold Touki Toussaint for about $10 mil last year; Pittsburgh kinda sold McGuire and another iffy prospect for ~$15 mil in salary relief (Liriano's remaining guarantee, minus what Hutchison should make in arb). If Meyer's MRI was clean, he was probably worth $5 mil to try to put something together through his final option year.

 

So maybe we shouldn't be so surprised?  (Just spitballing here, not trying to be fastidious and pernickety!)

This isn't totally unreasonable, but Nolasco isn't just bad for his contract, he's just plain bad.  Arguably he has negative value.  

 

There's a few too many ifs for me in your last full paragraph (on Meyer): we can't really set Busenitz aside as he arguably has the same value as Meyer's, though with a lower ceiling; nor can we assume that Meyer's health will turn out to be clean.    I mean, if we don't consider the other prospect in the trade, and assume the prospect we traded away was healthy, there might be five million in value that the Twins gave up.   

 

It seems like you're playing out best-case scenarios for the Angels/worst-case for the Twins; conversely, I think the best-case-scenario for the Twins/worst-case scenario for the Angels is simply far more likely to occur.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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

You think the Angels made a major mistake with this trade?  I'm not so sure they passed on significantly better offers for Santiago.

 

And as bad as he's been, Nolasco has been eating innings as well as (or better than) Santiago this year.  And his performance hasn't been that disastrous recently -- even without looking at FIP, he's got a 82 ERA+ this year, compared to, say, Edwin Jackson's 60 when the Cubs started to give up on him a couple years ago. Or even, Ubaldo Jimenez at 63 this year.

 

Kevin Correia had an 81 ERA+ in 5 seasons starting when we signed him for 2/10.  It's a serviceable level, even before you look at any potential to get better (FIP and change of scenery).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This isn't totally unreasonable, but Nolasco isn't just bad for his contract, he's just plain bad.  Arguably he has negative value.  

 

There's a few too many ifs for me in your last full paragraph (on Meyer): we can't really set Busenitz aside as he arguably has the same value as Meyer's, though with a lower ceiling; nor can we assume that Meyer's health will turn out to be clean.    I mean, if we don't consider the other prospect in the trade, and assume the prospect we traded away was healthy, there might be five million in value that the Twins gave up.   

 

It seems like you're playing out best-case scenarios for the Angels/worst-case for the Twins; conversely, I think the best-case-scenario for the Twins/worst-case scenario for the Angels is simply far more likely to occur.

I was going by the Angels saying that Meyer's MRI was clean now, not trying to project it.  Obviously his health could get worse, but if it's clean now, I think he's probably worth something approaching $5 mil.

 

I'm really skeptical of any analysis that puts Busenitz on equal value footing with Meyer.  If Meyer is down in those value depths, it's because of health concerns, which isn't really the same as not having the talent/pedigree.  No one was going to buy Busenitz as a lotto ticket for anything close to $5 mil.

 

I'm trying to be balanced, I'm not trying to do best case for the Angels and worst case for the Twins.  But the fact is, the Twins don't really have a great best case.  It would be hard for Santiago to pitch better than he already has, which is his realistic path to extra value.  It would be hard to Busenitz to come completely out of nowhere.  But on the other hand, it's not that hard for Nolasco to improve, nor is it necessarily that hard for Meyer to contribute if he can just stay healthy for a bit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was going by the Angels saying that Meyer's MRI was clean now, not trying to project it. Obviously his health could get worse, but if it's clean now, I think he's probably worth something approaching $5 mil.

 

I'm really skeptical of any analysis that puts Busenitz on equal value footing with Meyer. If Meyer is down in those value depths, it's because of health concerns, which isn't really the same as not having the talent/pedigree. No one was going to buy Busenitz as a lotto ticket for anything close to $5 mil.

 

I'm trying to be balanced, I'm not trying to do best case for the Angels and worst case for the Twins. But the fact is, the Twins don't really have a great best case. It would be hard for Santiago to pitch better than he already has, which is his realistic path to extra value. It would be hard to Busenitz to come completely out of nowhere. But on the other hand, it's not that hard for Nolasco to improve, nor is it necessarily that hard for Meyer to contribute if he can just stay healthy for a bit.

I'm far closer to your view of this trade but I think the best case scenario for the Twins is for things to play out exactly as they have for the past two years.

 

That's not exactly an unlikely scenario.

 

But you're spot on that any statement of equivalency of Meyer and Busenitz is... Wrong.

 

The real player in motion here is Alex Meyer. He's the guy with legitimate upside and the ability to not only be a productive player but a dominant force in either the bullpen or rotation.

[jorgenswest]

I wonder if my understanding of the money is correct.

 

The Twins are paying Nolasco for the remainder of the year. After that he is owed 13 million. Of the 13 million the Twins are paying 4 million. That leaves 9 million which will be close to what they spend on Santiago if they take him to arbitration.

 

I don't see a savings for 2017 but I do see an upgrade of about 1 win if they retain Santiago. They also have the opportunity to deal Santiago as a rental. They can also non-tender and spend the money elsewhere but that amount isn't buying much more than a win. Since the cash is neutral, is the difference between Santiago and Nolasco to the Twins in 2017 worth more than the future difference of Meyer and Busenitz to the Angels?

 

Unless a team views itself as a solid contender for 2017, wouldn't they be better off gambling on the future?

[Mike Sixel]

 

I wonder if my understanding of the money is correct.

The Twins are paying Nolasco for the remainder of the year. After that he is owed 13 million. Of the 13 million the Twins are paying 4 million. That leaves 9 million which will be close to what they spend on Santiago if they take him to arbitration.

I don't see a savings for 2017 but I do see an upgrade of about 1 win if they retain Santiago. They also have the opportunity to deal Santiago as a rental. They can also non-tender and spend the money elsewhere but that amount isn't buying much more than a win. Since the cash is neutral, is the difference between Santiago and Nolasco to the Twins in 2017 worth more than the future difference of Meyer and Busenitz to the Angels?

Unless a team views itself as a solid contender for 2017, wouldn't they be better off gambling on the future?

 

You need to put some value on the flexibility....it isn't zero. Also, if you own the business, 9MM more in money is nothing to sneeze at, and in a season you aren't going to compete, and can't buy a good FA, more profit = good. 

 

Finally, Meyer is almost 28......he has pitched like 40 innings in the last 12 months......he has been hurt a lot over his time here, he's tall, he can't control his pitches.....

 

Yes, there is a lottery ticket there, but is that lottery ticket really worth much at all?

[ashbury]

I don't see a savings for 2017 but I do see an upgrade of about 1 win if they retain Santiago. ...They can also non-tender and spend the money elsewhere but that amount isn't buying much more than a win.

The flexibility aspect has been covered sufficiently by now, so let me introduce another angle. I use chess as an analogy now and then, even though I barely remember from game to game how the horsey is supposed to move. But as I understand it, chess at high levels is a game of small incremental advantages (barring outright mate-in-three blunders), built up until the advantage is overwhelming. The analogy isn't completely apt since a baseball GM is not playing against a single opponent but 4 or 14 or even 29. Still, I am content with a series of roster moves that follow a plan and that succeed two times out of three without any outright blunders. From such patience, championships can be built. I'm not going to go to the mat defending this one trade, but I am cautiously optimistic we are seeing the beginning of a self-consistent blueprint for 2017 and beyond.

 

If your analysis is we came out 1 win or $9M ahead of where we were on one deal, that's OK by me.

[jorgenswest]

I think I agree with both of you above.

 

Is it fair to say the deal has little long term value to the Twins? There should be a 1 win bump next year if they use the 9 million wisely (either taking Santiago to arbitration or spending it in free agency).

 

Is it also fair to say that the Angels have the better odds at long term upside? With that upside comes the greater likelihood that they will get less from Nolasco than Santiago next year and Meyer will never be healthy.

[alarp33]

 

Finally, Meyer is almost 28......he has pitched like 40 innings in the last 12 months......he has been hurt a lot over his time here, he's tall, he can't control his pitches.....

 

Yes, there is a lottery ticket there, but is that lottery ticket really worth much at all?

Meyer will be 26 until January, let's not age him too much.

 

Pat Light can't control his pitches, even more so than Meyer, is 1 year younger and doesn't have Meyers stuff. The general consensus here was he was a good pickup (I was fine with that deal).

 

Considering where baseball salaries currently sit, I certainly think Meyer is worth a $5million flier. 6 years control for a potential backend bullpen guy (I have no faith he is a starter long term).

[TheLeviathan]

I think people are trying too hard to judge this based on assumptions.  Right now all we can do is judge it based on what we know it did:

 

We're rid of Nolasco, we have more flexibility, and we have a better starter out of it.  

 

The only negative is the odds you put on Meyer being anything remotely close to a good piece.  Since I don't see that happening (sadly), I'd say the positives we know right now far outweigh the negatives.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Pat Light can't control his pitches, even more so than Meyer, is 1 year younger and doesn't have Meyers stuff. The general consensus here was he was a good pickup (I was fine with that deal).

 

If we could have dealt Abad to get rid of Nolasco, would you have said no?

 

I'd hope not.  Of course Light and Meyer are about the same guy.  The difference is that one of them only cost us a minor league invite to a guy we recouped value on.  The other guy bought us out of a bad player and gave us a semi-competent one in return.

 

Basically, we used our Pat Light to much more value than Boston used their Pat Light.