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

[alarp33]

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.

I'm not willing to concede we have a much better starter out of it. Marginally better at best. So I also won't concede flexibility, as it relates to flipping Santiago, because I don't think he'll have value next summer either. I also would be shocked if he was non tendered, but with the new regime I guess that's possible.

[alarp33]

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.

 

Well I would take Meyer over Light. Was just pointing out the location issues. I replied to your other post with more thoughts. Im not excited in the least about Santiago, so I would've preferred to keep Meyer and buyout more of Nolasco

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not willing to concede we have a much better starter out of it. Marginally better at best. So I also won't concede flexibility, as it relates to flipping Santiago, because I don't think he'll have value next summer either. I also would be shocked if he was non tendered, but with the new regime I guess that's possible.

 

I didn't say much better.  I said he's better.  And he is better.  

 

Santiago has next to zero chance of having as equally crappy value as Nolasco has.  Mostly because he's a better pitcher making less money.

 

If we're going to judge this trade on "They should've done a buyout" we might as well start suggesting they blackmail Nolasco into retiring.  Or that aliens will come and declare Nolasco their new king and whisk him to another planet.  They are pretty much equally on the table as a buyout.

Edited August 4, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[alarp33]

I didn't say much better.  I said he's better.  And he is better.  

 

Santiago has next to zero chance of having as equally crappy value as Nolasco has.  Mostly because he's a better pitcher making less money.

Well in terms of next deadline, or whenever, they are making the same amount of money, since the Angels will owe Nolasco about what the Twins will owe Santiago.

 

I'm struggling with the people who on one hand completely dismiss Meyer, and are overjoyed to be rid of Nolasco, but for some reason think Santiago is going to magically have value soon (he just got traded for Nolasco and Meyer...)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well in terms of next deadline, or whenever, they are making the same amount of money, since the Angels will owe Nolasco about what the Twins will owe Santiago.

I'm struggling with the people who on one hand completely dismiss Meyer, and are overjoyed to be rid of Nolasco, but for some reason think Santiago is going to magically have value soon (he just got traded for Nolasco and Meyer...)

 

To the team we are trading Santiago to - he makes less money than Nolasco.  So no, that's not correct.  He's a better pitcher with a lower salary.

 

I don't think he's going to have magical value.  He'll just, almost certainly, have better than negative value.  

 

And Meyer has given us plenty of reasons to dismiss him.  I don't blame you for having hope, but it's totally baseless hope at this point.  The kid can't even stay on the field much less perform.

[alarp33]

To the team we are trading Santiago to - he makes less money than Nolasco.  So no, that's not correct.  He's a better pitcher with a lower salary.

 

I don't think he's going to have magical value.  He'll just, almost certainly, have better than negative value.  

 

And Meyer has given us plenty of reasons to dismiss him.  I don't blame you for having hope, but it's totally baseless hope at this point.  The kid can't even stay on the field much less perform.

I think we're talking different things here. I mean 2017 trade deadline, if both are out there. They will be owed about the same amount of money.

 

I have no issues with you dismissing him. Just saying, the best the Angels could do for Santiago was Nolasco and Meyer. I think around the league he is probably seen in a similar light to a Tommy Milone, very little value.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think we're talking different things here. I mean 2017 trade deadline, if both are out there. They will be owed about the same amount of money.

I have no issues with you dismissing him. Just saying, the best the Angels could do for Santiago was Nolasco and Meyer. I think around the league he is probably seen in a similar light to a Tommy Milone, very little value.

 

I don't think the Angels wanted to deal Santiago.  I think they were desperate for upside and gave up a clearly better starter for a clearly inferior one.  

 

At the 2017 deadline Ricky Nolasco will have a salary of 12M and on the hook for another season at 13M.  Santiago will be 9M and a pending FA.  What we paid to LAA in this deal is utterly irrelevant to that comparison. Santiago will have a lower salary number and likely be a better pitcher.

[Otto von Ballpark]

To the team we are trading Santiago to - he makes less money than Nolasco. So no, that's not correct. He's a better pitcher with a lower salary.

The Angels are paying Nolasco $8 mil next year. The Twins will likely pay Santiago about $8 mil if they tender him a contract this winter. To the teams they could hypothetically be traded to in the next year and a half, they carry virtually the exact same financial obligation. (I guess the Angels are also on the hook for Nolasco's $1 mil option buyout)

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Angels are paying Nolasco $8 mil next year. The Twins will likely pay Santiago about $8 mil if they tender him a contract this winter. To the teams they could hypothetically be traded to in the next year and a half, they carry virtually the exact same financial obligation. (I guess the Angels are also on the hook for Nolasco's $1 mil option buyout)

 

To the Angels he is 8M.  To any other team that were to acquire him, he's a 12M dollar pitcher unless the Angels include that cash.

 

And even if both are making 8M, one is a better pitcher.  So, if the pricetag is the same, the superior pitcher has more value.  So, the point still stands regardless.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If we're going to judge this trade on "They should've done a buyout" we might as well start suggesting they blackmail Nolasco into retiring. Or that aliens will come and declare Nolasco their new king and whisk him to another planet. They are pretty much equally on the table as a buyout.

I think by "buyout more of", the poster meant pay more of Nolasco's salary in trade. We likely could have dumped him somewhere else by picking up ~$13 mil, by my estimation (at which point he'd basically be a flyer like Bud Norris circa last winter).

[alarp33]

I don't think the Angels wanted to deal Santiago.  I think they were desperate for upside and gave up a clearly better starter for a clearly inferior one.  

 

At the 2017 deadline Ricky Nolasco will have a salary of 12M and on the hook for another season at 13M.  Santiago will be 9M and a pending FA.  What we paid to LAA in this deal is utterly irrelevant to that comparison. Santiago will have a lower salary number and likely be a better pitcher.

Again, I don't think Santiago is clearly better. If he was, I'm guessing he could've brought back more than a clearly inferior pitcher and extreme long shot

 

Yes, Nolasco will make $12 million next year, but the Angels (or team they will hypothetically trade him to) only will be paying $8 million of that. He's not on the hook for $13, he's on the hook for $1million buyout.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think by "buyout more of", the poster meant pay more of Nolasco's salary in trade. We likely could have dumped him somewhere else by picking up ~$13 mil, by my estimation (at which point he'd basically be a flyer like Bud Norris circa last winter).

 

Again, do you know of any alien races that worship Ricky Nolasco as a god?  Or should we continue to posit things totally unrealistic as alternatives for fun?

 

Otherwise I find that exercise totally pointless.  The Pohlads were never going to do that, so why continue to fantasize otherwise?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, I don't think Santiago is clearly better. If he was, I'm guessing he could've brought back more than a clearly inferior pitcher and extreme long shot

Yes, Nolasco will make $12 million next year, but the Angels (or team they will hypothetically trade him to) only will be paying $8 million of that. He's not on the hook for $13, he's on the hook for $1million buyout.

 

He is demonstrably, clearly better.  He is a career 107 ERA+ compared to Nolasco's 89.  And before you cite predictive stats, Santiago has beat those predictive stats every year.  Nolasco has under-performed them.  So, yes.  He's a better pitcher.  

 

Only the Angels are paying 8M.  If they flip him in three months to the Yankees for a bag of hammers, the Yankees will pay him 12M, unless the Angels pass that cash along with him.  So, again, you're making an assumption.

 

Here are the non-assumptions:

 

By every measure on the field Santiago has been a better pitcher for the last 5 years.  

 

Santiago will have a lower salary next year. 

 

Short of Nolasco learning to hit 40 homeruns or some other wild assumption, he'll be a less valuable player based on those two things: he's a worse pitcher making more money.  Saying nothing about age, Santiago being a lefty, or anything else.

[alarp33]

Again, do you know of any alien races that worship Ricky Nolasco as a god?  Or should we continue to posit things totally unrealistic as alternatives for fun?

 

Otherwise I find that exercise totally pointless.  The Pohlads were never going to do that, so why continue to fantasize otherwise?

I'm not getting the alien reference? The Pohlads likely aren't involved in baseball decisions, Antony couldn't have come to them and said instead of a straight salary swap (Santiago/Nilasco), we're gonna save ~$3.5 million next year?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not getting the alien reference? The Pohlads likely aren't involved in baseball decisions, Antony couldn't have come to them and said instead of a straight salary swap (Santiago/Nilasco), we're gonna save ~$3.5 million next year?

 

So...now you're going to argue the Pohlads wouldn't be involved in cutting a check for 15-20M for a buyout?

 

C'mon.  Hell, I'm shocked they paid as much as they did.

[alarp33]

He is demonstrably, clearly better.  He is a career 107 ERA+ compared to Nolasco's 89.  And before you cite predictive stats, Santiago has beat those predictive stats every year.  Nolasco has under-performed them.  So, yes.  He's a better pitcher.  

 

Only the Angels are paying 8M.  If they flip him in three months to the Yankees for a bag of hammers, the Yankees will pay him 12M, unless the Angels pass that cash along with him.  So, again, you're making an assumption.

 

Here are the non-assumptions:

 

By every measure on the field Santiago has been a better pitcher for the last 5 years.  

 

Santiago will have a lower salary next year. 

 

Short of Nolasco learning to hit 40 homeruns or some other wild assumption, he'll be a less valuable player based on those two things: he's a worse pitcher making more money.  Saying nothing about age, Santiago being a lefty, or anything else.

The Twins are paying Nolasco $4 million next season, they did not cut the Angels a check for $4 million. That seems to be the disconnect were having

[Otto von Ballpark]

To the Angels he is 8M. To any other team that were to acquire him, he's a 12M dollar pitcher unless the Angels include that cash.

I don't think this is true. In practical terms, I have never seen an MLB team withhold cash sent to pay part of a player's salary in a future trade (and cash has been involved in a lot of deals). In technical terms, I think such a practice might throw off luxury tax calculations too? I think the money is tied to the player in the proportion decided by the teams.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Twins are paying Nolasco $4 million next season, they did not cut the Angels a check for $4 million. That seems to be the disconnect were having

 

My understanding is they are, according to Bernadino, "sending along" 4M.  I don't think they are directly paying Ricky Nolasco, unless you have some other source?

[alarp33]

So...now you're going to argue the Pohlads wouldn't be involved in cutting a check for 15-20M for a buyout?

 

C'mon.  Hell, I'm shocked they paid as much as they did.

No. What I'm saying is they agreed to keep the 2016+2017 payrolls the same, they swapped out Nolasco for Santiago but will be paying the same amount in payroll.

 

They could've picked up all but say, the $3.5 spy cake suggested, and had a payroll in 2017 that was about $3 million less than its currently slated to be (factored in a rookie contract for say, a Mejia)

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think this is true. In practical terms, I have never seen an MLB team withhold cash sent to pay part of a player's salary in a future trade (and cash has been involved in a lot of deals). In technical terms, I think such a practice might throw off luxury tax calculations too? I think the money is tied to the player in the proportion decided by the teams.

 

That's certainly not the way it's phrased.  The phrase is always that we "send cash" to offset things.  I'd welcome some link in detail explaining how the Twins are paying this, but the phrasing clearly indicates that the Twins are basically sending money to the Angels.  Not picking up his pay checks as you guys seem to be implying.

[alarp33]

My understanding is they are, according to Bernadino, "sending along" 4M.  I don't think they are directly paying Ricky Nolasco, unless you have some other source?

I'm having trouble quoting from my iPad, but go to MLB trade rumors article on the trade, very bottom of the article

[TheLeviathan]

 

No. What I'm saying is they agreed to keep the 2016+2017 payrolls the same, they swapped out Nolasco for Santiago but will be paying the same amount in payroll.

They could've picked up all but say, the $3.5 spy cake suggested, and had a payroll in 2017 that was about $3 million less than its currently slated to be (factored in a rookie contract for say, a Mejia)

 

They're paying the same amount in payroll, but they are doing so with a better, younger starter in the fold and at the cost of a player who they have given up on.  

 

If you had told me, pre-deadline, that the Twins could trade Nolasco and Meyer and get a better, younger starter in return with no payroll increase - I'd have said you were a crazy person.  Yet here we are.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm having trouble quoting from my iPad, but go to MLB trade rumors article on the trade, very bottom of the article

 

Rosenthal and Bernadino's phrasing definitely don't match up.  

 

But even if Rosenthal is right, and their money obligations are equal, there is a MUCH better chance based on the last five years that Santiago is a more valuable player.  

 

Because, you know, he hasn't totally sucked as a pitcher.

Edited August 4, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[alarp33]

They're paying the same amount in payroll, but they are doing so with a better, younger starter in the fold and at the cost of a player who they have given up on.

 

If you had told me, pre-deadline, that the Twins could trade Nolasco and Meyer and get a better, younger starter in return with no payroll increase - I'd have said you were a crazy person. Yet here we are.

Well I was strictly commenting on the notion they wouldn't have picked up more of his salary.

 

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on Santiago being a better pitcher. Is he a win more valuable in 2017? Sure, I'll concede that. For a team that likely will have a win total in the 70's will that make any sort of difference? That's where I'll say definitely not. If anything, it may prevent them from acquiring a better rotation option, where a Nolasco "salary dump" would've kept that spot open

 

I agree with 95% of your takes on this board, no hard feelings, I just don't share the optimism on this one.

Edited August 4, 2016 by alarp33

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on Santiago being a better pitcher. Is he a win more valuable in 2017? Sure, I'll concede that. For a team that likely will have a win total in the 70's will that make any sort of difference? That's where I'll say definitely not. If anything, it may prevent them from acquiring a better rotation option, where a Nolasco "salary dump" would've kept that spot open

 

So, you concede he is better, but not better enough?

 

They dealt Nolasco and Meyer and got a better starter with no extra financial commitments.  Again, prior to the deadline, such a notion would've been absurd.  And yet we did.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Again, do you know of any alien races that worship Ricky Nolasco as a god? Or should we continue to posit things totally unrealistic as alternatives for fun?

 

Otherwise I find that exercise totally pointless. The Pohlads were never going to do that, so why continue to fantasize otherwise?

Never? If Antony said, we can send $13 mil with Nolasco and open his roster spot, or we can send $6.4 mil with him, take on an additional ~$8 mil in obligations for a different player, and send a prospect too perhaps valued at ~$5 mil, the Pohlads would gladly approve of one of those deals, but would never approve the other?

 

I think we are letting our Nolasco hate obscure how close those deals are, in terms of financial impact.

[alarp33]

So, you concede he is better, but not better enough?

 

They dealt Nolasco and Meyer and got a better starter with no extra financial commitments.  Again, prior to the deadline, such a notion would've been absurd.  And yet we did.

 

I agree he is better in the strictest sense of the term better. I don't think he is "better" in a way that makes the 2017 Twins any better. Does that make any sense? Probably not, but it's late

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree he is better in the strictest sense of the term better. I don't think he is "better" in a way that makes the 2017 Twins any better. Does that make any sense? Probably not, but it's late

 

Maybe, but again your contention is built on an assumption about 2017.  Evaluate the deal for what it is right now.  Nolasco and Meyer for a better starter and no extra money.  That's a win.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's certainly not the way it's phrased. The phrase is always that we "send cash" to offset things. I'd welcome some link in detail explaining how the Twins are paying this, but the phrasing clearly indicates that the Twins are basically sending money to the Angels. Not picking up his pay checks as you guys seem to be implying.

I think it is on you to find a link or example that says otherwise. The Dodgers in particular have sent tons of money with players, and every player that has been dealt again, the third team inherited the Dodgers contribution.

 

"Send cash" is just shorthand, I am sure you can find many examples of trades reported as "team X will pay this part of player Y's salary" too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think it is on you to find a link or example that says otherwise. The Dodgers in particular have sent tons of money with players, and every player that has been dealt again, the third team inherited the Dodgers contribution.

"Send cash" is just shorthand, I am sure you can find many examples of trades reported as "team X will pay this part of player Y's salary" too.

 

I did reference the link and quoted Bernadino's phrasing.  And, even in the best case for your argument,  if we are actually picking up his money regardless of where he goes, he's still a worse pitcher for the same price.