Article: Hard Truths

[one_eyed_jack]

Whether or not trading him was the right thing to do is a separate issue. They certainly didn't have to move him. And I wouldn't disagree with the position that if what they got was the best available offer, it might have been better to keep him and make the qualifying offer.

 

My only issue is with this claim that with by engaging in better marketing bluster and planting rumors, the Twins could have duped someone into giving up more for Liriano. MLB teams have enough reliable information and intelligence on other players that they do not need to rely on posturing and hype when valuing potential trade targets.

 

There are plenty of legit reasons to rip on the front office, arguably including the decision to trade Liriano at all. But failure to get more for him when they did isn't one of them, it just wasn't realistic than anyone was going to give up more than Chicago did.

[Jim H]

"Debating whether or not they should have traded Liriano is fair. Given what they received, I honestly would have probably preferred to just hold him and make the qualifying offer during the offseason. I think it's a risk a team like the Twins should be able to take"

 

I don't really think that holding on to Liriano makes a whole lot of sense. It is pretty darn likely that he will be available for a lot less than that this off-season. Largely I agree with your earlier argument, that the Twins got what they could for Liriano and that is about all he is worth given his history.

 

I also think there is some chance that one or the other of the 2 prospects received in this trade may turn out to be rather useful. A lot of "high ceiling" prospects don't ever get anywhere near their ceilings. A couple of 23 year olds who may have been rushed a bit through the White Sox organization may have a little more ceiling than is readily apparent. Ryan actually has a bit of a track record of picking up useful players in what are basically player dumps.

[Willihammer]

it just wasn't realistic than anyone was going to give up more than Chicago did.

I'll say it was realistic, on the same basis of information you have atm - nothing.

 

Hernandez is a much lousier pitcher than Liriano. All of the downside, none of the upside.

 

There is ample evidence to suggest that allowing Liriano increased liberty with his slider would increase value "immediately," as the CWS claim and which is - something amenable to strikeouts and therefore contrary to pitch to contact / Anderson=Pohlad theory.

 

Still, the issue which no one has even addressed - disproportionality.

 

How does Liriano net a bag of balls compared to no. 1 and No. 2 prospects (plus 2+ more prospects) not warrant an inquiry?

 

I think you defenders are naive. Liriano was not Greinke / Hamels, but he was on the tier of Sanchez (arguably, a tier above). Jr. blew it, plain and simple. No reason Liriano should have been traded after Sanchez.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think you defenders are naive. Liriano was not Greinke / Hamels, but he was on the tier of Sanchez (arguably, a tier above). Jr. blew it, plain and simple. No reason Liriano should have been traded after Sanchez.

Sanchez is both a better pitcher and is more consistant than Liriano, posting an ERA+ of 117, 106, 100, 104 over the past four years with nearly 200 IP every year (compared to Liriano's epic ERA+ of 76, 112, 80, 77). He's the anti-Liriano. Unspectacular but far far FAR more consistent. The type of guy you give up a little more to get because he's worth extending to a multi-year deal.

 

And it's really convenient that the people who want to play up Liriano have the tendency to ignore that the Marlins also gave up Infante in the trade, a middle infielder who is signed cheaply through 2013, has posted an OPS+ of 100 this season, and has posted a WAR of 2.9, 2.3, and 1.8 (partial season) over the past three years.

 

And if you are a contending team, why on earth would you trade for Liriano when Sanchez is on the market? That would be a colossally stupid move. You try to get the best guys on the market first, not leave them on the board for your competition to snatch up later.

 

In short, I don't think you should be calling anyone naive.

[Willihammer]

Sanchez is both a better pitcher and is more consistant than Liriano, posting an ERA+ of 117, 106, 100, 104 over the past four years with nearly 200 IP every year (compared to Liriano's epic ERA+ of 76, 112, 80, 77). He's the anti-Liriano. Unspectacular but far far FAR more consistent. The type of guy you give up a little more to get because he's worth extending to a multi-year deal.

 

And it's really convenient that the people who want to play up Liriano have the tendency to ignore that the Marlins also gave up Infante in the trade

The convnience you're ignoring is the absolute objective WAR, where Liriano is comparable to Sanchex, or even faborable. He's also lefthanded, and poichting in the American league. 2 more slices in his favor.

 

True Infante is a valuable piece but only valuable in the replacemenent sense. Not much upside there from the 30 y/o perennial .713 part time outfielder / bench player.

[Kobs]

It's nice to have an ace, but the Twins seem to get by pretty well with adequate arms. Just don't expect much playoff action.

I'm sorry, what?

[Oxtung]

See intermediate comments. the assertion is not that Greinke=Liriano. If anything, Liriano ~=~ Sanchez (who caught the Tigers No. 2 overall prospect - a much better farm than CWS too).

 

It is the disproportion raising flags.

 

Even the Astros go the Pirates 8th best prospect (better farm than CWS) for a 33 y/o who's career WAR compares closely to Liriano's.

 

Here is your original statement about Greinke:

How much marginal value over 12 starts does Greinke provide to Liriano? I'll put the over under at one, with a distinct possibility Liriano has a better final 2 months then Greinke outright.

 

So yes in fact you did directly compare Greinke to Liriano. You can back pedal from that if you'd like but it did happen.

 

You, and several other posters, seem to be making the mistake of think 2010 Liriano is the "real" Liriano and he should return value equivalent to that year. You completely are dismissing that 2009, 2011 and now in 2012 he has been a bad pitcher. When you look at the other pitchers that have been traded they have been average to good 2009-2012. When you are a better pitcher of course you're going to return more of value.

[chopper0080]

Again, the real hard lesson is that to get quality, you have to give up quality.

And most would agree that Liriano was not quality.

 

I have no issues with this deal other than my own false hope we would get more for him.

[hoffy]

True Infante is a valuable piece but only valuable in the replacemenent sense. Not much upside there from the 30 y/o perennial .713 part time outfielder / bench player.

He's actually Detroit's starting 2B and that .713 compares closely to Luis Castillo's career numbers. The beauty of making a playoff run is that you don't have to worry too much about upside, you want results now. In my opinion Infante is going to help Detroit as much as Sanchez.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The convnience you're ignoring is the absolute objective WAR, where Liriano is comparable to Sanchex, or even faborable. He's also lefthanded, and poichting in the American league. 2 more slices in his favor.

 

That's an excellent point... well, it would have been if you hadn't made it up. Baseball-Reference has Sanchez's last three WARs at 2.9, 3.5, 1.4 compared to Liriano's 4.0 .6, -.5.

 

Fangraphs has Sanchez's last three WARs at 4.4, 3.8, 2.2 compared to Liriano's 6.0, 1.0, 1.1.

 

Again, not even close to the same player.

 

True Infante is a valuable piece but only valuable in the replacemenent sense. Not much upside there from the 30 y/o perennial .713 part time outfielder / bench player.

 

Infante has a combined WAR of 8.2 in the past 2 2/3rd seasons. You understand that WAR means "wins above replacement", right? And that a player worth an average of 2.5-3.0 WAR per season is, by the term's very definition, not a replacement player?

[kab21]

Wow, I had no idea so many people loved Liriano and missed his run of awful the last few seasons. He might have an excellent post Twins career because he does have excellent stuff but this has to be one of the most obvious situations where it's better for two sides to part. The good Liriano wasn't going to happen in MN.

[dwintheiser]

The convnience you're ignoring is the absolute objective WAR, where Liriano is comparable to Sanchex, or even faborable. He's also lefthanded, and poichting in the American league. 2 more slices in his favor.

Both of these are very specious points.

 

First off, actually looking at baseball-reference's WAR values shows that these two guys aren't really comparable:

 

Since 2007 -

Sanchez = 9.3

Liriano = 4.0

 

Bumping this back to 2006 is highly questionable, since it includes a season prior to Liriano's latest injury, but even so, Sanchez's 2006 was also really good (10-3, 2.83 ERA, 1.19 WHIP), so that the difference remains pretty much the same:

 

Since 2006 -

Sanchez = 12.9

Liriano = 8.4

 

Fangraph's WAR makes the two pitchers look much more equal, for reasons I can't figure out. You can cling to that if you want, but citing Fangraphs while dismissing baseball-reference would be as big a mistake as citing baseball-reference while dismissing Fangraphs -- and neither make Liriano look better than Sanchez.

 

Second, the difference between the American and National Leagues in terms of pitchers' ERA isn't that huge; AL teams score an average of 4.46 runs per game, resulting in a mean ERA of 4.07, while NL teams score an average of 4.24 runs per game, resulting in a mean ERA of 3.97. So, sure, you could say that Sanchez's ERA might go up in the AL while Liriano's might go down in the NL. Even so, that Liriano's ERA will look better and Sanchez's will look worse doesn't mean that either pitcher will actually be better or worse -- all you're changing is the context, not the underlying value.

 

While I'm not normally a fan of this kind of statement, in this case, I think the market got the analysis right -- Sanchez is a more valuable pitcher than Liriano, and is more likely to have a positive impact on his team, and thus was worth more to acquire.