Article: Twins Trade Kintzler To Nationals

[nicksaviking]

 

Chief?

 

Chief has no magic powers except to make disappear those who derail threads

[USAFChief]

 

Chief has no magic powers except to make disappear those who derail threads

True, but don't taunt Mrs Chief

 

[peterb18]

Read Rand's article in today's paper...especially the comments.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

While I see nothing wrong with these trades in a vacuum, and actually see some things to like, I share John's and Chief's concern about the context.

People excuse the Kintzler deal because we've fallen back in the race over the last week and he's a FA in 2 months -- but if we had invested in a real reliever last offseason, as was blindingly obvious to everyone, it is quite possible that we wouldn't have fallen this far back in the race.

And many consider the Garcia sequence to be especially good deals, and I admire the nimble pivot in a way, but wouldn't it have been better to get Garcia last winter? Then we could have had the benefits of his pitching for 4 months, plus the potential for getting Littell if we had still been out of the race today. Given how their performance and/or health in 2016, it was pretty inexcusable that we were asked to rely on Santiago, Gibson, Hughes, and even May to the extent that we have in the 2017 rotation. And please don't hold the encouraging seasons of Berrios and Mejia as hostage here -- there was plenty of room for a skilled front office to shorten the leashes of the suspect vets over the untested/improving youth. Not to mention the starts we've flushed with Turley, Jorge, etc.

Yes, we came off a 103 loss season, although many considered it more like a 70 win season with a bonehead decision (Sano to RF) plus some bad luck. Even so, a 103 loss season is not an excuse to rely on all of the same rotation and bullpen suspects for yet another season. And while a new FO will have adjustment/evaluation periods in certain situations and levels, these areas of weakness on the MLB roster don't seem to have warranted complete inactivity. It shouldn't have required a veteran front office to add Holland instead of Breslow and Haley, or to add Garcia in anticipation of continued problems from Hughes, Gibson, Santiago, and May.

While I suppose there wasn't much else to do by the time we got to July 31, and the day in isolation went pretty well for us, it highlights a lot of the concerns we've had about the front office for the months leading up to that day. Far bigger than yesterday's trade "successes" will be the upcoming offseason, when action will be required and the suspect excuses of 103 losses / new FO will no longer be applicable (if they ever were).

 

This is a very fair take on the issue. They didn't go out and get pen help, and even if guys like Curtiss, Busenitz, and Hildenberger excel over the next two months, I do hope they go out and get some real RP/SP help this offseason. That would be inexcusable in my opinion given where the hitting core currently sits.

[markos]

 

And many consider the Garcia sequence to be especially good deals, and I admire the nimble pivot in a way, but wouldn't it have been better to get Garcia last winter? Then we could have had the benefits of his pitching for 4 months, plus the potential for getting Littell if we had still been out of the race today. Given how their performance and/or health in 2016, it was pretty inexcusable that we were asked to rely on Santiago, Gibson, Hughes, and even May to the extent that we have in the 2017 rotation. And please don't hold the encouraging seasons of Berrios and Mejia as hostage here -- there was plenty of room for a skilled front office to shorten the leashes of the suspect vets over the untested/improving youth. Not to mention the starts we've flushed with Turley, Jorge, etc.

In defense of the front office regarding the rotation, I think they were counting on receiving a big-league-ready starter as part of any Brian Dozier trade. That trade soap opera didn't really finalize until the end of January, and by that point there weren't many (any?) good options remaining for starters to trade/sign. I guess Hammels was still available, as well as guys like Scott Feldman and Jered Weaver. But hard to fault them for just rolling with what they had at that point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And many consider the Garcia sequence to be especially good deals, and I admire the nimble pivot in a way, but wouldn't it have been better to get Garcia last winter? Then we could have had the benefits of his pitching for 4 months, plus the potential for getting Littell if we had still been out of the race today. Given how their performance and/or health in 2016, it was pretty inexcusable that we were asked to rely on Santiago, Gibson, Hughes, and even May to the extent that we have in the 2017 rotation. And please don't hold the encouraging seasons of Berrios and Mejia as hostage here -- there was plenty of room for a skilled front office to shorten the leashes of the suspect vets over the untested/improving youth. Not to mention the starts we've flushed with Turley, Jorge, etc.

I think we can all agree on the bullpen so I'm focusing on this.

 

I have no issues with the front office not making trades last offseason, particularly for Garcia. Three reasons:

 

1. They were new to the organization. They had more than their fair share of work just to figure out who to trust in evaluations, what to prioritize, and they got a really late start on all of it due to Cleveland's deep run.

 

2. Garcia was off the block very early in the offseason, even before the winter meetings (December 1st).

 

3. The front office obviously put a lot of their resources into finding a suitable home for Dozier, unfortunately it did not work out.

[Mike Sixel]

 

While I see nothing wrong with these trades in a vacuum, and actually see some things to like, I share John's and Chief's concern about the context.

..........

While I suppose there wasn't much else to do by the time we got to July 31, and the day in isolation went pretty well for us, it highlights a lot of the concerns we've had about the front office for the months leading up to that day. Far bigger than yesterday's trade "successes" will be the upcoming offseason, when action will be required and the suspect excuses of 103 losses / new FO will no longer be applicable (if they ever were).

 

I am in love with this post. Like isn't strong enough.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In defense of the front office regarding the rotation, I think they were counting on receiving a big-league-ready starter as part of any Brian Dozier trade. That trade soap opera didn't really finalize until the end of January, and by that point there weren't many (any?) good options remaining for starters to trade/sign. I guess Hammels was still available, as well as guys like Scott Feldman and Jered Weaver. But hard to fault them for just rolling with what they had at that point.

That's not much of a defense. There was never much demand for Dozier. Counting on that return would be akin to expecting top prospects in trade for Ervin Santana. I'm going to give the FO some credit and assume that while they kept a dialogue open with the Dodgers, they weren't counting on that outcome, especially not into January.

 

If they were, then we might be in more trouble than I thought.

 

Plus, had they acquired Garcia first and then another pitcher later, they could have pivoted on Garcia too. Or Santiago, whose contract wasn't fully guaranteed, etc.

 

(FWIW, Cahill signed late as well.)

[drjim]

 

That's not much of a defense. There was never much demand for Dozier. Counting on that return would be akin to expecting top prospects in trade for Ervin Santana. I'm going to give the FO some credit and assume that while they kept a dialogue open with the Dodgers, they weren't counting on that outcome, especially not into January.

If they were, then we might be in more trouble than I thought.

Plus, had they acquired Garcia first and then another pitcher later, they could have pivoted on Garcia too. Or Santiago, whose contract wasn't fully guaranteed, etc.

(FWIW, Cahill signed late as well.)

 

They probably should have signed another pitcher, but now advocating they should have traded for Garcia in November is a little rich.

[drjim]

 

While I see nothing wrong with these trades in a vacuum, and actually see some things to like, I share John's and Chief's concern about the context.

People excuse the Kintzler deal because we've fallen back in the race over the last week and he's a FA in 2 months -- but if we had invested in a real reliever last offseason, as was blindingly obvious to everyone, it is quite possible that we wouldn't have fallen this far back in the race.

And many consider the Garcia sequence to be especially good deals, and I admire the nimble pivot in a way, but wouldn't it have been better to get Garcia last winter? Then we could have had the benefits of his pitching for 4 months, plus the potential for getting Littell if we had still been out of the race today. Given how their performance and/or health in 2016, it was pretty inexcusable that we were asked to rely on Santiago, Gibson, Hughes, and even May to the extent that we have in the 2017 rotation. And please don't hold the encouraging seasons of Berrios and Mejia as hostage here -- there was plenty of room for a skilled front office to shorten the leashes of the suspect vets over the untested/improving youth. Not to mention the starts we've flushed with Turley, Jorge, etc.

Yes, we came off a 103 loss season, although many considered it more like a 70 win season with a bonehead decision (Sano to RF) plus some bad luck. Even so, a 103 loss season is not an excuse to rely on all of the same rotation and bullpen suspects for yet another season. And while a new FO will have adjustment/evaluation periods in certain situations and levels, these areas of weakness on the MLB roster don't seem to have warranted complete inactivity. It shouldn't have required a veteran front office to add Holland instead of Breslow and Haley, or to add Garcia in anticipation of continued problems from Hughes, Gibson, Santiago, and May.

While I suppose there wasn't much else to do by the time we got to July 31, and the day in isolation went pretty well for us, it highlights a lot of the concerns we've had about the front office for the months leading up to that day. Far bigger than yesterday's trade "successes" will be the upcoming offseason, when action will be required and the suspect excuses of 103 losses / new FO will no longer be applicable (if they ever were).

 

Tl;dr, the Twins should have signed better relievers. A very accurate and oft pointed out position.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think we can all agree on the bullpen so I'm focusing on this.

 

I have no issues with the front office not making trades last offseason, particularly for Garcia. Three reasons:

 

1. They were new to the organization. They had more than their fair share of work just to figure out who to trust in evaluations, what to prioritize, and they got a really late start on all of it due to Cleveland's deep run.

 

2. Garcia was off the block very early in the offseason, even before the winter meetings (December 1st).

 

3. The front office obviously put a lot of their resources into finding a suitable home for Dozier, unfortunately it did not work out.

On #3, see my reply to Markos above. Unless they were closer than we thought to accepting De Leon staight up, that was never a meaningful possibility. And cheaply renting Garcia wouldn't preclude that.

 

On #1, we're not talking about evaluating scouts and systems and the full minor leagues. We are talking about a handful of MLB pitchers who Falvey and Levine should have been plenty familiar with. Gibson was terrible in 2016, Santiago was terrible with the Twins in 2016, Hughes was terrible and very seriously injured in 2016, and May was both shaky and hurt in a bullpen role the past season. And they didn't have to give up on any of them, just get another arm to stretch our resources to cover the inevitable gaps.

 

If they can't balance that basic consideration with the other duties and responsibilities of being a GM, then I would seriously question not just their baseball judgement, but their basic fitness for the job.

[Otto von Ballpark]

They probably should have signed another pitcher, but now advocating they should have traded for Garcia in November is a little rich.

It's not specific advocacy, it's an example of how meaningful rotation reinforcements weren't so unattainable last winter, as often claimed around here.

 

Look at the 2017 rotation. The two prospects -- Berrios and Mejia -- improved/advanced, but otherwise it was almost a perfect repeat of 2016, and mostly not in a good way.

[drivlikejehu]

Sure, they could have added marginal pitchers to their existing group of marginal pitchers. But as to which ones, it's obvious hindsight bias that wasn't available to the Twins at the time. Most of those marginal guys wind up producing zero (or negative) value. 

 

It's not realistic to take a non-existent pitching staff and turn it into something decent in one off-season. It would be possible with a time machine, to be sure, but otherwise there is no quick, easy way to do it. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by drivlikejehu

[drjim]

 

It's not specific advocacy, it's an example of how meaningful rotation reinforcements weren't so unattainable last winter, as often claimed around here.

Look at the 2017 rotation. The two prospects -- Berrios and Mejia -- improved/advanced, but otherwise it was almost a perfect repeat of 2016, and mostly not in a good way.

 

I was a soft advocate for adding another starter in the offseason, and didn't think there was a shortage of options.

[USAFChief]

 

Sure, they could have added marginal pitchers to their existing group of marginal pitchers. But as to which ones, it's obvious hindsight bias that wasn't available to the Twins at the time. Most of those marginal guys wind up producing zero (or negative) value. 

 

It's not realistic to take a non-existent pitching staff and turn it into something decent in one off-season. It would be possible with a time machine, to be sure, but otherwise there is no quick, easy way to do it. 

Nobody said it would be easy, but that's the job.  "It's too hard, let's do nothing" isn't the answer either.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, they could have added marginal pitchers to their existing group of marginal pitchers. But as to which ones, it's obvious hindsight bias that wasn't available to the Twins at the time. Most of those marginal guys wind up producing zero (or negative) value. 

 

It's not realistic to take a non-existent pitching staff and turn it into something decent in one off-season. It would be possible with a time machine, to be sure, but otherwise there is no quick, easy way to do it. 

 

No one said fix the whole thing in 1 year. They are saying, add 1 SP. No one is saying there is a quick fix. No one is saying it is easy. All of that is straw man, all of it.

 

How do you improveit next year, if you aren't willing to sign 1 SP, unless that fixes the whole thing?

[Thrylos]

 

The point is, they traded a rock solid young, controllable catcher, that everyone knew was a stud, for a zipless RH reliever that made Ron Davis look like an All-Star.

 

Because,... Ron Gardenhire wanted a "closer".

 

FTFY

[drivlikejehu]

 

Nobody said it would be easy, but that's the job.  "It's too hard, let's do nothing" isn't the answer either.  

 

MLB is competitive. Acquiring substantial pitching value with the Twins' existing players and budget was simply not possible. Any statements to the contrary are unrealistic, relying on fantasy trades that weren't available and/or the ability to distinguish among marginal pitchers that no front office in baseball possesses.

 

They could have added a couple more marginal pieces, that is true enough. But it wouldn't have made any difference in the scheme of things and it's not crazy that they didn't.

[drivlikejehu]

 

No one said fix the whole thing in 1 year. They are saying, add 1 SP. No one is saying there is a quick fix. No one is saying it is easy. All of that is straw man, all of it.

 

How do you improveit next year, if you aren't willing to sign 1 SP, unless that fixes the whole thing?

 

It doesn't make sense to overpay a mediocre FA starter before a team is ready to contend, which the Twins weren't. Free agent value is typically front-loaded due to player age, not to mention the constant injury risk with pitchers.

[Mike Sixel]

 

MLB is competitive. Acquiring substantial pitching value with the Twins' existing players and budget was simply not possible. Any statements to the contrary are unrealistic, relying on fantasy trades that weren't available and/or the ability to distinguish among marginal pitchers that no front office in baseball possesses.

 

They could have added a couple more marginal pieces, that is true enough. But it wouldn't have made any difference in the scheme of things and it's not crazy that they didn't.

 

Well, their number 5 pitchers have put up negative WAR. Had they added a 2 WAR SP in FA, that would be worth 4-6 wins over this season. 4 more wins right now puts them near the WC. Add 1 good RP, and you added 1-2 more wins this year over Breslow and others that should not have been here.

 

So, we'll just disagree that counting on Hughes, May, Santiago, Gibson was a good idea. To say they could sign 1 SP is unrealistic is an exaggeration at best.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It doesn't make sense to overpay a mediocre FA starter before a team is ready to contend, which the Twins weren't. Free agent value is typically front-loaded due to player age, not to mention the constant injury risk with pitchers.

 

Are they ready now, or should they sit out FA again?

[USAFChief]

 

MLB is competitive. Acquiring substantial pitching value with the Twins' existing players and budget was simply not possible. Any statements to the contrary are unrealistic, relying on fantasy trades that weren't available and/or the ability to distinguish among marginal pitchers that no front office in baseball possesses.

 

They could have added a couple more marginal pieces, that is true enough. But it wouldn't have made any difference in the scheme of things and it's not crazy that they didn't.

So is the situation the same going into 2018?  2019?  It's forever hopeless?

 

"...not possible" is actually the unrealistic position to take, IMO.  Of course it's possible.  It certainly takes smarts, courage, and decisiveness.  It probably takes money.  There will certainly be some luck involved, with injuries if nothing else.

 

But I'm simply not buying "nothing could have been done."  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

On #1, we're not talking about evaluating scouts and systems and the full minor leagues. We are talking about a handful of MLB pitchers who Falvey and Levine should have been plenty familiar with. Gibson was terrible in 2016, Santiago was terrible with the Twins in 2016, Hughes was terrible and very seriously injured in 2016, and May was both shaky and hurt in a bullpen role the past season. And they didn't have to give up on any of them, just get another arm to stretch our resources to cover the inevitable gaps.

I'm not speaking of releasing/replacing Twins players, I'm speaking of the farm system. Garcia cost something. Are we sure the front office was ready and capable of evaluating their farm just one month into their tenure? I'm not sure they were ready at that point.

 

It's one thing to evaluate MLB players. You have loads of data and actual first-hand experience with them. MiLB players are something else entirely. Falvey and Levine would have needed to rely on the internal evaluators already in place. Would you be comfortable doing that, given how the Twins had performed over the previous five years? What if the Cards asked for Thorpe and the internal evaluators signed off on that idea?

[kab21]

The Twins were the worst team in the majors last year and I don't have a problem with them sitting out the biggish (let's say the >40M) FA market while waiting for players to develop. My only gripe is that they could have signed a potential decent RP for 2 years (12-20M overall) and had an option to flip him for a Tyler Watson type return. That benefits them by having a solid RP and by having an asset to trade. They did sign Belisle and Breslow but I would have aimed a little higher.

The rotation wasn't great but May got injured in spring training, Gibson cratered and Santiago got hurt after 2 months (and Hughes was terrible but I expected that). That doomed the rotation although Berrios and Mejia have taken advantage of the openings. That gives us a little optimism.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sure, they could have added marginal pitchers to their existing group of marginal pitchers. But as to which ones, it's obvious hindsight bias that wasn't available to the Twins at the time. Most of those marginal guys wind up producing zero (or negative) value.

 

It's not realistic to take a non-existent pitching staff and turn it into something decent in one off-season. It would be possible with a time machine, to be sure, but otherwise there is no quick, easy way to do it.

No one claims that it would have been a guarantee to result in a decent pitching staff. But that doesn't mean the correct course of action is to do nothing, especially when the costs of some actions are relatively low.

 

And there is nothing "hindsight bias" about doubting the strategy to rely on Gibson, Hughes, Santiago, and May as much they did for 2017, not to mention the bullpen. Or we can forget about ever discussing baseball on the Internet again.

[jmlease1]

 

All of that is fair, I just look at it differently.

 

All but the bolded part, that is.

 

I see this often, and it just boggles my mind.  If quality relievers are so easy to find, we must have the worst string of GMs in the history of baseball.  And one look at the trade deadline should tell you that isn't true...virtually every team in contention is looking for pen help.

 

In actuality, quality relievers are very difficult to find.  Highly underrated, too.  If it was my money, and I was forced to scrimp somewhere to spend elsewhere, the last place I'd try to limp by is the bullpen.  I can find a corner OFer relatively easily, and by perhaps platooning, get decent production with little risk.

But when my bullpen is littered with question marks, I'm going to lose lots of games I should have won.  Lots.  Guar-own-teed.

 

We are definitely looking at things differently.

 

Contending teams are usually looking to add bullpen help because the volatility of relievers puts a hole in most team's relief corps. Beyond that, relievers are a fungible roster spot and hole can actually be filled at a trade deadline without crippling your squad. The asking price for a reliever is always less than a starting position player or starting rotation guy, so the opportunity cost is more than reasonable for a contender. If you're a playoff team it's ok to flip a lottery ticket prospect for a rental reliever. A back-end reliever has more value to a playoff team than the young prospect, and vice versa.

 

The challenge in assembling a bullpen isn't in finding quality arms who can do the job, it's finding ones who can do the job consistently at a high level for multiple years in a row. teams usually only have 2-3 guys like that going into a season and then you have to start making bets. Kintzler is as likely as any of them to have a mediocre to crap year next season, but because saves are vastly overvalued, he'll be getting anywhere from $5-$9M to do it. We're better off building the core of the 'pen through development (a plan derailed through injury this season with Burdi, Chargois, May, etc).

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not speaking of releasing/replacing Twins players, I'm speaking of the farm system. Garcia cost something. Are we sure the front office was ready and capable of evaluating their farm just one month into their tenure? I'm not sure they were ready at that point.

Re: Garcia, we're not talking about the top minor league assets here. They probably knew as much about most of those guys 8 months ago as they do today.

 

And okay, if they weren't ready to commit player assets, there were FA too. Nothing exciting, but exactly the cheap investments that can potentially mitigate problems in rotations like that of the 2016 Twins, or even turn into deadline assets.

 

I didn't have any illusions of World Series trophies -- but doing nothing after 2016 was an odd approach, to me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The rotation wasn't great but May got injured in spring training, Gibson cratered and Santiago got hurt after 2 months (and Hughes was terrible but I expected that). That doomed the rotation

None of this was unforeseeable. May was hurt and scuffling in the pen all of 2016, Gibson had struggled, and Santiago had struggled. Plus Hughes, and that rotation plan needed more mitigation than just Berrios and Mejia.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

None of this was unforeseeable. May was hurt and scuffling in the pen all of 2016, Gibson had struggled, and Santiago had struggled. Plus Hughes, and that rotation plan needed more mitigation than just Berrios and Mejia.

I generally agree but damn, the starting pitching market last offseason was brutal.

 

That's why I generally give them a pass on the rotation but not the bullpen. There were easily-obtained bullpen options available and there was no reason not to go get at least one of them.

[Doomtints]

 

The Twins were the worst team in the majors last year and I don't have a problem with them sitting out the biggish (let's say the >40M) FA market while waiting for players to develop. 

 

The problem is the position players developed a lot faster than the front office expected. The pitching now sticks out like a sore thumb, and it was a liability even last year. For a rebuild, ya gotta try to keep the two pipelines reasonably synced or you risk perpetual rebuilds.

The Twins are going to have to open up the pocketbook to address the pitching problem and a lot of us recognized this before the season started. I don't buy the idea that the new front office didn't know this for one second, I think they were caught off-guard by the huge improvement on defense and continued improvement on offense.  They don't need to break the bank, they don't need to overpay, even as little as two average relievers and nothing more would have made a huge difference. I'm betting that if they could do the offseason over again, they would have picked up a couple of arms.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Doomtints