Gotta Listen on Perkins?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Well he hasn't had much opp lately because the Twins have been getting beaten like a red headed step child recently, I don't really see the need to give him a bunch of work in meaningless games we are losing.

 

Also even with the lack of innings, Perkins by far has the highest WAR of anyone on the pitching staff and trails only Mauer and Dozier(!) for highest WAR on the team.

 

If he hasn't pitched in almost a week, and your team sucks, why not bring him in to pitch the 8th inning in a close game? Or use him in the extra innings game on the road? That's not exactly mop-up work. And while he ranks 3rd on the Twins in WAR, it's again mainly a function of the Twins being bad. He ranks 205th in MLB, or roughly 7th in WAR on an average team.

 

If you're not going to actively utilize him to win games -- not just "protect leads" -- when your team is bad, and you project to have a middling-to-bad team for another two years, and he's only under contract for 3 more years... isn't that a perfect endorsement for trading him?

[ThePuck]

 

2015/2016 the Twins will be competitive. 2014 they could have a shot as well.

 

Because all of the prospects will turn out just fine and do so right away. No duds and no learning curve.

[Otto von Ballpark]

2016 is a team option....there is nothing that says they couldn't extend him again in the future either. Good lord, people act like its a sure thing he is gone come 2017 which is dumb to even worry about as it is 4 years away at this point!

Just like how we extended Nathan in his option year for 3 more years at essentially $14 million per!

 

Again, that's yet another endorsement for trading Perkins now -- even if he's still healthy and good in 2016, it doesn't make financial sense to invest those kind of resources in a closer.

[ThePuck]

Just like how we extended Nathan in his option year for 3 more years at essentially $14 million per!

 

Again, that's yet another endorsement for trading Perkins now -- even if he's still healthy and good in 2016, it doesn't make financial sense to invest those kind of resources in a closer.

 

Nathan got his real big paycheck from us when Smith was GM and we were always contenders with him except for his last season with us. We aren't contenders now and there's zero guarantees we will be next year or in the next two or three years.

[DaveW]

Because all of the prospects will turn out just fine and do so right away. No duds and no learning curve.

 

So what the hell are you implying? Just build for 2017 and further? Brilliant strategy! I'm sure fans will be thrilled by "hey just wait another 4 years or so and we will be good"

[Winston Smith]

Good lord, people act like its a sure thing Perk will keep pitching like he is now for the next 3-4 years. What % of guys keep up the pace for several years, go look at Fans Graphs story on this very telling.

[DaveW]

Just like how we extended Nathan in his option year for 3 more years at essentially $14 million per!

 

Again, that's yet another endorsement for trading Perkins now -- even if he's still healthy and good in 2016, it doesn't make financial sense to invest those kind of resources in a closer.

No one is saying that will happen here with Perkins... however its hard to argue with Nathan's success/value when healthy. It's pretty much a no brainier the Rangers will pick up his 9 mil option after this year.

[ThePuck]

So what the hell are you implying? Just build for 2017 and further? Brilliant strategy! I'm sure fans will be thrilled by "hey just wait another 4 years or so and we will be good"

 

Yes, the guy (me) who all along has said you should always add quality talent to your team any chance you can get is now preaching wait four or more years. Yeah, okay. I'm saying there is no way to know that 2015, 2016 (or even 2014 as you said), we'll be competitive. You say it as if it's fact.

 

You've stated recently we shouldn't bother adding a talented pitcher like Sanchez (again, not him, just the scenario of whether or not it would have been right to try) because we won't be competitive until 2015, 2016, so why waste the money? Now you're saying keep Perkins during the same exact time frame you say is a bad time to sign quality talent...and keep him during his peak trade time when we could get players to help us when we're supposedly going to be competitive again in 2015, 2016.

 

You don't see anything contradictory with that whole line of thinking? Same principle applies. In fact, he's older than Sanchez. And closers' effectiveness is a lot more unpredictable than starting pitchers. Who is to say he'll be good enough to keep when he's 33 or 34 at the time we're supposedly competitive or that we'd spend what we need to to keep him if he's still a top closer?

[Otto von Ballpark]

In 2010, 1+ season of Capps at arb price netted BA's #58 prospect, Wilson Ramos. Although I shudder to use Bill Smith trades in any kind of comp, maybe the Twins overpay helps make up the value difference between Capps and Perkins.

 

Also in 2010, 4+ seasons of Soria at great prices ($4-8.75 mil, 3 club options) allegedly could have netted #4 prospect Jesus Montero.

 

So in 2013, 3+ seasons of Perkins at great prices (~$4 mil per, 1 club option)... what could that realistically fetch? NYY has the #57 prospect, coincidentally another catcher...

 

One problem is, I think Perk's inflated K rate is part of a league trend -- I don't think he's better than Soria was in 2010. NYY's Logan is matching Perk's K rate, albeit more as a LOOGY, and Boston's Miller is topping it, albeit with a higher walk rate. There are a lot of relievers posting awesome K/9 rates.

 

Looking around the league, NYY's "Rivera replacement" angle might be the only real strong interest in Perkins, unless I am missing someone. Arizona? Maybe Cleveland, if they think they have a chance this year? Otherwise, most of the top-shelf teams are set pretty well in the bullpen.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

Also for the bullpen, I am a believer in having a lights out 9th and 8th inning guy, if you can set that up you have a huge advantage over a lot of teams.

 

 

I agree but go farther than that. I'm a believer in having 7 "lights out" guys in the bullpen. That's probably unrealistic, but the point is, people are obsessing over Perkins being a "closer" and the idea that the Twins don't need a "closer" because they're not good. Or obsessing over the stathead meme that "closers" are overrated.

 

I don't care what role Perkins plays in the bullpen..."closer" or "set up guy" or "8th inning guy" or "Loogie."

 

What I care about is having as many "guys" in the bullpen as possible who are really, really good pitchers. Who can be depended on to come in and pitch without giving up a ton of baserunners, a very high percentage of the time. Who have the stuff that you can expect that to continue. Who have proven relatively durable.

 

Those guys don't grow on trees. When you have one, you should do what you can to hold on to him, and add similar "guys, not trade away the one(s) you have.

 

When/if the Twins are relavant again, they're going to need good relievers--several of them, just like you need several good starters--and Perkins stands a very good chance of still being one.

 

I guess if you get an offer that blows you away, you listen. But trading Perkins just because the Twins don't need a "closer" is short sighted and counterproductive.

[ThePuck]

In 2010, 1+ season of Capps at arb price netted BA's #58 prospect, Wilson Ramos. Although I shudder to use Bill Smith trades in any kind of comp, maybe the Twins overpay helps make up the value difference between Capps and Perkins.

 

Also in 2010, 4+ seasons of Soria at great prices ($4-8.75 mil, 3 club options) allegedly could have netted #4 prospect Jesus Montero.

 

So in 2013, 3+ seasons of Perkins at great prices (~$4 mil per, 1 club option)... what could that realistically fetch? NYY has the #57 prospect, coincidentally another catcher...

 

One problem is, I think Perk's inflated K rate is part of a league trend -- I don't think he's better than Soria was in 2010. NYY's Logan is matching Perk's K rate, albeit more as a LOOGY, and Boston's Miller is topping it, albeit with a higher walk rate. There are a lot of relievers posting awesome K/9 rates.

 

Looking around the league, NYY's "Rivera replacement" angle might be the only real strong interest in Perkins, unless I am missing someone. Arizona? Maybe Cleveland, if they think they have a chance this year? Otherwise, most of the top-shelf teams are set pretty well in the bullpen.

 

Detroit isn't set at closer and the Rangers could go younger and cheaper. Boston is supposedly looking as well.

[ThePuck]

I agree but go farther than that. I'm a believer in having 7 "lights out" guys in the bullpen. That's probably unrealistic, but the point is, people are obsessing over Perkins being a "closer" and the idea that the Twins don't need a "closer" because they're not good. Or obsessing over the stathead meme that "closers" are overrated.

 

I don't care what role Perkins plays in the bullpen..."closer" or "set up guy" or "8th inning guy" or "Loogie."

 

What I care about is having as many "guys" in the bullpen as possible who are really, really good pitchers. Who can be depended on to come in and pitch without giving up a ton of baserunners, a very high percentage of the time. Who have the stuff that you can expect that to continue. Who have proven relatively durable.

 

Those guys don't grow on trees. When you have one, you should do what you can to hold on to him, and add similar "guys, not trade away the one(s) you have.

 

When/if the Twins are relavant again, they're going to need good relievers--several of them, just like you need several good starters--and Perkins stands a very good chance of still being one.

 

I guess if you get an offer that blows you away, you listen. But trading Perkins just because the Twins don't need a "closer" is short sighted and counterproductive.

 

I love Perkins, always have, but if we are supposedly building for the future (future being realistically 2016), he's only for sure signed till 2015, though they would take the 2016 option. Since he's our best trade chip, you have to seriously consider it, cause developing from within and trading for prospects who need to develop is how they're going about making this team competitive. That takes time. If he stays a very good closer, he'll cost too much for Ryan to re-sign when that time competitive time supposedly comes and/or when the realistic competitive time comes, he'll be 35 or so.

[DaveW]

Good lord, people act like its a sure thing Perk will keep pitching like he is now for the next 3-4 years. What % of guys keep up the pace for several years, go look at Fans Graphs story on this very telling.

 

Why won't he? He always had very good stuff, once converted to the bullpen his fastball picked up a few MPH and his K/rate has been improving every year are is now at 12 per 9.

 

Just because some pitchers fall off (just like starting pitchers do) you shouldn't just assume all will. Plenty of closers in baseball have been effective for multiple years now. Guys like Rivera, Nathan, Kimbrel, Soriano, Papelbon are all examples off the top of my head. No reason why Perkins can't be one of those.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No one is saying that will happen here with Perkins... however its hard to argue with Nathan's success/value when healthy. It's pretty much a no brainier the Rangers will pick up his 9 mil option after this year.

 

There's a big difference in "value" between a $9 mil option, or even his 2/$14 mil deal with Texas, and a 3/$42 extension that doesn't even start for a year. Nathan's Twins extension was the kind of closer contract that rarely works out for teams and pitchers not named "Yankees" and "Rivera".

 

Coincidentally, Nathan's extension was signed at age 33. Perkins will be 33 entering his option year in 2016. Want to guess the odds that Perkins will be successful/healthy from ages 34-36?

[DaveW]

the Rangers could go younger and cheaper.

 

Uhhhhh........... The Rangers are pretty happy with Nathan his 1.36 ERA and his 9 million option for next year. Come on dude, you are just making up things now to once again do your best to claim the Twins front office never knows what they are doing. It gets old.

[DaveW]

There's a big difference in "value" between a $9 mil option, or even his 2/$14 mil deal with Texas, and a 3/$42 extension that doesn't even start for a year. Nathan's Twins extension was the kind of closer contract that rarely works out for teams and pitchers not named "Yankees" and "Rivera".

 

Coincidentally, Nathan's extension was signed at age 33. Perkins will be 33 entering his option year in 2016. Want to guess the odds that Perkins will be successful/healthy from ages 34-36?

 

Has Perkins ever had a history of arm trouble? I don't recall it so it shouldn't be assumed he will have it. IIRC Nathan had issues early in his career.

 

Also I am not saying give him 3/42 million, Terry Ryan is not Bill Smith. There is a good chance you could prob keep Perkins around on a decent value thing fair to both teams, he is Minnesota guy who enjoys playing for this team. Again, we are talking 2-3 years down the road anyways, there is zero, I repeat zero reason why the Twins shouldn't be competing for the playoffs come 2015, with the best farm system in baseball and the 50-60 million open in payroll that year as well with Ryan at the helm, they will be competitive, also I think they push for the division next year.

[ThePuck]

Uhhhhh........... The Rangers are pretty happy with Nathan his 1.36 ERA and his 9 million option for next year. Come on dude, you are just making up things now to once again do your best to claim the Twins front office never knows what they are doing. It gets old.

 

I'm not making anything up. Teams like the Rangers, they go get talent. Teams like them look at the whole picture. They don't go year to year, they plan ahead. They may even wait until next year to try and trade for Perkins, but teams like them don't sit and wait for a guy like Nathan to leave the team and then say, oh, now, we got to go get a closer. If they can get Perkins, they'll consider it.

 

And where in this debate am I saying the Twins FO doesn't know what they're doing? Where? Point it out. In fact, when have I ever said they don't know what they're doing 100% of the time. I came out and said I loved the Span and Revere trade. That was Ryan doing that, right? I haven't backed off that. In fact, I reiterated that yesterday.

 

We're talking about hether or not he should be traded. Since the deadline hasn't passed and he hasn't been traded, how is there even a shot to take at the FO on the decision, if one was so inclined to do so?

[DaveW]

I agree but go farther than that. I'm a believer in having 7 "lights out" guys in the bullpen. That's probably unrealistic, but the point is, people are obsessing over Perkins being a "closer" and the idea that the Twins don't need a "closer" because they're not good. Or obsessing over the stathead meme that "closers" are overrated.

 

I don't care what role Perkins plays in the bullpen..."closer" or "set up guy" or "8th inning guy" or "Loogie."

 

What I care about is having as many "guys" in the bullpen as possible who are really, really good pitchers. Who can be depended on to come in and pitch without giving up a ton of baserunners, a very high percentage of the time. Who have the stuff that you can expect that to continue. Who have proven relatively durable.

 

Those guys don't grow on trees. When you have one, you should do what you can to hold on to him, and add similar "guys, not trade away the one(s) you have.

 

When/if the Twins are relavant again, they're going to need good relievers--several of them, just like you need several good starters--and Perkins stands a very good chance of still being one.

 

I guess if you get an offer that blows you away, you listen. But trading Perkins just because the Twins don't need a "closer" is short sighted and counterproductive.

Agreed with al lof this.

 

Now like I said, if they can get some miracle high upside major league ready guy like Skaggs...then do it. But don't simply trade him to trade him. Bring up Tonkin, get Burton back on track and suddenly you might have yourself a real nice 7th, 8th and 9th guy. How huge would that be for a team that will be relying on young SP for the near future? Toss in Fien and a couple other guys coming up in the minors and perhaps the Twins could have a really nice bullpen (more importantly...on the cheap!)

 

It seems to be the main arguments to trade Perkins now is:

1. The Twins aren't good now. (True, but Perk is on this team until 2017)

2. The Twins won't be good until 2016 (I disagree, they are perfectly capable of getting to a competitive mode in 2014 if they do things right, and if they don't make the playoffs in 2015 we should all be disappointed)

3. Perkins might get hurt (well every pitcher can get hurt, by that theory you should never rely on any pitchers long term)

4. Perkins might regress (Why? Because sometimes pitchers with mediocre stuff regress? Perkins has very good stuff and has been improving every year since entering the pen. He is 30 years old and a RP, there is ZERO reason why a drop off should be expected anytime in the next 5 years, much less 3 years. Relief pitchers have longer careers then their SP counter parts for obvious reasons. Hell Latroy Hawkins is 40, in his 18th season and is still effective! Why is Perkins so damn likely to suddenly fall off a cliff at 30?)

[diehardtwinsfan]

2016 is a team option....there is nothing that says they couldn't extend him again in the future either. Good lord, people act like its a sure thing he is gone come 2017 which is dumb to even worry about as it is 4 years away at this point!

 

2015/2016 the Twins will be competitive. 2014 they could have a shot as well.

 

I think your premise here that it's far from a sure thing that he's gone is quite accurate. He's a hometown guy that seems to like it here. I'm sure he'd stay around if the Twins offered him an extension. Here's the real crux of the problem though:

 

1) He's 30 years old, and he will be entering his decline phase in 2017, quite possibly before that.

2) Closers tend to be overvalued by many. He'll pitch 60 some innings this year. I get that they are all high leverage, and I get the fact that he's incredibly good as well.

3) He's an elite closer being paid at non-elite rates. If he was FA tomorrow, he'd be getting 10M a year.

4) Relievers in general have shown a history of wearing down quickly, especially after they get past 30. This may or may not happen to Perkins. No one knows, but the Soria story should give everyone who says "keep him/extend him" good reason to reconsider.

 

I agree with you that trading for the sake of trading is silly. I would be asking for 2 top 100 prospects or a top 50 guy plus one or two high ceiling players at a lower level at positions of need, and in this market, Ryan might get that.

[ThePuck]

I think your premise here that it's far from a sure thing that he's gone is quite accurate. He's a hometown guy that seems to like it here. I'm sure he'd stay around if the Twins offered him an extension. Here's the real crux of the problem though:

 

1) He's 30 years old, and he will be entering his decline phase in 2017, quite possibly before that.

2) Closers tend to be overvalued by many. He'll pitch 60 some innings this year. I get that they are all high leverage, and I get the fact that he's incredibly good as well.

3) He's an elite closer being paid at non-elite rates. If he was FA tomorrow, he'd be getting 10M a year.

4) Relievers in general have shown a history of wearing down quickly, especially after they get past 30. This may or may not happen to Perkins. No one knows, but the Soria story should give everyone who says "keep him/extend him" good reason to reconsider.

 

I agree with you that trading for the sake of trading is silly. I would be asking for 2 top 100 prospects or a top 50 guy plus one or two high ceiling players at a lower level at positions of need, and in this market, Ryan might get that.

 

Not one person here is saying trade Perkins for the sake of trading him. That would be silly if someone actually said that. People are saying if we can get really good talent for him, talent that will help the rebuild, then the Twins should do it. Two different things, entirely.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Detroit isn't set at closer and the Rangers could go younger and cheaper. Boston is supposedly looking as well.

Detroit is definitely one, although the inter-division angle is a little tricky, probably why I skipped over them. But Benoit is a FA after the year, and Smyly is the only other good reliever there at the moment.

 

Texas does have an older pen, although they are performing reasonably well and some key relievers are still under contract past this season. (Just noticed that Soria is actually younger than Perkins! Although certainly not healthier.)

 

Boston is a little muddled at closer, but they have a pretty good pen overall.

 

Boston also provides two of the more recent closer trade examples: Josh Reddick + others for Andrew Bailey before 2012, Mark Melancon + others for Joel Hanrahan before 2013. Both suggest good potential return for Perkins, although not necessarily as a deadline deal, and it should be noted that neither Oakland nor Pittsburgh has missed the traded closers much! Also suggests Boston may be a little closer-shy on the trade market right now, though.

[ThePuck]

Detroit is definitely one, although the inter-division angle is a little tricky, probably why I skipped over them. But Benoit is a FA after the year, and Smyly is the only other good reliever there at the moment.

 

Texas does have an older pen, although they are performing reasonably well and some key relievers are still under contract past this season. (Just noticed that Soria is actually younger than Perkins! Although certainly not healthier.)

 

Boston is a little muddled at closer, but they have a pretty good pen overall.

 

Boston also provides two of the more recent closer trade examples: Josh Reddick + others for Andrew Bailey before 2012, Mark Melancon + others for Joel Hanrahan before 2013. Both suggest good potential return for Perkins, although not necessarily as a deadline deal, and it should be noted that neither Oakland nor Pittsburgh has missed the traded closers much! Also suggests Boston may be a little closer-shy on the trade market right now, though.

 

There's been rumors that Boston is considering Papelbon again if Philly was interested in trading him. I imagine since the are eyeing the playoffs, they want a guy they feel can, for sure, get the job done.

 

As far as trading in the division, we've been doing that in-season lately. I wouldn't want him to go to Detroit, and I don't think he necessarily would. I don't think they have the chips.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Uhhhhh........... The Rangers are pretty happy with Nathan his 1.36 ERA and his 9 million option for next year. Come on dude, you are just making up things now to once again do your best to claim the Twins front office never knows what they are doing. It gets old.

 

I can't speak for the original poster, but in general, the Rangers have a pretty old bullpen, and it's not super-deep past Nathan right now. If there is a trade market for Perkins, it's got to include destinations where Perk will not be the closer, at least not right away.

[ThePuck]

I can't speak for the original poster, but in general, the Rangers have a pretty old bullpen, and it's not super-deep past Nathan right now. If there is a trade market for Perkins, it's got to include destinations where Perk will not be the closer, at least not right away.

 

Exactly. Yanks did that when they got Rafael Soriano. He led the league in saves for 2010 with Tampa and the Yanks signed him and still had Rivera as a closer in 2011.

[Otto von Ballpark]

More food for thought: in every example I've seen lately, teams that traded or lost closers had no problem quickly replacing them:

 

2009 Pirates: non-tendered Capps, signed Dotel, flipped him at the deadline for James McDonald, promoted Hanrahan

2010 Nationals: traded Capps, promoted Storen

2012 Athletics: traded Bailey, signed Balfour (and also promoted Cook for awhile)

2012 Royals: declined Soria's option, signed Broxton, flipped him at the deadline, promoted Holland

2013 Pirates: traded Hanrahan, promoted Grilli

 

I haven't done an exhaustive search, so feel free to add more.

 

Obviously, some of these teams dumped their closers because they knew they had ready replacements -- but some of them didn't. Note that the Pirates, Royals, and A's all had to sign closers on the free agent market, but all of them got them on reasonable contracts and either flipped them or got good value out of them. Furthermore, several of these teams -- the Nationals, A's, and Pirates -- quickly improved after dealing their closers, so a lengthy "rebuilding" process is hardly a prerequisite for a closer trade.

[ashbury]

What I care about is having as many "guys" in the bullpen as possible who are really, really good pitchers. ... I guess if you get an offer that blows you away, you listen. But trading Perkins just because the Twins don't need a "closer" is short sighted and counterproductive.

 

I'm mainly on the same page with you here. I think the point people raise about "closer" is that his having acquired that label for the present means that the chance of a blow-you-away offer is probably as high now as it ever will be. If that offer doesn't materialize, keeping him is a great fallback position to have. Win-win.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Additionally, reliever K/9 is up big in the last two years:

 

2011 AL 7.7, Perkins 9.5

2012 AL 8.2, Perkins 10.0

2013 AL 8.6, Perkins 12.4

 

This might mean some team could overvalue Perkins a bit (although it could mean the Twins overvalue him and keep him too). Although even if teams don't see the general trend, they may be seeing higher K/9 rates in their own pens and thus could be less likely to seek reinforcements.

[jokin]

I can't speak for the original poster, but in general, the Rangers have a pretty old bullpen, and it's not super-deep past Nathan right now. If there is a trade market for Perkins, it's got to include destinations where Perk will not be the closer, at least not right away.

 

A high-performing-in-high-leverage-situations lefty is worth more to a team than your average closer- virtually every contending team has Perkins at the top of their reliever wish list- in the closer role, or not.

[DaveW]

I can't speak for the original poster, but in general, the Rangers have a pretty old bullpen, and it's not super-deep past Nathan right now.

But that simply isn't true:

 

Scheppers: 1.84 ERA

Ross: 2.59 ERA

Frasor: 2.79 ERA

Cotts: 1.05 ERA

 

Plus Soria is back now, looks like 6 solid options to me, and not super old...

[ThePuck]

But that simply isn't true:

 

Scheppers: 1.84 ERA

Ross: 2.59 ERA

Frasor: 2.79 ERA

Cotts: 1.05 ERA

 

Plus Soria is back now, looks like 6 solid options to me, and not super old...

 

Nathan turns 39 this year, Frasor turns 36 this year, Cotts is 33 and they probably aren't relying on him too much since this is the first year he's been in the majors since 2009.

 

Anyway, the point was, teams like Texas go get talent when they can. To suggest they would consider going after Perkins is hardly a reach and not the slightest bit of a slam against our FO. Additionally, no one says since he closes for one team he would close for all teams. Rafael Soriano led the league in saves in 2010 and then set Rivera up in 2011.